|
Post by MOK on Jun 30, 2018 9:43:00 GMT
Fair enough - I bow to your greater knowledge. Pfft. Doubt is a virtue! Well, I'd have to see it in person. Based just on photographs, there are a few different possibilities. If the first four fifths of the blade are of hexagonal and the point of flattened diamond cross-section, like it seems in most photos, I'd call it an atypical XVI (atypical due to the lack of a fuller); if the cross-section is actually lenticular with a very shallow fuller, like it looks in some photos, it'd be a particularly pointy XII. Assuming that the dating is correct I'd think the former more likely, but it's impossible to actually tell without first-hand inspection, hence the confusion in online discussion. Note that this is NOT due to any vagueness in the typology, but merely a lack of concrete info about the physical item. XII (In doubt always XII ) Only if it's lenticular in cross-section.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jun 30, 2018 9:47:46 GMT
Like the Metropolitan Museum XIV... Ok, on second sight what looked to me like a flat fuller could be a hex cross section. Then it could be an atypical short XVII, an atypical fullerless XVIa or a very very very atypical viking X !
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jun 30, 2018 10:58:18 GMT
And so the debate goes on. They are both single hand swords with curved guards and a round pommel. Close enough, right :p Not very helpful Edelweiss. I was also referring to the shape of the blade and similar wide and shallow central fullers. The reproduction is a good 6 inches longer than the original and has a lenticular cross section, but we don't know the cross section of the original sword. If you have some knowledge that will help make the SBG article better, please share it for the betterment of everyone who may read it - yeah?
MOK: I personally thought the reproduction was a Type XII when I looked at the description done for the SBG typology. Thanks for sharing some insight on how you may approach categorizing it.
Andi: Haha, yup. That's what I mean..
|
|
|
Post by mrbadexample on Jun 30, 2018 12:13:02 GMT
I like it in general. The organization mostly makes sense, and if one follows the links, other organization strategies are seen. I wonder if including some links to museum examples would be helpful.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jun 30, 2018 14:09:04 GMT
I think the best way to think about typologies is that they're like maps, with labels specifying certain places of significance even though the vast majority of all points on the map exist somewhere between those exact locations. So, each type in a typology is NOT a distinct thing or a complete description in its own right, but merely a useful coordinate point in an infinite field comprising every possibility; you describe an item by naming the closest commonly used starting point and specifying how any particular item deviates from there. (You know, just like a lot of things can be said to be "in London", but if you want to actually locate the London Tower or Tussaud's, let alone a place outside the city but closer to it than any other convenient reference point, you need to specify a bit more detail than that. ) Also, some of these predefined points are very close to each other but are not lumped together because the groups of artifacts they point to are discrete enough in the context of their history and the archaeological record that making the distinction between them is useful for discussion. Like, say, X and Xa - there are so many swords that deviate from type X specifically by having narrow fullers that it's more convenient to give them their own label one can refer to than to specify the exact same deviation from type X for every single individual sword in this group.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jun 30, 2018 15:07:44 GMT
That's the art of description: Take the best matching type and describe the points which are different. The best matching type is usually the one where you have to tell the fewest number of differences. A good typology makes this easier. There is no need that swords like the one mentioned above fits exactly in a typology or that a typology describes exactly all possible variants. It's enough if you can describe a sword with terms for another person who knows the typology. "XII with a hexagonal cross section without fuller" or "Single handed XVIa without fuller" or "Single handed XVII with broader base" makes me imagine a blade like this. (...if it really has no fuller, of course) But it's interesting that you need two differences to describe it, not only one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2018 16:02:01 GMT
And so the debate goes on. They are both single hand swords with curved guards and a round pommel. Close enough, right Not very helpful Edelweiss. I was also referring to the shape of the blade and similar wide and shallow central fullers. The reproduction is a good 6 inches longer than the original and has a lenticular cross section, but we don't know the cross section of the original sword. If you have some knowledge that will help make the SBG article better, please share it for the betterment of everyone who may read it - yeah?
MOK: I personally thought the reproduction was a Type XII when I looked at the description done for the SBG typology. Thanks for sharing some insight on how you may approach categorizing it.
Andi: Haha, yup. That's what I mean..
Calling it as I see it Paul. You equate the swords as o so similar while denying your own simplification of cut-centric vs cut+thrust-centric. 12 review(s) Classic Medieval Sword #500020 $224.95 This Oakeshott Type X Sword has a long and wide fuller, long guard and wheel pommel for balance. Includes scabbard. Overall 39-1/2 inches. The Chicago sword has a much more tapered and dated centuries after the type X and Xa era. I personally feel that sword shows no fuller and comparing the two as equal a fools stance. Then again, SBG is all about fun vs accuracy. Right? Oakeshott regarded the Maurice Turin sword as a XII, your close bet that the Chicago sword is fullered but a cross more similar to your beloved "true incarnation of wonder" Windlass (note it is a X). Again a timeline that denies the thoughts on the Chicago sword, despite the Turin sword somewhat leaning X. Let's take the Maurice Vienna, some might say a X and closer to the Windlass sword than the Chicago sword. Yet that sword regarded as an XI. At any rate, like the Turin, not the same timeline as the Chicago sword. Paul, comparing the two swords as equals does your own recent publication a disservice in understanding Oakeshott and it immediately draws debate with further askance to better _your_ article. Seems to me having the discussion and debate before publishing might have better served your purposes. Quite simply put Paul, I see my own "expertise" as a few decades of American History regarding swords. I hesitate to publish even simple articles without offering expansive footnotes and a bibliography to offer as resource. A real reason is the existing work already published and not feeling any need to stand on the shoulders of giants when offering those notes. At the same time in the past few decades, I have absorbed a good bit on other spathology, including some Japanese and Asian swords. A well meaning beginner here, Salvatore, copy and pasted page after page of information from Rich Stein's Japanese Sword Index. It remains pinned in your Japanese section and no doubt useful for some beginners. I doubt though that many have spent much time on Stein's pages or even know the sources of Salvatore's efforts. What you are offering is "Guess what guys, I've created the Oakeshott Records title now deconstructed for dummies" What I am getting at is, again, your briefs then become verbatim "truths" that only perpetuate discussion and debate on who is right. That makes your publication somewhat counter intuitive in hoping beginners learn from it. Here is a hammer, I'll bet I can use it as a pair of pliers. In the meantime, can I have fun? See how much of a jerk I can be? I'd call the Chicago sword a tweener between a XVII and XVIII We're getting hung up here over just one instance of difference but with (imo) a glaring example of subjectivity gone wrong. Not the swords in question but the premise of educational values.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jun 30, 2018 23:19:07 GMT
Thought I'd chime in since i was sort of tagged.
Most of my rudimentary typology research starts with a production sword either purchased or simply of interest and then I try to find something that matches that sword in the typologies. For example the Windlass European Sword. Now some have said it's a XII of course I believe it falls more into the Xa/XI type and then someone (the only time I've seen this mentioned) on MyArmory said it's a XVI.
Well so for a start what I did was try and find similar swords to the European among both historic swords and other modern reproductions that match it's profile, length, width ect ect. Remember when classifying a blade the hilt doesn't really matter. This is why Oakshotte himself created the hilt family sub category. This is used as a reference to classify swords that have a prominent hilt type to the various time periods they were most popular. For example the Family B, which primarily has type XIV Swords or even the less specific Family A which primarily consists of any sword spanning the middle ages that had a standard cruciform hilt with straight cross and circular pommel.
Anyway back the European. The problem with the European outright is the fact that it is a cheap reproduction made by Windlass. Why was it classified by MyArmory as a XVI? Because it has a diamond cross section. But why does it have a diamond cross section? Because it's a Windlass and 98% of Windlass swords be them a X, XII, XIX, XVI or XX has a diamond profile it's just how they make their blades and obviously cut costs. So we obviously can't base the classification of the European on the cross section. So what do we look at next. Well we have lots to look at, blade profile, hilt type, blade with, fuller, handle length and the list could go on as you get more detailed.
Now what I did was look at the primary features of the blade and then match them to other reproductions and historical examples. Best place for historical examples? MyArmory articles and of course the source Oakshotte's books. When matching other reproductions, who's the most reknowed and accurate? Albion. So when I was looking at the Albion site I browsed over their next generation line and found that of all the swords the European matched up to there were two that matched the most. No it wasn't their XII Knight, nor was it their XI Hospitaler. It was actually their Gaddhjalt and their Norman. Now the Norman is a more typical Xa and more broad than your average XI. Fuller is wider and broader as well. But the Gaddhjalt is near identical to the European in blade profile. Slightly broad at the base lightly tapering to a less pronounced accute point, similar fuller and blade length as well. Another example I found too was the Arms&Armor Sword of Saint Maurice though it has a more regular extra lengthy blade as most XI types do as is a prominent trait of them.
I also in my copy of Records of the Medieval Sword found plenty of references that place the European in more of the XI typology as well as on page 58 a sword by hilt and blade profile matching the European almost exactly (perhaps the one Windlass reproduced). Same Type I pommel, same Type 7 cross and though two inches shorter at 32" a similar blade length. This same sword is pictured in my European review as a historical reference.
So that's kinda how I classify lower budget reproductions into typologies. Sometimes you have to go detailed and sometimes you have to ignore the details when they compromise classification. Either way when the Typolgy would only be used as a guide rather that an exact reference and that is the importance part people tend to forget.
Also the Metro Sword is a XIV by Oakshotte classification he actually has the sword in Records on Page 120. It's a unique longer blades XIV which were not really rare but still less prominent as opposed to the shorter under 30" blade.
Hope this helps and let me know if you guys have any more questions.
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jul 1, 2018 2:22:48 GMT
Mr Bad Example: Thanks, and yes - I think that I will create sub pages for each type, try to find some examples of modern reproductions that COULD POSSIBLY fit within that type as well as links to museum examples and provide additional clarification that follows 'records' as closely as possible. MOK: That makes sense. The map analogy is a good one. Don't get me wrong, while I get frustrated with the typology at times, I know it comes from decades of hands on research, not just handling reproductions, reading books, and the odd antique every now and again seen through the glass in a museum. I think the more one researches it, the more interesting it gets. Andi: Nicely put - and yes, as Hank Reinhardt mentioned in reclaiming the blade, by using the typology you can describe a sword to someone half way around the world and they will have a pretty good idea of what you are talking about. That is impressive. Eidelweiss: Umm, we were talking about the Windlass European Sword, not the Classic Medieval Sword. So there goes the first half of your argument about, cough, accuracy.. But okay, point taken - SBG is not an academic site - self explanatory and goes without saying. Rather, I feel it serves as a link between the casual (budding) sword enthusiast and serious academic study, a gateway sword site as it were. The main site is not designed for forum members per se - another way of putting it look at the stats of how many people visit the forum in the last 24 hours. 208 members and 1,403 guests. The main site is for those guests, hooking them into the fold and providing information in a way that will not turn them off but rather make them think and get interested. That's all I am trying to do.. Personally, I know you dislike this approach, you have made that abundantly clear, so let's agree to disagree so this thread can stay on track and try to become better, more accurate and still remain helpful and easy to digest..
nDave: This is an excellent approach and could form the basis of an article in itself 'attempts at classifying production swords into Oakeshotte's typology'. It has been 7 years since I have handled that sword and thought it was lenticular, but you make a good point, most Windlass are indeed diamond profile and that throws things off. I guess the aim of classifying a cheap reproduction is more an exercise in fun than anything academic. Some swords will be pretty easy to classify, but others will be impossible. And still more will reveal the historical inaccuracy of a cheap repro based on a famous sword and note the point of deviation. So it is worthwhile..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2018 2:48:55 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. Yup, you are right Paul and I took my cue from a reply instead of your point. enjoy Paul, I'm editing this morning to save this for posterity. I hope you take some time in considering what you have written in this paragraph FWIW, I'd debate on stats vs virtue anytime but it is neither here nor there, or relative to the crux of forming an Oakeshott brief. Best intentions, really Edelweiss aka Glen Cleeton
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jul 1, 2018 17:29:48 GMT
nDave: This is an excellent approach and could form the basis of an article in itself 'attempts at classifying production swords into Oakeshotte's typology'. It has been 7 years since I have handled that sword and thought it was lenticular, but you make a good point, most Windlass are indeed diamond profile and that throws things off. I guess the aim of classifying a cheap reproduction is more an exercise in fun than anything academic. Some swords will be pretty easy to classify, but others will be impossible. And still more will reveal the historical inaccuracy of a cheap repro based on a famous sword and note the point of deviation. So it is worthwhile.. [/div] [/quote] Thanks Paul, that's actually been a pet project of mine in regards to my collection and reviews to compile a group of swords sub $300 that represent each type of the Oakeshott Typology. So far I'm missing five those being a X, XII, XIII,XVII, XIX. The XVII is probably the hardest one to find and the XIX is as well due to many of the type turning into discontinued models. Sure there's plenty of reproductions of the others I'm missing as far as my collection goes but I have plenty of material set for an actual article or blog in regards to the sub $300 reproductions for a typology grouping. You know many of the European swords made by manufactures do in fact have historical originals they're based off of, even if they're not specifically mentioned in the swords sales page on the seller sites. Some clear examples are for example the H/T Single Hander which is a less intricate reproduction of the Santa Casilda Sword or the popular Windlass Oakeshott XIV which is a reproduction of the Sword of King Phillipe the IV of France. Though some have original designs that can't be exactly be matched to a historical original for example the Windlass Homildon Hill, even though it has a historical backstory in regards to the real Sir Henry "Hotspur" Percy. Then some are completely marketed and designed as historical reproductions like the Windlass Ulfbert or Hanwei Saint Maurice. Then you have some that have are historical reproductions though have a ahistorical backstory like the Hanwei William Marshall. A sword that is clearly a reproduction of the Classic Xa found on page 37 in Records of the Medieval Sword that has been dubbed the "Oakeshott Sword" but is given the ahistorical backstory of being the sword of Sir William Marshal by Hanwei. Of course the more you spend the more accurate some swords get, though not always the case. For example I find some of the Gus Trim and Valiant made type XII swords to be too thin in blade profile and the fullers too thin to be type XII and feel they're better suited for classification as type Xa or even XVI depending on the fuller length. Or of course there are a few from even Arms&Armor and Albion that have some disrepeancies with the swords they're based on to be exact examples though Albion definitely has less oddities than A&A. One manufacture that has always impressed me in regards to matching historical examples and getting the blade typologies right is Deltin. For the price point they tend to have a lot of detail and effort put into making a historical reproduction, even if their biggest fault lies with their blunting which can throw off the distal taper and weight/balance compared to the originals they're based on. Sure it has to be fun over academic because the scrutiny put on literally anything sub $300 or even sub $1000 would compromise any integrity in regards to the sword itself or even classifying such swords as an enthusiast. as a certain snobby poster has made clear in this thread. Still as you do I feel it's worthwhile to discuss reproductions in light to their historical counterparts as it adds to the intrigue and enjoyment of the swords from a historical perspective. One thing I'd like to see eventually is a manufacture (in the sub $300 market) take a serious approach at making a line that has more historical significance to the typologies represented. It think it would be cool to see like an Albion Next Gen type line for example that was focused on specific historical examples and their placement in the typology. Of course they couldn't be too exact or they'd be Albions themselves in detail and of course price point. I mean as you already know, we definitely have enough XVIII and X types on the market to fill a arsenal, lol. So perhaps even getting at least one representavite of the more "unpopular" or obscure typologies would be something that could sell and gain interest simply by not being the typical X or XVIII the market is flooded with, right?
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jul 1, 2018 20:41:52 GMT
Urgh! It's a habit - I keep mixing up the names of Windlass Classic Medieval Sword and Windlass European Sword and I don't know why... they're not even that similar...
|
|
|
Post by Wes Cameron on Jul 1, 2018 23:37:03 GMT
I like it along with the tree. How about downloadable PDF's on this and other articles?
|
|
Terricus
Member
Even if I stand alone, I will never stand down
Posts: 66
|
Post by Terricus on Jul 2, 2018 5:23:17 GMT
I like it for what it is. In my opinion anyone who wants to become an A+ expert on the Oakeshott Typology is going to be doing a lot more research than this and connecting a few dots themselves.
However, for someone who is either beginning or isn't dedicated to being that A+ expert I think it's pretty good. Newbies are probably gonna have to connect some dots too though.
Please note that I'm not making any claims to the accuracy of any info in the article because I myself know very little on the subject. I'm just saying that it provides a bit of a structured foundation for the newbies out there.
And while I certainly don't claim its absolute accuracy, I really kinda doubt a whole lot of it is just completely off base or completely wrong. But like I said, I know very little on the topic so maybe I'm mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jul 2, 2018 9:52:21 GMT
We should keep in mind: Not a single medieval smith had any idea of the Oakeshott typology. Not a single medieval sword was made according to the specifications of the Oakeshott typology. It's something we use for a few decades now to describe swords a few centuries old. There are other possible typologies that can differ from Oakeshott's and are also true. This is an attempt to superimpose more aspects of sword usage over the standard Oakeshott "line". The good thing with Oakeshott's is that it's a kind of common knowledge between swordfans and not hard to look up. So you can describe a sword to another swordfan this way better than using any other known typology. But perhaps the typical medieval sword is atypical. (... and when in doubt it's a XII )
|
|
|
Post by Uncle Mack on Jul 2, 2018 17:15:00 GMT
I like it for what it is. In my opinion anyone who wants to become an A+ expert on the Oakeshott Typology is going to be doing a lot more research than this and connecting a few dots themselves. However, for someone who is either beginning or isn't dedicated to being that A+ expert I think it's pretty good. Newbies are probably gonna have to connect some dots too though. Please note that I'm not making any claims to the accuracy of any info in the article because I myself know very little on the subject. I'm just saying that it provides a bit of a structured foundation for the newbies out there. And while I certainly don't claim its absolute accuracy, I really kinda doubt a whole lot of it is just completely off base or completely wrong. But like I said, I know very little on the topic so maybe I'm mistaken. I agree with Terricus. Your summary and brief explanation is an excellent starting point/summary of the different sword types. It’s technical enough to give someone a brief intro into the design elements and characteristics of a certain style of place. But like any summary, there are going to be people who want to argue semantics and minutiae. Let them. I’ve watched 2 smiths each with over 25 years of experience argue/debate the classifications of a particular blade. Sometimes people just look for an argument. For 99% of folks this is a great start.
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jul 8, 2018 2:36:38 GMT
Thanks for the additional feedback guys - behind the scenes I have spent a good chunk of the days since starting this post to prepare additional briefs on each of the sword types along with examples of currently available reproductions. It's been pretty exhausting and rather all consuming, and so far the pages are not visible yet as there is still quite a bit of editing and additional fact checking to do, as well as modifying the original descriptions where I have made some mistakes or could have presented something more accurately - but it is getting there.
In addition to the invaluable feedback and constructive criticism received on the this thread so far, there are a couple of points raised that I am very interested in pursuing further.
Specifically, I would love to work with ndave and his systematic and fun approach to attempt to classify entry level reproductions within the typology. It would indeed make a great article for the main site, so if you are interested in having it published on SBG let me know in this thread. For the examples of the swords in the sub articles I am finishing up now, I have tried to whenever possible find sub $300 examples - mostly from Hanwei, Windlass and even Deepeeka (some of their swords are actually not bad in terms of representing the a specific type - though their construction, handling etc almost certainly leaves quite a lot to be desired).
The other main point raised was by MOK - I did not know you were a graphic designer and am in need of one for this and other projects - so have sent you an email as I am interested in getting a quote to get the images done professionally.
Anyway, lots more still to be done - but when finished I think it will be helpful to beginning sword collectors and serve as a very basic starting point for further research.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jul 8, 2018 3:07:22 GMT
Awesome Paul, I'd be happy to write something up and get it posted on the main site. I'll send you a PM and we'll brainstorm and get the ball rolling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2018 13:50:43 GMT
|
|
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 2,088
|
Post by admin on Jul 13, 2018 1:37:18 GMT
Thanks for picking up on that - guess I was tired, have been working so much on the Oakeshott articles that I am literally falling asleep these days counting types and sub-types.. GSOW is definitely XVIIIa - and is listed as such on the sub page: www.sword-buyers-guide.com/oakeshott-type-xiiia.htmlMaking some arrangements to get professional illustrations done for the sword types with MOK - will not be cheap, but best that a professional does it - and while he is doing that, I will be going over the article several more times..
|
|