|
Post by armchairwarrior on Oct 25, 2013 16:54:14 GMT
I'm window shopping for my first 'real' sword, and I've kind of more or less decided on the Windlass European sword. I've found plenty of great reviews, but one thing I've been unable to find is what rough time period it comes from, or its typology. The extremely generic name of this sword makes it hard to find much of anything about it! Using the My Armory resources, my best guess is that it's a Type XII blade, Style I pommel, and a Style 7 cross-guard. All of these features would put it somewhere between 1200 and 1350? If somebody knows for sure, I'd love to know! It would be handy if I ever decided to build an armor kit around the sword.
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Oct 25, 2013 17:19:09 GMT
I am no expert but it looks like an XVI blade to me.
|
|
|
Post by Voltan on Oct 25, 2013 17:26:49 GMT
I don't know, the blade looks like a XII to me... :?
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Oct 25, 2013 18:54:19 GMT
Museum Replicas Limited also has several Type XVI swords in its lineup, including their European Sword, Towton, and the 15th C. Hand and a Half Sword. The latter two are of the Type XVIa sub-type. www.myarmoury.com/feature_spotxvi.html
|
|
|
Post by armchairwarrior on Oct 26, 2013 2:22:10 GMT
Thanks a lot for the prompt responses, you guys! And Findlithui, that's so weird! That's a great dagger, though. I planned on re-gripping the hilt in oxblood, and bluing/distressing the fittings. I want to create the look of a 'working man's sword', something you'd see a man at arms or a poorer knight carry. Basically, trying to attempt to replicate something like this gentleman's result.
|
|
|
Post by armchairwarrior on Oct 26, 2013 5:39:39 GMT
I've heard of some people doing it this way! It would definitely be much easier for my first rewrap, as I don't really have the tools to grind off a peen, then the shoulders of the blade so everything fits back together again.
The scabbard is another project in itself. I might just save my pennies after getting the sword and have somebody work on it, sending them the same sheet of leather from what I'd use on the hilt, ha ha. Is it anywhere close to something historic?
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Oct 26, 2013 6:09:32 GMT
I have had this sword for a long time. I redid the grip wrap in red leather over the existing wrap as the original was slightly skinny for my preference.
|
|
|
Post by Bryan Heff on Oct 26, 2013 10:36:49 GMT
I will throw a vote in for type XVI, but you could def. make the argument for loose XII. And as others have mentioned, don't be afraid to try your luck at customizing that thing, make it your own. If your going to wrap the grip my suggestion is get the lightest leather you can find, the lighter the better IMO. Easier to work with, less seam, looks better. LIGHT!
|
|
Alan Schiff
Registered
Manufacturers and Vendors
Posts: 464
|
Post by Alan Schiff on Oct 27, 2013 18:46:29 GMT
As far as Oakeshott typology goes, the sword doesn't fit nicely into either XII or XVI. The fuller is the right length for a XII, too long for a XVI. The blade profile tapers perhaps too much for a XII and would better fit a XVI. The tip, while suitable for thrusting, is not as acute as is usual for a XVI and better resembles what I've seen on type XII. Personally I would label it a type XII if I had too. Remember though that not all swords fit nicely into the typology. There were numerous swords that Oakeshott left unclassified for this very reason.
As far as a date/timeline goes, I could see this sword being in use anytime from about 1100 to 1350.
Hope that helps, Alan
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 18, 2014 17:58:03 GMT
Since I just purchased one and will do a review upon it's arrival, I've been looking at finding a historical example too to help classify it. To me the sword looks more like a Type XI. I've found a few reasons why this sword would be categorized more along the lines of a XI over a XII or XVI.
The most obvious to the casual onlookers would be the length of the fuller. It goes a little past 3/4 of the blade, a common trait in type XI blades. Whereas Type XII tend to be a little above 3/4 to 1/2 of the blade and Type XVI blades normally have fuller going 1/4 of the blade to sometimes a little above the 1/2 of the blade. The other trait unique to Type XI blades is the actual length of the blade which is surprisingly longer than most single hand or arming swords with an average single hand length of 34-37". Compared to the more average single hand lengths of 30-32". The last trait would be the width of the blade. From what I've researched the average width at the cross for most Type XI blades is 49-51mm. Which is smaller in width than most Type XVI blades and just a tad smaller (but more in line with) Type XII blades.
Obviously the prominent argument for The European as a Type XVI is the diamond cross section. Problem is, try to find any Windlass without one. Sure type X, XI and XII blades should have more of a flat lenticular cross section and that really is the only argument towards the European Sword being XVI over XI or even XII types. But even the more prominent Windlass types in the X, XII or XIII have diamond cross sections. Good examples of this would be the Ulfbert, Baron, and Create your Owns, which share blades with the Pendragon, Tancred and Robin Hood Swords.
Overall though when you look at the overall features of a Type XI you see more things stick out and see similar traits in the European Sword. Those three key features being, 1)fuller length, 2) blade length, 3) blade dimensions. A good example of WTF Windlass would be my Effigy Sword. Has the dimensions and length of a Type XV, but they throw off the typology by adding a 1/2 length fuller. The point is too acute and the width to small to be a Type XVI. The mid ridge is to pronounced to be a Type XVIII which by glance you'd expect the blade to categorize as. It would be nice though if Windlass did offer some sort of Typology category on each sword's page, then again perhaps they don't due to their swords not being 100% accurate.
I'm going to do some more research through the week and try to find a little more info before the review so expect the review sometime Friday! Since these are newer models of the European I'm looking forward to see how they compare to the model offered ten years ago by Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Caboose on Aug 18, 2014 23:56:08 GMT
I think this is an excellent point, but I would have to disagree that it is an XI. Perhaps some of the measurements fall more in line with type XI than with XII and XVI, but I think that the point is too acute, and there is too much profile taper to be considered XI.
Throw my vote in for XII with some features of XI and XVI.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 19, 2014 3:01:48 GMT
Oh come on, thats to easy. you cant just say it's all of them (well I guess you could it is Windlass after all, lol). You have a good argument about the XI, the question is just how acute the tip is compared to others and how it stacks up to other reproductions or even historical models. The European does have quite a tapering acute tip, but so do many of the Type XI historical and reproduction examples. A prime example would be the Sword of St. Maurice, both the historical and Arms & Armor reproduction. (All stats and pics from KOA) Here's a few pics of the Maurice to compair, Overall Length: 43 1/2'' Blade: 37 1/4'' Weight: 3 lb .6 oz Edge: Sharp P.O.B.: 6 1/4'' Thickness: 4.7 mm - 4.1 mm Width: 44.5 mm Grip Length: 4'' Pommel: Peened here's the European, Overall Length: 40'' Blade: 33 3/4'' Weight: 2 lb 3.5 oz Edge: Unsharpened P.O.B.: 5 1/4'' Thickness: 4.2 mm - 3.3 mm Width: 49.1 mm Grip Length: 4'' Pommel: Peened Very similar if you ask me, especially in the tapering and fuller depth. Even the stats are pretty similar with the Maurice being just 3" longer in the blade than the European. Heres the historical piece as well to compare, (All From MyArmoury) Here's a Type XII And heres the narrowest Type XVI I could find. As you can see the overall blade profile and point is more narrow and acute on the type XI than the Type XII but less so than the Type XVI. So technically I guess you could categorize the European as a more narrow Type XVI with a longer fuller, but I still feel it has more prominent traits of the Type XI, if anything due to it's unusual blade length for a single handed sword.
|
|
|
Post by Caboose on Aug 19, 2014 3:32:19 GMT
Very well, you've convinced me The European and that XI match very closely; closer than the XII and the XVI. Something I just noticed that favours XI even more is the tip. I'm having a bit of a hard time trying to put it into words, but here goes: The angles of the tips of XIIs and XVIs are much more gradual than XIs. The point of the XI that nddave linked has a point where the angle has a very noticeable shift inwards. If you look at the Windlass European, you see something very similar. XIIs and XVIs seem to have more of a curve towards the point, while the XI has more of a sudden angle shift. The European does the former.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 19, 2014 4:14:23 GMT
See its weird but there! Not only that but I can understand why most would believe that XI blades have more of a spatulate tip due to the Albion models carrying them. But as you can see with the more prominent historical examples, the XI normally had an acute point for such a lenticular blade. Kinda like a Xa blade which tends to be more acute than it's X counterpart. ironically the XIa subtype tends to be less acute at the tip as well as broader in the blade profile. more similar to a Type XIV kinda.
|
|