|
|
Post by tsmspace on Apr 8, 2020 3:35:53 GMT
IS the "Alexandria" sword a more rare kind of sword than many other era shapes??
I was listening to a youtube video about how the "Alexandria" or type 18c sword is very popular and a "best performer" of sorts at cutting competitions, and I wondered if the "alexandria" sword is the only or of few museum sword(s) that is quite that shape???
I don't know how to look up how many of what swords are in collections, but it seems like if you are interested in the material then over time you might see articles that make statements about the rarity or commonality of different particular shapes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomt24 on Apr 8, 2020 11:42:25 GMT
IS the "Alexandria" sword a more rare kind of sword than many other era shapes?? I was listening to a youtube video about how the "Alexandria" or type 18c sword is very popular and a "best performer" of sorts at cutting competitions, and I wondered if the "alexandria" sword is the only or of few museum sword(s) that is quite that shape??? I don't know how to look up how many of what swords are in collections, but it seems like if you are interested in the material then over time you might see articles that make statements about the rarity or commonality of different particular shapes. There is a lot of talk sourrounding the XVIIIc longsword. 1. The XVIIIc is not necessary as wide as most of the Alexandria Type swords. XVa and XVIIIa/c is mostly seperated by the more konkave profile taper. 2. There are atleast 2 very similiar of these "Alexandria XVIIIc" coming from the Alexandria Arsenal
3. Most likely they are overrepresented in current replica manufactures
Apart from this it gets a bit more into the field of speculative and opinions.
Would you use such a sword on the battlefield or in a duell over other types?
Might not be suited for a duell as it is rather heavy and short, and other types offer plenty cutting ability without these disadvantages.
On the battlefield end, I am not really seeing it as a effective piercer compared to other more common types.
Historically they might have been intended as a cutting sword against lighter opponents in the east or naval warfare.
But as said in the beginning, that is my opinion and not a fact in any kind of sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Apr 8, 2020 16:30:37 GMT
IS the "Alexandria" sword a more rare kind of sword than many other era shapes?? I was listening to a youtube video about how the "Alexandria" or type 18c sword is very popular and a "best performer" of sorts at cutting competitions, and I wondered if the "alexandria" sword is the only or of few museum sword(s) that is quite that shape??? I don't know how to look up how many of what swords are in collections, but it seems like if you are interested in the material then over time you might see articles that make statements about the rarity or commonality of different particular shapes. There is a lot of talk sourrounding the XVIIIc longsword. 1. The XVIIIc is not necessary as wide as most of the Alexandria Type swords. XVa and XVIIIa/c is mostly seperated by the more konkave profile taper. 2. There are atleast 2 very similiar of these "Alexandria XVIIIc" coming from the Alexandria Arsenal
3. Most likely they are overrepresented in current replica manufactures
Apart from this it gets a bit more into the field of speculative and opinions.
Would you use such a sword on the battlefield or in a duell over other types?
Might not be suited for a duell as it is rather heavy and short, and other types offer plenty cutting ability without these disadvantages.
On the battlefield end, I am not really seeing it as a effective piercer compared to other more common types.
Historically they might have been intended as a cutting sword against lighter opponents in the east or naval warfare.
But as said in the beginning, that is my opinion and not a fact in any kind of sense.
so they are unique then, and a bit unusual. |
|
|
|
Post by Tomt24 on Apr 8, 2020 18:32:18 GMT
Looking at these 2 originals, they have guards and pommels quite standard for late medieval times
and well within Oakeshott's typepology.
A comparable blade width is sometimes found on XIV arming swords.
|
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Apr 8, 2020 22:15:38 GMT
Sub types as a whole still encompass the classification of what Type they initially represent. The XVIIIc sub-type is still in its basic classification a Type XVIII with the only significant difference being its extra base blade width and length.
Basically its just one of those minor unqiue details to shape and profile Oakeshott believed deserved a separate sub category to the type, similar to XVIIIb which has a more thinner parallel profile than most other Type XVIII blades.
I mean when you look at most sub-types the separate classification simply is due to either being single or hand and a half/two handed in their grip. For example the XII and XIIa or XVI and XVIa. Though some do have more unqiue properties and profiles that set them apart namely when in regards to the Type XVIII which has the most sub-types of any blare type in the typology with five.
|
|
