|
Post by nddave on May 31, 2024 6:50:29 GMT
Hi everybody,
So trying something new on the channel, this series will focus on the Oakeshott Typology and will be a multi-part video series. Here's the line up,
1. Introduction to the Typology 2. Blade Groups 3 Blade Types 4. Guard Types 5. Pommel Types 6. Sword Families 7. Classifying Modern Reproductions
Figured I'd give this a shot since the Typology isn't really featured in many videos or even documentaries and I felt it deserved one.
Here's the first video let me know what you guys think. I'll be posting a video each week for this series,
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Jun 1, 2024 0:54:29 GMT
off to a good start
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jun 1, 2024 10:05:59 GMT
Thanks! I should have the next video out by Tuesday and will have each following part out each week on Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Jun 3, 2024 14:44:59 GMT
Nice
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Jun 3, 2024 17:29:50 GMT
Great idea...Looking forward to the series but tbh...I am not a fan of holding/handling swords by the blade, even my own...just saying it looks a bit "too casual". They are still lethal weapons. Don't forget to mention Oakeschott's "Records of the Medieval Sword", it's my personal go to reference book.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jun 3, 2024 18:48:02 GMT
Great idea...Looking forward to the series but tbh...I am not a fan of holding/handling swords by the blade, even my own...just saying it looks a bit "too casual". They are still lethal weapons. Don't forget to mention Oakeschott's "Records of the Medieval Sword", it's my personal go to reference book. I do, just in the history of the Typology Swords in the Age of Chivalry came first in his bibliography regarding the Typology. Records was a follow up where he changed a bit and added types 21 and 22 and cleaned up some of the sub types and added a few. For example 10a used to be a part of Type 11 and 12a was part of 13a in S.i.t.A.o.C. He also eliminated extra subtypes of 18 and grouped them all into 18a by R.o.t.M.S. I'm not a big fan of handling blades either due to just getting fingerprints all over them but it's really the only way to show off the hilts properly in the shots. Also if you're experienced you know how to handle a blade and grip it properly sharp or not. Especially if you have HEMA experience and or half-swording knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Jun 4, 2024 17:39:02 GMT
Second part is up, this part focuses on Sword Groups!
|
|
|
Post by bandeaurouge on Aug 11, 2024 1:19:59 GMT
The thing that I have always been miffed about is that when Oakeshott died, about a year later Rheinhardt and many others started denouncing his lifes work and tried making their own typology. Sure most places that we know for accuracy and quality like Albion never changed how they typed things.
But it really put me off of buying reproductions
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Aug 13, 2024 8:43:36 GMT
The thing that I have always been miffed about is that when Oakeshott died, about a year later Rheinhardt and many others started denouncing his lifes work and tried making their own typology. Sure most places that we know for accuracy and quality like Albion never changed how they typed things. But it really put me off of buying reproductions Yeah it is bit of a bummer but that is what typologies inherently are . ie never really definitive and it is highly subjective on it is usually based on shape rather that function. So two swords of the sam type can have very different handling characteristics. That being said, I think after the "integration" of Ada Bruhn-Hoffmeyer (http://myarmoury.com/feature_hoffmeyer.html) between "records of the medieval sword" and "the sword in the age of chivalry" it is good enough for gouvernement work. Now like all systems it has its limitations we have to live with a certain level of uncertainty. To be fair the same goes original sword reproductions, so may be comming from a sword angle rather than type and comparing the repro with the original and other repros rather that based whatever ever topology the vendor/reviewer describe the sword by might be a less painfull way to go about it. from a typology stand point The sword is 147 cm, the blade is 100 cm. This sword is 55 mm broad and 5 mm thick at the hilt, the tip if a hollow ground diamond section and is 4.5mm thick 2-3 cm from the actual tip. The fuller is very shallow and run up to 540mm from the hilt where the sword is 6.6 mm thick, there is continues as a flat ridge up to 74 cm where it becomes single ridge diamond section. ![blade-sweede-SBFcrop.jpeg](//storage.forums.net/1694914/thumbnailer/IwOqFeUAqtqihkjyUZJZ.png) ![Type VIIIc.jpg](//storage.forums.net/1694914/thumbnailer/NGMLAhsbOuo0eHpiTpsI.png) For Bruhn-Hoffmeyer, it is easy this is group IVc. For Oakeshott it could be argued that this is a Type XVa (V shaped tip the point)with a long handle , a pointy type XVIa (fuller + diamond section) , a long handled type XVIIIc (change of tappering angle to create the point). An argument could be made, that it is a Type XVIIIe because in "sword in the age of chivalry", the 5th sword from the right on the pic below is described as this type on page 73. ![Flat type VIIIe.jpg](//storage.forums.net/1694914/thumbnailer/x0hwUionzXIHURpXKbbT.png) Now since since the smith have the mesurements, the reprocution will be "true" to whatever type we think it is. On the reproduction front if we pick an original that is typed. If the sword is known, with a bit of research it is possible to find how close to the original the repo is. Phil
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
"Lord of the Memes"
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 10,124
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 13, 2024 9:38:39 GMT
I always understood the Oakeshott typology as a tool to describe a sword without having a picture. The basic type first and additional the deviations. The matching basic type is the one with the least deviations. Still it's possible to come to two or more different basic types. That's ok.
No real sword has to match this typology exactly and there's no need to have a type for each existing sword. Oakeshott isn't perfect and chanced some things between his two books about his typology. But it's the best accepted typology and I'm too lazy to learn another.
|
|
|
Post by bwaze on Aug 13, 2024 10:06:37 GMT
It's a bit hard to come with better classification rules, or even designate a sword into a type because collections - museums or private collectors - kind of regard public knowledge of detailed sword shape information as a danger!
I have heard numerous times that such information would make it really hard for museums and collectors of originals to separate between fakes and originals, since most of the time they have to decide if they should trust the seller just by examining the shape of the object, without analysis of materials.
That's why Oakeshott could write whole volumes about swords without giving a single sword thickness, weight, and some speculate that wildly inaccurate measurements from his book were also part of this "copyright" system. Peter Johnsson also talked about this in Matt Easton video about his "April Fool" sword fake:
Master sword maker Peter Johnsson talks with Matt Easton about medieval swords, studying them and making replicas, the fakes of them, and looking at swords as art
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Aug 13, 2024 14:04:47 GMT
I always understood the Oakeshott typology as a tool to describe a sword without having a picture. The basic type first and additional the deviations. The matching basic type is the one with the least deviations. Still it's possible to come to two or more different basic types. That's ok. No real sword has to match this typology exactly and there's no need to have a type for each existing sword. Oakeshott isn't perfect and chanced some things between his two books about his typology. But it's the best accepted typology and I'm too lazy to learn another. yeah and on top of that it was done before internet so resources sharing was much harder than it is now. as well museum are much more willing to share knowledge or even mesure swords now and it is much easier to travel to where swords are. like you i think that between Oakeshott and Ada Bruhn-Hoffmeyer it is more than enough. phil.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 13, 2024 16:57:04 GMT
Thanks guys, for the responses and discussion in the thread!
One of the big things I think is missed when people talk about this Typology is they are too focused on the blade portion of the typology and encompass that into actual sword typology. The primary focus of the Typology by Oakeshott has always to date and classify the swords based on timeframe and region of use. Certain blade types, hilt configurations and general stylization tended to be both a regional and more specifically timed situation regarding the medieval period. With the Typology it is less about classifying a sword by its blade type and more looking at the whole historical sword and using the typology to classify each individual sword as well as group of swords to understand them and how each was used and where or when they were used.
This is definitely the problem when it comes to classifying reproductions, because though fun, and to an extent it adds value to the replicas, it's really not what the Typology is meant for. The Typology primarily is meant for historical finds. Of course, the Typology helps us in the modern world understand these swords and specifically blade and hilt types. This in turn benefits the modern sword maker and allows them to replicate a more historical accurate example, which in turn benefits the buyer or enthusiast. But it does create issues in the modern enthusiast world because again when most replicas of medieval swords are made, they are made in equivalent or as replicas of specific historical swords found. So, then we have four or five manufactures or smiths replicating the same fine example of a 15th century sword (for example the Arbedo Sword) and rather than appreciate each replica as a replica respecting the original. We get a bunch of "fan-peoples" and makers/manufactures (sales driving profiteers) claiming plagiarism and copyright. when there is no specific copyright infringement because nearly all these swords are based on historical originals and use the examples in or of the Typology to be designed.
This further extenuates the whole fake swords and plagiarism argument. Again, we have to remember the Typology isn't meant to decipher a modern replica to a historical original. Its primarily meant to classify historical originals and give, again a general sense of when, where and how it was used or designed. The fact we place the Typology on modern reproductions shows the ideology that the Typology makes such replicas "more authentic" which again is a sales pitch from the more seasoned and historically focused sword makers like Peter Johnsson. For example, it was cool and unique and added "value" to his high-priced designs and swords 10 years ago, but now that everyone is doing including the budget production market its not cool anymore and plagiaristic....
So again, I feel the Typology is good for one specific reason and that reason is understanding the differences and design choices of the historical medieval sword maker when it comes to medieval swords. Either or I'd like to continue the series and appreciate this late interest in the thread but honestly both videos are sitting pretty low regarding view count (less than 200) so I'm assuming either nobody cares to watch them, or nobody is being allowed to watch them due to You Tube's stupid algorithms, so I'm probably not going to finish the series or even continue with the channel until I see some changes over at YouTube. I do have the blade typology episode in the editing room but again is it worth editing a detailed hour-long video for 10 hours for 40 views? Let me know, if there's enough interest in the thread and requests for me to post it I will, if not I'll just call my YouTube side adventure a bust and stay retired.
|
|
|
Post by blackngold on Aug 13, 2024 17:55:52 GMT
Either or I'd like to continue the series and appreciate this late interest in the thread but honestly both videos are sitting pretty low regarding view count (less than 200) so I'm assuming either nobody cares to watch them, or nobody is being allowed to watch them due to You Tube's stupid algorithms focusing on Woke and extreme left political viewpoints (Anti-weapons, anti-history, anti-white content creators), so I'm probably not going to finish the series or even continue with the channel until I see some changes over at YouTube. I do have the blade typology episode in the editing room but again is it worth editing a detailed hour-long video for 10 hours for 40 views? Let me know, if there's enough interest in the thread and requests for me to post it I will, if not I'll just call my YouTube side adventure a bust and stay retired. Sorry to hear about the problems with YouTube. For the most part, I thought the first two videos were quite well-reasoned explanations. I think it may be worth a brief mention of the Geibig Typology in the Group I blade typologies video, as it is an example of classification by blade geometry and function of the swords of the Migration era through the Viking Era that compliments the Petersen & Wheeler typologies, and also helps explain why Oakeshott started at X instead of I.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 13, 2024 18:06:08 GMT
Either or I'd like to continue the series and appreciate this late interest in the thread but honestly both videos are sitting pretty low regarding view count (less than 200) so I'm assuming either nobody cares to watch them, or nobody is being allowed to watch them due to You Tube's stupid algorithms focusing on Woke and extreme left political viewpoints (Anti-weapons, anti-history, anti-white content creators), so I'm probably not going to finish the series or even continue with the channel until I see some changes over at YouTube. I do have the blade typology episode in the editing room but again is it worth editing a detailed hour-long video for 10 hours for 40 views? Let me know, if there's enough interest in the thread and requests for me to post it I will, if not I'll just call my YouTube side adventure a bust and stay retired. Sorry to hear about the problems with YouTube. For the most part, I thought the first two videos were quite well-reasoned explanations. I think it may be worth a brief mention of the Geibig Typology in the Group I blade typologies video, as it is an example of classification by blade geometry and function of the swords of the Migration era through the Viking Era that compliments the Petersen & Wheeler typologies, and also helps explain why Oakeshott started at X instead of I. Eh is what is. Not too worried, I've always said I do the youtube thing for fun. And when it quits being fun I'm not doing it anymore lol. I was going to mention geibig but ommited his Typology due to it coming our after Oakeshott's and having no influence on it. Wheelers Typology is what Oakeshott followed Up on and is why he starts at 10 because Wheeler ends at 9.
|
|
|
Post by willaumep on Aug 14, 2024 10:46:04 GMT
Thanks guys, for the responses and discussion in the thread! One of the big things I think is missed when people talk about this Typology is they are too focused on the blade portion of the typology and encompass that into actual sword typology. The primary focus of the Typology by Oakeshott has always to date and classify the swords based on timeframe and region of use. Certain blade types, hilt configurations and general stylization tended to be both a regional and more specifically timed situation regarding the medieval period. With the Typology it is less about classifying a sword by its blade type and more looking at the whole historical sword and using the typology to classify each individual sword as well as group of swords to understand them and how each was used and where or when they were used. This is definitely the problem when it comes to classifying reproductions, because though fun, and to an extent it adds value to the replicas, it's really not what the Typology is meant for. The Typology primarily is meant for historical finds. Of course, the Typology helps us in the modern world understand these swords and specifically blade and hilt types. This in turn benefits the modern sword maker and allows them to replicate a more historical accurate example, which in turn benefits the buyer or enthusiast. But it does create issues in the modern enthusiast world because again when most replicas of medieval swords are made, they are made in equivalent or as replicas of specific historical swords found. So, then we have four or five manufactures or smiths replicating the same fine example of a 15th century sword (for example the Arbedo Sword) and rather than appreciate each replica as a replica respecting the original. We get a bunch of "fan-peoples" and makers/manufactures (sales driving profiteers) claiming plagiarism and copyright. when there is no specific copyright infringement because nearly all these swords are based on historical originals and use the examples in or of the Typology to be designed. This further extenuates the whole fake swords and plagiarism argument. Again, we have to remember the Typology isn't meant to decipher a modern replica to a historical original. Its primarily meant to classify historical originals and give, again a general sense of when, where and how it was used or designed. The fact we place the Typology on modern reproductions shows the ideology that the Typology makes such replicas "more authentic" which again is a sales pitch from the more seasoned and historically focused sword makers like Peter Johnsson. For example, it was cool and unique and added "value" to his high-priced designs and swords 10 years ago, but now that everyone is doing including the budget production market its not cool anymore and plagiaristic.... So again, I feel the Typology is good for one specific reason and that reason is understanding the differences and design choices of the historical medieval sword maker when it comes to medieval swords. Either or I'd like to continue the series and appreciate this late interest in the thread but honestly both videos are sitting pretty low regarding view count (less than 200) so I'm assuming either nobody cares to watch them, or nobody is being allowed to watch them due to You Tube's stupid algorithms focusing on Woke and extreme left political viewpoints (Anti-weapons, anti-history, anti-white content creators), so I'm probably not going to finish the series or even continue with the channel until I see some changes over at YouTube. I do have the blade typology episode in the editing room but again is it worth editing a detailed hour-long video for 10 hours for 40 views? Let me know, if there's enough interest in the thread and requests for me to post it I will, if not I'll just call my YouTube side adventure a bust and stay retired. Well i am interested yes :-). If anything I think it would help people realise that part of the typology we missed and where divergence can come from. i think typology is good because it enable us to understand what we are talking about. IE we can say the Cluny sword is a 1.15 kg type XV from the sword Familly M with a slender blade, with a large type H pommel, and an open S style 12 guard without having to write a 3 pages description. Now from a sword ordering point of view, going by typology alone is a bit like going only by case capacity for long range shooting. It may or may not produce the result we expect because there are other critical factor to be taken in account.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Aug 14, 2024 13:57:12 GMT
Thanks guys, for the responses and discussion in the thread! One of the big things I think is missed when people talk about this Typology is they are too focused on the blade portion of the typology and encompass that into actual sword typology. The primary focus of the Typology by Oakeshott has always to date and classify the swords based on timeframe and region of use. Certain blade types, hilt configurations and general stylization tended to be both a regional and more specifically timed situation regarding the medieval period. With the Typology it is less about classifying a sword by its blade type and more looking at the whole historical sword and using the typology to classify each individual sword as well as group of swords to understand them and how each was used and where or when they were used. This is definitely the problem when it comes to classifying reproductions, because though fun, and to an extent it adds value to the replicas, it's really not what the Typology is meant for. The Typology primarily is meant for historical finds. Of course, the Typology helps us in the modern world understand these swords and specifically blade and hilt types. This in turn benefits the modern sword maker and allows them to replicate a more historical accurate example, which in turn benefits the buyer or enthusiast. But it does create issues in the modern enthusiast world because again when most replicas of medieval swords are made, they are made in equivalent or as replicas of specific historical swords found. So, then we have four or five manufactures or smiths replicating the same fine example of a 15th century sword (for example the Arbedo Sword) and rather than appreciate each replica as a replica respecting the original. We get a bunch of "fan-peoples" and makers/manufactures (sales driving profiteers) claiming plagiarism and copyright. when there is no specific copyright infringement because nearly all these swords are based on historical originals and use the examples in or of the Typology to be designed. This further extenuates the whole fake swords and plagiarism argument. Again, we have to remember the Typology isn't meant to decipher a modern replica to a historical original. Its primarily meant to classify historical originals and give, again a general sense of when, where and how it was used or designed. The fact we place the Typology on modern reproductions shows the ideology that the Typology makes such replicas "more authentic" which again is a sales pitch from the more seasoned and historically focused sword makers like Peter Johnsson. For example, it was cool and unique and added "value" to his high-priced designs and swords 10 years ago, but now that everyone is doing including the budget production market its not cool anymore and plagiaristic.... So again, I feel the Typology is good for one specific reason and that reason is understanding the differences and design choices of the historical medieval sword maker when it comes to medieval swords. Either or I'd like to continue the series and appreciate this late interest in the thread but honestly both videos are sitting pretty low regarding view count (less than 200) so I'm assuming either nobody cares to watch them, or nobody is being allowed to watch them due to You Tube's stupid algorithms focusing on Woke and extreme left political viewpoints (Anti-weapons, anti-history, anti-white content creators), so I'm probably not going to finish the series or even continue with the channel until I see some changes over at YouTube. I do have the blade typology episode in the editing room but again is it worth editing a detailed hour-long video for 10 hours for 40 views? Let me know, if there's enough interest in the thread and requests for me to post it I will, if not I'll just call my YouTube side adventure a bust and stay retired. Well i am interested yes :-). If anything I think it would help people realise that part of the typology we missed and where divergence can come from. i think typology is good because it enable us to understand what we are talking about. IE we can say the Cluny sword is a 1.15 kg type XV from the sword Familly M with a slender blade, with a large type H pommel, and an open S style 12 guard without having to write a 3 pages description. Now from a sword ordering point of view, going by typology alone is a bit like going only by case capacity for long range shooting. It may or may not produce the result we expect because there are other critical factor to be taken in account. Ok sounds good, I'll work on the blade typology video this weekend and get it edited and ready. I too agree which is why I've always had a focus on the typology and a strong historical view point in my historical overviews in my reviews. Maybe a little extra attention will get the channel more traction. As a reviewer and sword enthusiast, I've always felt this portion had more significance than batting around water bottles and pool noodles but I guess people want to watch what they want to watch lol!
|
|