|
Post by pete on Dec 11, 2023 20:38:09 GMT
Happy I went with the Albion. I was on the fence for a while there.
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on Dec 12, 2023 3:06:30 GMT
Happy I went with the Albion. I was on the fence for a while there. Congrats!
|
|
|
Post by pete on Dec 12, 2023 22:33:12 GMT
Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 2, 2024 10:25:40 GMT
Anyone knows why Albion or Peter Johnsson decided to classify The Ljubljana as Oakeshott Type XVIIIb? The original, sword N4516 from National Museum of Slovenia: The general blade outline is much more straight edged compared to usual XVIII who usually "swell out" so that they meet the type parameter, which are, as Oakeshott gives them in Records of Medieval Sword: "Relatively light (it's average weight, for it's short hilted version of Type XVIII, is about 2 lbs) with enough breadth at the point of percussion to deliver a totally effective cut, yet below this blade tapers sharply to a very acute point, perfectly capable of a very lethal thrust. In nearly every case, too, the section is of a flattened diamond form with a sharp longitudinal mid-rib, making the blade nice and stiff." And this swelling is obvious even on the swords with relatively slender blades and very acute points, such as Munich sword, XVIIIa.5. There are some swords in that book with blades that don't have the type's usual blade swelling, but not many: XVIII.7 From The Royal Armouries (IX.949) (description from MyArmoury): The hilt of this weapon consists of a pommel and straight cross chiseled to look as if made of three rods or twigs twisted together and splayed out at the ends. The hardwood grip, with a collar of gilt-bronze at its center, features a similar, twisted form. The blade length of 34.9" (88.7cm) is incorrectly cited in Records as 30". The overall length is 43.2" (109.7cm) with a weight of 2 lb 12 oz (1.25kg). But there are many more swords with such blade outlines in other types. Why isn't it just a standard straight edged, flattened diamond shaped XVa? True, fullers are not generally found on them, but neither are they common on XVIIIa. And some XVIa blade outlines are very similar, and the type description is "fullered upper part, broad enough and flat enough in section to provide efficient cutting edge, but in lower part below the end of the fuller is nearly always of stiff flattened-diamond section with a strong median ridge, making it suitable for thrusting." The only complication is that they are invariably single fullered. Then there is type XX (and subtype XXa) - mostly determined "by the arrangement of it's fullering. Here it is characterized by a central fuller running over half way down the blade, flanked by two shortened ones, generally of the same width as the central one, in the upper quarter of the blade's length." And especially the XXa: "the fullering in this sub-type is the same, but the edges run very sharply to an acute point". Although Oakeshott talks about three fullers, the illustration also shows two fullered variant, and many people place two fullered variants under XX and XXa. In the E. Oakeshott - "Sword in the age of Chivalry", there's actually description about the two-fullered variants: "Many examples have three shallowfullers in the upper half, two side by side immediately below the hilt, and a single one in the middle of the blade below them. Others may have two very narrow, deep fullers side by side extending about a quarter of the blade length." Still doesn't cover the N4516 sword very accurately - it's fullers are definitely not "very narrow", and they also extend past half way, almost to the center of percussion. The inlaid marks on sword N4516 from National Museum of Slovenia are also found on several other swords: From left to right. it's interesting how the blade outline stays practically the same, but the Oakeshott type changes: Sword from private collection, circa 1450, shown on MyArmoury: The Ljubljana, XVIIIa, sword N4516 from National Museum of Slovenia, early 15th century: Sword from Bavarian national museum in Munich, XXa.1, page 212 in Oakeshott's RoMS. Dated 1425-50: Sword XVa.2, page 141 from Glasgow museum, dated 1320-40:
|
|
|
Post by takitam on Jan 2, 2024 16:04:59 GMT
I can't add anything of value on the Oakeshott typology. You have already provided a lot of information and as we all know, his typology, while a very valuable tool, has plenty of limitations.
I would like to thank you for that picture of the original, which I had never seen before. I also must say that I really do hope this is just a preparation for your upcoming review? If it is, I'm really looking forward to it!
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on Jan 2, 2024 16:44:54 GMT
In the MyArmoury thread I linked, Peter Johnsson says it could be classified as a type XVa.
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 2, 2024 17:23:02 GMT
Yeah, I have seen those debates, and I was surprised when Albion classified it as XVIIIb.
I plan to make a review, but I have very limited experience with replicas of this range. I have cut only with my Albion Earl, I have handled Albion Munich and a couple of sharp swords from Damian Sulowski and Vladimir Cervenka. So it will be more of a visual review, and I'll certainly try to see if our museum could grant me a short time with original, to do a "side by side" with a replica. But that's certainly not certain, 10 years ago you couldn't even make a photo!
|
|
|
Post by alientude on Jan 2, 2024 18:01:03 GMT
Without going into the larger topic about the Ljubljana's classification, while Records of the Medieval Sword is the more commonly referenced and well-known book, it is lacking in the later typology. For instance, in Records, there is only one subtype of XVIII - XVIIIa. The Sword in the Age of Chivalry has the more expanded type and subtypes XVIII, XVIIIa, XVIIIb, XVIIIc, XVIIId, and XVIIIe. Notably, the Munich which you referenced, while classified as an XVIIIa in Records, is referenced as an XVIIIb in Age of Chivalry.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 2, 2024 18:08:39 GMT
In the picture at the Albion site with the full blade it indeed looks a bit like a XVIIIb. Less straight tapering to the point.
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 2, 2024 20:27:41 GMT
I only see the curve right at the tip, something that many XV also have, not all are perfectly tapering from the crossguard to the tip. And yes, The Sword in the Age of Chivalry has lots of additional information in some instances, but is also a much older book than Records of Medieval Sword (1991) - it was published in 1964, and the 1994 edition has the original old text with “errata” at the end of the book. Oakeshott reconsidered placing of many swords between those books, even some swords that were meant to define types, and added or switched types and subtypes, so Sword in the Age of Chivalry was definitely considered outdated even by Oakeshott. Many of the swords in those books are also very badly researched - there are errors in basic data points like sword and blade length, many of the swords have very poor photos or even just crude drawings, comparison to swords in art isn’t really well researched, examples are very Anglo-centric… But I suppose it will have to do for the next few decades, even with all the access to informations across museums all over the world it only became more complicated to actually publish research.
|
|
|
Post by seventh on Jan 10, 2024 22:48:04 GMT
The Oakeshott typology is descriptive not prescriptive, the Ljubljana is a very special sword- narrow double fullered hollow ground acutely tapered. None of the Oakeshott types of subtypes fit that classification, not only is that okay, it's awesome and it's historical because great kings and middling knights WOULD make unique commissions. Oakeshott describes the most common styles of swords and is himself clear these were not the only ways swords were forged.
I know it will be shocking to many of you, but rare swords are in fact, rare.
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 11, 2024 8:44:28 GMT
But how useful is the system of labels that describe one type with certain characteristics, and then shows this type by examples that usually don't conform to it, sometimes vastly (and are then described as "not typical")?
It is of course clear that in medieval times there were no such things as Oakeshott typologies. But Oakeshott writes as though pictured examples are just selected examples (sometimes described as not very good examples, just the ones he had at hand) - and that there are more swords known to him that conform to described types. But most of the examples I see outside Oakeshott books aren't really good examples of types and are more a haphazard collection of characteristics - some closer to Oakeshott types, some completely outside of them. So instead of supporting typologies they just make everything less defined.
I do think someone who personally collected measurements of hundreds and hundreds of swords, and collected stats and measurements of literally thousands (like Peter Johnsson) could make a critical overview on how helpful an Oakeshott typology really is, and whether we wouldn't be better off with some different system of describing general sword characteristics.
I know this rant is very off topic now, and not really relevant to my question on why The Ljubljana was labeled a particular type, when it's clear it doesn't conform to any very well.
|
|
|
Post by mrstabby on Jan 11, 2024 9:51:36 GMT
But how useful is the system of labels that describe one type with certain characteristics, and then shows this type by examples that usually don't conform to it, sometimes vastly (and are then described as "not typical")? It is of course clear that in medieval times there were no such things as Oakeshott typologies. But Oakeshott writes as though pictured examples are just selected examples (sometimes described as not very good examples, just the ones he had at hand) - and that there are more swords known to him that conform to described types. But most of the examples I see outside Oakeshott books aren't really good examples of types and are more a haphazard collection of characteristics - some closer to Oakeshott types, some completely outside of them. So instead of supporting typologies they just make everything less defined. I do think someone who personally collected measurements of hundreds and hundreds of swords, and collected stats and measurements of literally thousands (like Peter Johnsson) could make a critical overview on how helpful an Oakeshott typology really is, and whether we wouldn't be better off with some different system of describing general sword characteristics. I know this rant is very off topic now, and not really relevant to my question on why The Ljubljana was labeled a particular type, when it's clear it doesn't conform to any very well. You have to make some compromises every time you begin putting stuff that's on a spectrum into neat little boxes.
As you say, there was no real classification back the, so every sword maker had their own style. You'd probably have to go really crazy with minute details and you'll get many cathegories which will contain only one single example.
The problem is, when you put the Oakeshott Type besides every sword you sell, and one does not have a type, what do you do? Should they just leave it out? IDK.
I get it though, the Oakeshott Typology isn't as neatly black and white as we modern humans like. Oakeshott made an attempt with the ressources he had, someone could probably do better today by pooling ressources with others over the internet, adding stuff you don't have direct access to. Although in the end you still have two coises, go with a relatively short list with a lot exceptions or go with a very, very long list of types with no exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Jan 11, 2024 10:28:19 GMT
Descriptive means you describe a real sword in words with: a) the best matching Oakeshott type and b) the differences the real sword has to the typical type. The best matching Oakeshott type is the one that needs the fewest b) descriptions.
No sword has to be a clear Oakeshott type and there hasn't to be an Oakeshott type for every sword. But you should have a mental image of the sword when you read the description.
F.e. the real Ljubljana can be described as a XVa with double fullers, the Albion might be an XVIIIb with double fullers. Or I got the pictures wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Jan 11, 2024 15:21:49 GMT
I don't think there's enough difference between Albion Ljubljana and original N4516 from National Museum of Ljubljana to put them into a separate types. Aligned museum drawing (drawing is flipped horizontally, it actually shows other side of the sword than the photo), image of N4516 and image of Albion Ljubljana:
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on Jan 11, 2024 19:11:33 GMT
Personally I acquired the Ljubljana because of its uniqueness and its engineering. The fact that it's tough to classify is its appeal.
As for the Oakeshott typology, it's clearly loose and a rough place to start. Oakeshott himself tempers expectations of the comprehensiveness of his typology on many occasions. Wanting anything more than a general overview is asking too much of the typology.
Despite the imprecision, I think the typology is absolutely useful, though I do admit someone could probably do better if they put in the time and work.
|
|
|
Post by darkcampaign on Apr 7, 2024 21:54:08 GMT
• The general consensus seems to be that most of a sword’s balance is achieved in the shaping of the blade, with the pommel being more of a fine-tuning instrument rather than an outright counterweight. This sword seems to be an exception. The pommel feels like it’s doing quite a bit of heavy lifting in the balancing of this sword. The distal taper isn’t drastic and the sword is thick all the way up to the tip, which is reinforced. This means, relative to other swords of the type, the Ljubljana feels like it has focused bits of mass at both ends of the sword. The sensation this creates when dynamically swinging the blade, going through different fighting actions is unmistakably unique to this sword. • At the end of the day, the sword does put a huge smile on your face and feels like a high class weapon. Your words here truly sum up my own initial experience with my new-to me Ljubljana. Eloquently stated. I couldn't agree more. You mention the Ljubljana's performance being reminiscent of the Sempach in some ways. I don't have a type XVII sword in my collection yet (I still have a Landgraf in the build queue with Albion), but I've spent the last few years working regularly with a Talhoffer. The Ljubljana, while not classified as a type XVII or XVa, is much like a Talhoffer on steroids to me, in many ways. It's a ridiculously fast pointer for such a heavy sword, thanks in large part due to its unique balance point, which of course is partially the result of that crazy massive pommel. The pommel feels almost like cheating, until the excess inertia created by it finally catches up with you, making its presence known occasionally. Speaking of see-saw effect, one minute you've convinced yourself that the pommel is the sword's greatest redeeming feature as a clever feat of engineering, and the next minute you're wondering if it's the sword's most challenging aspect. The other minor downside of that massive pommel, if you could call it that, is the fact that it limits your grip methods and positions to the 7" length of the grip handle. There's absolutely no chance of grabbing that pommel effectively. It's nearly the size of a small plum, and the distinct, fairly sharp edge around its entire circumference on both sides is not beveled for comfort, not in the least. Fortunately, my hands both fit comfortably enough on the grip. But both of my Talhoffers which are constant companions have the tapered cylindrical grip, and of course the comfy scent-stopper pommel, giving me gobs of luxurious room to position my hands, which can yield some significant additional leverage should I so choose. Cutting and thrusting with the Ljubljana is quite similar to the Talhoffer for me, albeit with a bit more force from the additional inertia. Thrusting is absolutely lethal, goes impossibly deep with ease, and one must withdraw clean, fast and straight to avoid getting stuck fast. Edge alignment in the cut is just as critical as with my Talhoffer with little forgiveness for sloppy technique, and as expected, effectiveness improves dramatically as you land your cuts further away from the tip of the sword. I'm definitely looking forward to eventually receiving my Landgraf, and eventually comparing the XVII's blade and cutting and thrusting characteristics to the Ljubljana's and Talhoffer's. In just a few summary words, the Ljubljana is impressively solid, elegant, surprisingly refined and unexpectedly agile. In the end, it is an amusing feat of engineering that perhaps challenges traditional expectations, in some respects. I'm still trying to figure out whether the massive pommel is a stroke of genius and the star of the show, or some form of handicap, or both. I do love this unique build, which Albion has executed beautifully in all respects, and I will be revisiting it often.
|
|
|
Post by takitam on Apr 7, 2024 23:25:43 GMT
Welcome to the forum. It's always good to see a new sword enthusiast around.
I have read your post on the Ljubljana with a lot of interest. You mentioned something I haven't seen mentioned before - that a heavy pommel can have a negative impact on handling when cutting, as it acts against your hand and requires extra effort to stabilize. I think it might be a compromise worth having on a heavy thrusting sword, especially a two hander?
I experienced something similar on a one-handed Kopciuch sword. It was one of its several flaws, so I no longer have it. I might still write a short review on it one day.
|
|
|
Post by darkcampaign on Apr 7, 2024 23:48:14 GMT
Welcome to the forum. It's always good to see a new sword enthusiast around. I have read your post on the Ljubljana with a lot of interest. You mentioned something I haven't seen mentioned before - that a heavy pommel can have a negative impact on handling when cutting, as it acts against your hand and requires extra effort to stabilize. I think it might be a compromise worth having on a heavy thrusting sword, especially a two hander? I experienced something similar on a one-handed Kopciuch sword. It was one of its several flaws, so I no longer have it. I might still write a short review on it one day. Of course, the beefy pommel aids in making this sword a lethal, pinpoint thrusting machine. My impression of the extra inertia at the end of the tang during cutting is that the overall heft does in fact boost the force of the initial cut (despite lacking the greater blade presence of a cutting sword). It also aids in the incredible ease of choosing the precise area in which you will land your strike, but then almost gyroscopically resists a fast change of direction for a follow-up cut. Your hands are essentially tight together on the grip, with no real space between them, which forces clean technique but limits your leverage. You then suddenly notice the weight on both ends of the sword again, once you've changed the direction of your swing, and yet it feels back in balance, arcing level with very little effort. You correct your line, guide it, and it simply goes where you send it once again. The 2.13" CoG is key in the sword's surprising maneuverability. By all means, this is no cutting sword, but punches above its weight class considering its "almost XVa-type" mannerisms in execution. It is worth noting that the grip shape is a bit more rounded, at least not quite as flatted or elliptical as some of my other Albions, so extra care is to be taken when focusing on garnering feedback for blade alignment. The handsome leather wrap is surprisingly comfortable, and it and the rain-guard are very nicely crafted. You can certainly both see and feel where some of your hard-earned dollars have gone here, from the very first minute that you pick this sword up. Your next overwhelming sensation is that the sword's beefy blade is not listing toward the ground, and you get that first taste of the finely-tuned balancing act, before you even bring it into position. I can't decide whether (just theoretically) lengthening the grip tang by an inch and grinding down the pommel a bit would enhance the sword's handling characteristics, or instead totally destroy its finesse, uncanny balance, and unique elegance. Probably the latter. It would've been truly fascinating to have been the swordsmith crafting the original N4516 build hundreds of years ago, experimenting with variations in the mass of the pommel in an effort to achieve an ideal balance between heft and maneuverability. This is a pommel with a real singularity of purpose (ignoring the fact that you could deliver some stupefying bashes with that pommel). And that suits the dedicated blade design, as well. I am thrilled that Albion chose to pursue this somewhat atypical build as one of their Museum Line offerings. The high popularity of the Crecy and similar models speaks volumes to the public's desire to collect accessible and forgiving "backyard cutters", which the Ljubljana certainly is not. It is also not comparatively inexpensive. This is in all respects an enthusiast's sword as well as an incredible historical curiosity finally come to fruition in its recreation, and I hope it ultimately winds up selling well for them. I appreciate it more every time I handle it, and am having trouble putting it down.
|
|
|
Post by curiomansion on Apr 8, 2024 3:10:43 GMT
The other minor downside of that massive pommel, if you could call it that, is the fact that it limits your grip methods and positions to the 7" length of the grip handle. There's absolutely no chance of grabbing that pommel effectively. It's nearly the size of a small plum, and the distinct, fairly sharp edge around its entire circumference on both sides is not beveled for comfort, not in the least. Fortunately, my hands both fit comfortably enough on the grip. But both of my Talhoffers which are constant companions have the tapered cylindrical grip, and of course the comfy scent-stopper pommel, giving me gobs of luxurious room to position my hands, which can yield some significant additional leverage should I so choose. I usually wear an M sized glove, which fits perfectly from almost any off the shelf brand. The grip is actually perfect for me, and I'm a huge fan of locked in grips (both in single and two handed swords). That said, I do train techniques that require handling the pommel, and you do indeed lose out on those techniques. For me though, it's a small price to pay for having a mace head at the end of a beautiful longsword! Congrats on your sword!
|
|