|
Post by theophilus736 on Sept 10, 2019 3:44:09 GMT
Okay, so less a question about "in type" comparisons, more a minor question about these two swords compared to each other. The Arbedo is usually compared to the RK Type 3, or the Albion Principe/Alexandria. Shorter, lighter, but "similar" and competitive for the price.
I noticed that the Windlass XIV and Arbedo have the same width at the shoulder though. The XIV is shorter than the Arbedo, and doesn't have the "bastard" length grip, but I'm curious if I would actually notice as much difference between the XIV and Arbedo as I would between the Arbedo and say the RK type 3.
Anyone who has owned both and could give some insight? I currently have the XIV and was thinking about the Arbedo, but may go with the RK Alexandria if there wouldn't be as much difference between the Arbedo and Type XIV as there would be between the Arbedo and RK Euro 3.
Thank you all!
|
|
|
Post by tyranius on Sept 10, 2019 15:09:44 GMT
Longtime lurker, first time poster. But since I have all three blades in my collection I might be able to contribute. English is not my first language so excuse any grammatical errors or misunderstandings. Despite technically being different typologies, I find the XIV and Arbedo to be quite similar in that they are rather light and fast, the Arbedo being exceptionally so when used two-handed. The RK Alexandria on the other hand is a significantly meatier sword, with a much more forward POB (atleast in part due to the unimpressive pommel). It is not nearly as agile as the other two. So the bottom line, the arbedo and XIV are much more alike and the RK is rather different from both. I still like them all tho Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by Siward on Sept 10, 2019 18:15:19 GMT
Longtime lurker, first time poster. But since I have all three blades in my collection I might be able to contribute. English is not my first language so excuse any grammatical errors or misunderstandings. Despite technically being different typologies, I find the XIV and Arbedo to be quite similar in that they are rather light and fast, the Arbedo being exceptionally so when used two-handed. The RK Alexandria on the other hand is a significantly meatier sword, with a much more forward POB (atleast in part due to the unimpressive pommel). It is not nearly as agile as the other two. So the bottom line, the arbedo and XIV are much more alike and the RK is rather different from both. I still like them all tho :) Hope that helps. Welcome and great first post
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Sept 10, 2019 19:59:14 GMT
Welcome Tyranius and hope to be hearing more from you.
|
|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Sept 10, 2019 20:01:24 GMT
Very helpful and exactly what I was looking for! Great first impression my friend, and better English than plenty of native speakers haha. I was planning on doing some work on the pommel of the RK if I went that route and it sounds like that is probably what I will do.
|
|
|
Post by tancred on Sept 12, 2019 6:08:13 GMT
Theophilus, Tyranius answered your question very well, imo. I own the tree swords you mentioned, plus the RK's Albion counterpart, so I know enough to echo Tyranius' comments.
Oakeshott classifies the Arbedo as a XVIIIa. Not sure if he personally classified the Alexandria or not, but everywhere else I've read about it puts it as a XVIIIc. Its exceptionally wide, visibly wider than the Arbedo. The Alexandria is also longer. So, its kind of hard to really look at them as comparable swords. They handle so much differently.
At least the RK model does. The Albion is much better balanced. As Tyranius said, a lot of this (I think) is due to the RK's inferior pommel, a pommel that is also unlike the historical example they based the sword on. I think if RK had gone for a more accurate pommel (bigger, thicker, heavier), the balance would be so much better. I don't know who could or would do such a thing, but I would like to eventually have a bigger, thicker, heavier pommel replace the original in the hope of improving the balance and handling.
So, even though the Arbedo is a hand-and-a-half, it handles much more similarly to the Type XIV of the three swords you mentioned. The Arbedo and XIV are light and quick. In fact, the Arbedo is actually the lightest and quickest of the three. It really does feel like a feather. So much so, that I think it is a better one hander than it is a two hander.
I guess I should preface my final thoughts here with the fact that I LOVE wide blades! Anyway, imo, just going by appearances, I'd rank the three swords as follows:
1. Arbedo 2. XIV 3. RK Alexandria
The RK would rank higher if it had the correct pommel. If you go the further rout, and include the Albion, it would be:
1. Albion Alexandria 2. Arbedo 3. XIV 4. RK Alexandria
In all honesty, you can not go wrong with buying any of the three swords you mention (or the Albion, if you have the cash to spare). All three are wonderful swords, the Arbedo especially. It really is one of the best, if not the best, sword Windlass has ever made, imo.
Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by theophilus736 on Sept 12, 2019 11:31:15 GMT
Awesome, thanks folks. Hopefully this helps others make this decision as well!
|
|
rschuch
Member
Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, far away into dark and danger.
Posts: 808
|
Post by rschuch on Nov 2, 2023 0:23:00 GMT
Old thread I know, my apologies for resurrecting the dead, but it IS Halloween! I have the Arbedo, but am looking at the DSA Alexandria, which i hear is much better than the RK version. Are they comparable or two completely different types?
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Nov 2, 2023 1:07:57 GMT
Old thread I know, my apologies for resurrecting the dead, but it IS Halloween! I have the Arbedo, but am looking at the DSA Alexandria, which i hear is much better than the RK version. Are they comparable or two completely different types? They're two different types but both the same type, confusing right lol. So basically the Alexandria is a Type XVIIIc which is a extra broad longsword variant of the Type XVIII. The Arbedo is a Type XVIIIa, uniquely broad but has the distinct trait of being a hand and a half sword variant of the Type XVIII. Basically They're nearly the same aside from the Arbedo being shorter in both blade (by 5") and grip (by around 2") compared to the Alexandria. So yea they look the same but will handle and work entirely different due to the size and weight difference. If you like a beefy Longsword you'll love the Alexandria, if you prefer an Arming Sword or Hand and a Half Sword you'll prefer the Arbedo. Basically if you like the Arbedo but wish it was a longer then you'll enjoy the Alexandria, lol!
|
|
rschuch
Member
Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, far away into dark and danger.
Posts: 808
|
Post by rschuch on Nov 2, 2023 1:11:53 GMT
Old thread I know, my apologies for resurrecting the dead, but it IS Halloween! I have the Arbedo, but am looking at the DSA Alexandria, which i hear is much better than the RK version. Are they comparable or two completely different types? They're two different types but both the same type, confusing right lol. So basically the Alexandria is a Type XVIIIc which is a extra broad longsword variant of the Type XVIII. The Arbedo is a Type XVIIIa, uniquely broad but has the distinct trait of being a hand and a half sword variant of the Type XVIII. Basically They're nearly the same aside from the Arbedo being shorter in both blade (by 5") and grip (by around 2") compared to the Alexandria. So yea they look the same but will handle and work entirely different due to the size and weight difference. If you like a beefy Longsword you'll love the Alexandria, if you prefer an Arming Sword or Hand and a Half Sword you'll prefer the Arbedo. Basically if you like the Arbedo but wish it was a longer then you'll enjoy the Alexandria, lol! So both are 18s, just one is .... More! More of a good thing or too much of a good thing depending on your point of view. Thanks! Actually that makes a lot of sense and is very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Nov 2, 2023 1:24:28 GMT
They're two different types but both the same type, confusing right lol. So basically the Alexandria is a Type XVIIIc which is a extra broad longsword variant of the Type XVIII. The Arbedo is a Type XVIIIa, uniquely broad but has the distinct trait of being a hand and a half sword variant of the Type XVIII. Basically They're nearly the same aside from the Arbedo being shorter in both blade (by 5") and grip (by around 2") compared to the Alexandria. So yea they look the same but will handle and work entirely different due to the size and weight difference. If you like a beefy Longsword you'll love the Alexandria, if you prefer an Arming Sword or Hand and a Half Sword you'll prefer the Arbedo. Basically if you like the Arbedo but wish it was a longer then you'll enjoy the Alexandria, lol! So both are 18s, just one is .... More! More of a good thing or too much of a good thing depending on your point of view. Thanks! Actually that makes a lot of sense and is very helpful. Pretty much, the Type XVIII subtypes have always been a little confusing since they're the most distinct but kinda get retracted in the later publication Records of the Medieval Sword by Oakeshott. With him simply making the XVIIIb and XVIIIc also just XVIIIa. Almost like he was trying to simplify something he earlier over exemplified, compared to other subtypes of the Typology which usually only had one single subtype differentiating one handed or two handed sword types in the later Group 2 classifications. So yea basically disregarding Typologies, the Arbedo and Alexandria are simply the same sword just designed at different length.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 2, 2023 2:54:16 GMT
In "Records" Oakeshott speaks in the beginning of the XVIII chapter of the three subtypes a - c from his earlier book but then all shown swords of those former subtypes are called subtype a, a riddle and confusing. Therefore XVIII swords can be classified as subtype a and also as subtype b or c. I own the Windlass Erbach and the CS Competition Cutter, a modified Arbedo, with different size - and weight and handling - too: I see both as subtype c.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Nov 2, 2023 5:09:41 GMT
In "Records" Oakeshott speaks in the beginning of the XVIII chapter of the three subtypes a - c from his earlier book but then all shown swords of those former subtypes are called subtype a, a riddle and confusing. Therefore XVIII swords can be classified as subtype a and also as subtype b or c. I own the Windlass Erbach and the CS Competition Cutter, a modified Arbedo, with different size - and weight and handling - too: I see both as subtype c. The argument I'd put against either being a XVIIIc is again the total length. Yes They're broader, similar to the XVIIIc but again both have hand and a half proportions better fitting to subtype XVIIIa. When you look at what Oakeshott sets as the subtype XVIIIb and XVIIIc each have a focus on longsword proportions, especially in focus of the grip length being 10"-11" with blades at or above 34". The Erbach kinda pushes the boundaries between what is classified between a Type XVIIIa-c but due to its shorter grip and lesser broad base that's blade tapers more parallel than triangular, it fits better in the XVIIIa. The Cold Steel Competition Cutter kinda in the same boat as it still retains the Arbedo's 31" blade length even though they added 2" to the grip. The broad base alone can't simply be a defining classification for a XVIIIc because many single handed XVIII also share a broader 2 3/4"-3" base width. Such a broad classification would also dispute the existence of XVIIIa subtype which is a set classification of the hand and a half sword opposed to the longsword of XVIIIb and XVIIIc. It's also why I have a hard time classifying the Balaur 15th Century Italian Longsword (of any three gens but less so Gen 1 as its the longest of the three by an inch) as a XVIIIb as its more in line with a XVIIIa too with its 34" Blade length and 8" grip. Though it is closer to an XVIIIb than either on of those swords are to a XVIIIc. The Balaur though is safe classifying as an XVIIIb due to its total length being only a few inches shy. Again this is why Type XVIII as a whole is such a curious and overly defined type as it also has focus on later 15th and early 16th century swords in the subtypes XVIIId and XVIIIe which focus on both the earlier Rapier and or Side Sword blades (XVIIId) and the Danish exclusive Great Sword (XVIIIe).
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 2, 2023 7:01:14 GMT
Why didn't those darn smiths follow the Oakeshott classification more closely!!!
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Nov 2, 2023 8:07:35 GMT
Why didn't those darn smiths follow the Oakeshott classification more closely!!! Right lol! But that's what kinda makes it more interesting. That there wasn't a specific classification or at least one that was openly known or historically documented. I'm sure smiths had names or at least some sort of engineer level type of classification for the swords they designed and continued to design, that was similar to something like Oakeshott's typology. Something that was passed around through the continent or from swordsmith to swordsmith. I mean we see that in the more traditionally carried Japanese terminology, it's definitely sad when you think about just how much of European history was lost throughout the centuries. And just what could be learned or deciphered if we had more to research. I mean what if something was found that did cement blade types to various evolutions in design and not only who invented them but what relationships there would be if any to how we categorize them today!
|
|
rschuch
Member
Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, far away into dark and danger.
Posts: 808
|
Post by rschuch on Nov 5, 2023 17:32:24 GMT
They're all kind of similar anyway, being sharp metal objects used to cut... stuff. I'm curious what went into designing the different typologies, whether the era or years they were used has any influence of it's mostly blade shape or one handed, half and a half or two handed. Even just in the type XIV there's variations I'm looking at the KA and BA here). The Arbedo is a bastard and a different type, but the blade has about as much difference as the two XIVs and, while I don't have an Alexandria, I'd imagine the difference would be about the same as the two XIVs. And does cutting or combat techniques affect typology? All three here are fairly nimble and are designed for one hand use whereas the Alexandria is clearly a longsword designed for two hands which implies different defense and attack techniques and eliminates any use of a shield. Personally I'm finding I prefer arming swords and, while the DSA Alexandria is said to be fairly nimble (at least compared the the RK version) I think at some point it gets more heavy than I'm comfortable with, even though I don't cut and it's pretty to look at. I like variety in my collection and I think I have enough in this style to move on. Attachments:
|
|
rschuch
Member
Sharp blades are good to have, if Shire-folk go walking, east, south, far away into dark and danger.
Posts: 808
|
Post by rschuch on Nov 8, 2023 16:44:35 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on Nov 9, 2023 20:52:07 GMT
Late chime in: Having taken apart a RK Alexandria, I'm near certain that heavier pommel will not fix the balance issues, which is caused mostly by the really skinny and thin tang that runs through the sword.
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,212
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Nov 9, 2023 21:28:32 GMT
...RK Alexandria,... really skinny and thin tang that runs through the sword. I remember reading that thin tangs are common for RK.
|
|