admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jun 29, 2018 2:43:14 GMT
Hi all,
I have drawn on a variety of sources to make it happen, mostly Records, MyArmory, the Albion website and even wikipedia (as I want a really simple guide to a complex topic) but as you can see my goal was to create 6 broad categories that the Sword Types and Sub Types can be grouped in so that similar swords can be compared more easily.. As one of the eternal issues with the typology is, as you all know, swords that seem to fit several groups creating discussions that end in tears when no one can agree on where a specific sword should go..
It's not perfect, as a few of the types can be either one or two handed. So for the sake of (over) simplification I have grouped them with what is the most common configuration for a type - and done the same with the most common pommel and guard types.
Anyway, in this thread I am seeking out some feedback and constructive criticism to make this guide as clear and easy to understand as possible - so please let me know your $0.02 and I will take it on board and do my best to make the guide as accurate and helpful to absolute beginners as humanly possible.
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by SandStormZA on Jun 29, 2018 7:08:24 GMT
I just read through it, and I liked it. At first I thought it odd having it grouped into categories of purpose because then the numbering system was out of order, but that does make it more user friendly now that I think of it. Someone could find the right typology by searching for the general use of a sword.
The only addition I would suggest would be to crib something else off My Armory and include some modern reproduction examples and links. That way I can click straight from SBG into a store rather than tabbing out, searching for it, then navigating a list of false results and discontinued blades.
But all in all, it was a good and valuable read to me, nicely done
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2018 8:43:28 GMT
"And it is especially intimidating and confusing to the absolute beginner."
We're all beginners, at a beginning.
One Handed Thrusting SwordsOne Handed Cut and Thrust Swords
are run together as one line, reading as five topic lines until realizing your page error
I'll not comment on the presentation beyond that except to somewhat disagree in the article making it easier to understand Oakeshott. Shortcomings and some misunderstanding going on in the article, even if you have gone through those few resources.
More typos, I'll stop with your XV section
"piece maille"
Cross guard generally regarded as a single word but you must be spellchecking.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 29, 2018 10:08:13 GMT
I think grouping the types by categories of cut/thrust/both is highly misleading to someone who doesn't know how fluid and subjective that sort of thing can be (for example, personally I would have placed XII in cut and XVI in cut-and-thrust if I really had to make a call, and with several types it could vary depending on the individual sword). Also, since almost every type has both one- and two-handed variants, that doesn't really seem a very meaningful or helpful grouping to me, either. Honestly I think the roughly chronological procession of the system as originally presented is easier to learn and understand as a whole. Other than that, I could go over it with a red pen if you really want...?
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 29, 2018 10:10:28 GMT
BTW, I notice some of the illustrations are fairly smudgy and pixelated. I'm a graphic designer by training and if you'd like, I could produce a series of new line art illustrations just for this article.
|
|
|
Post by leviathansteak on Jun 29, 2018 14:37:53 GMT
Including a few pics of historical examples would be nice, maybe alongside a modern reproduction. I'm personally not a fan of grouping the sword types based on cutting or thrusting and would rather just see the types in numerical order
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2018 3:46:34 GMT
Appreciate the feedback!
I have made some changes based on the feedback presented here. I disagree that presenting them in numerical order is helpful to a beginner, when I first encountered Oakeshott typology I was totally overwhelmed and when I saw all the knit picking and people arguing on the interwebz about what type a given sword was, I came away with the impression that the typology was critically flawed and overly complicated.
Over time I have come to appreciate it more, but at first and for the longest time it all seemed to be a jumble to me with only a vague historical procession and far too many overlapping categories. So this is why I have tried to present it in a new way that I am sure will offend some people as it is deliberately oversimplified, but at least it allows a beginner to get some traction on it and refine their understanding as they delve deeper.
MOK: Your offer of new art line illustrations is a welcome one! That would be awesome. :-)
And I hear you, examples of the swords (either historical, reproduction or both) will be added at a later date.
My goal is to provide 'Oakeshott for dummies' and I cannot think of anyone better qualified that a dummy like me to write it for fellow dummies. ;-)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2018 4:46:46 GMT
A continuing issue I have is having information dummied down and then recited verbatim as the end all of discussion and knowledge. That is immediately presented on your new page with Matt Easton leading the way. Wiki and Albion are certainly handy but you could link dozens of resources more in depth than either.
I have said it in the past and repeat myself here that SBG caters to the reality that fun is more important than the truth. It will be (perhaps) helpful for the perspective buyers and as that is what your main site is all about, probably fitting.
I stopped at your paragraph on type XV, more due to the content than typos. When you started with your pages (and the adjacent maker/manufacturer page) you pretty much used a lot of content from SFI and Adrian's old front page. You are referencing and linking myArmoury and that is helpful but by that paragraph for the type XV, you have already filled a bucket of misconception. The first words of that section read "Hollow ground or with a prominent midrib". Sorry, wrong. Start again. You immediately list those as absolutes when hardly the case. I saw this in the sharpening thread when you state "most military swords were never sharpened". It may be the way you write on the subjects, or that you may copy out of context but something to consider in your writings.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jun 30, 2018 5:46:34 GMT
The XV article can be optimized indeed , but I like the different way of approaching the Oakeshott typology. There are enough sites with the usual linear listing. Different perspectives aren't bad. Such an request for feedback helps to eliminate mistakes. Another possible way of structuring I'm often thinking about is the main way of fighting swords are designed for in the whole situation or context. F.e.: Hewing from horseback/foot soldier/sideweapon/duel etc. Fighting against opponents in fabric armour/mail/plate, with/without shield (big round shield/buckler)
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2018 6:17:44 GMT
A continuing issue I have is having information dummied down and then recited verbatim as the end all of discussion and knowledge. That is immediately presented on your new page with Matt Easton leading the way. I won't disagree that this is a problem - but it has to be balanced against the need to make something digestible to a beginner. That said, I do fairly often present things in a somewhat 'off the cuff' manner and can make claims or jump to conclusions that are wrong - I have no problem admitting that.
It is probably more glaring in examples where I personally have only a passing interest but want to present something to assist beginners. Oakeshott Typology is not my personal cup of tea as I think that any system where there is constant arguing about whether it is a type XII, XVI or type XI. Case in point, the Windlass European Medieval Sword - in this review by ndave he argues 'some people believe it to be a Type XII or XVI in the Oakeshott typology' and goes on to say he thinks it is a type XI..
So in my view (and this is just my personal view) the categories and types are not clearly delineated. Now I know this is heretical, but I would personally have preferred a system that has broader sword types that are clearly defined based on the time period, its useage and features that ALL of that type have that others do not (not to mention, includes other medieval swords such as Flamberges, Falchion, etc, etc, etc like this:
But like I said, that is just my opinion - while I deeply respect the man, I just don't feel that any system of classification that has so much quibbling about it is doing its job properly, but it is the best there is currently.. Take this with a grain of salt of course.
As to the military swords debacle - my interest in swords from the Renaissance to WWI is minimal so I will openly admit that I know very little about Cavalry Swords, etc (I have stated it many times before, but my own personal interests are primarily in Japanese Swords, Viking Swords and creative Fantasy Blades). I honestly don't know where I read it but I recall a reference to the British Raj being impressed by the results of sharpening their swords after a suggestion from their Indian subjects - and several other references along the same line that suggested that a lot of cavalry swords were not sharpened very much if at all. So I was under this impression - however could have worded it better.
Will take the criticism on board - which is why I started this thread of course.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 30, 2018 6:28:08 GMT
I think one thing that would genuinely help is an early paragraph stressing the descriptive nature of systems like these. The types are NOT prescriptive productions models, but merely descriptions of common design trends observed after-the-fact in existing items.
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2018 6:42:19 GMT
Good point, I added such to the introduction.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 30, 2018 6:45:06 GMT
It is probably more glaring in examples where I personally have only a passing interest but want to present something to assist beginners. Oakeshott Typology is not my personal cup of tea as I think that any system where there is constant arguing about whether it is a type XII, XVI or type XI. Case in point, the Windlass European Medieval Sword - in this review by ndave he argues 'some people believe it to be a Type XII or XVI in the Oakeshott typology' and goes on to say he thinks it is a type XI. (...) But like I said, that is just my opinion - while I deeply respect the man, I just don't feel that any system of classification that has so much quibbling about it is doing its job properly, but it is the best there is currently.. Take this with a grain of salt of course. Honestly, and to be fair to the man and his work, I think that's more to do with people either not really understanding the system or misapplying it. The problem with the Windlass Classic Medieval Sword, for instance, is that it's a loose modern approximation of a broad category of swords with several compromises to its design made to ease modern production, not one of the actual historical artifacts that the Oakeshott system describes. It's outside the scope of the system just like Roman gladii and cup hilt rapiers are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2018 6:45:51 GMT
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2018 7:20:03 GMT
Actually, it's a fairly close replica to this Sword from the Cleveland Museum of Art, and so the same argument applies. But I do get your point.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 30, 2018 7:39:51 GMT
Actually, it's a fairly close replica to this Sword from the Cleveland Museum of Art, and so the same argument applies. But I do get your point. It's only close in profile outline, though. The actual geometry of the original sword is quite different, particularly on the guard and blade.
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2018 7:44:49 GMT
Fair enough - I bow to your greater knowledge. Quick question if I may, how would you classify the Cleveland Museum example within the Typology?
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jun 30, 2018 8:02:35 GMT
XII (In doubt always XII )
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2018 8:06:11 GMT
And so the debate goes on. They are both single hand swords with curved guards and a round pommel. Close enough, right
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jun 30, 2018 8:29:01 GMT
The handle could be long enough for a hand and a half, haha. For me this all is fun, no religion. If a sword doesn't fit Oakeshott, try Geibig!
|
|