Posts: 556 Location: Central PA
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 6:23 am
| Russ Ellis wrote: |
Dratted parallel threads... :)
The Sture has a long blade (46 inches) +1
|
Um, dude...
Hate to break it to you, but 33 inches is NOT a long blade. Not as long as the typical XVIIIe (think 41 to 43 inches).
In fact, many single-handers have a blade longer than the Sture's...
So, your total is actually 0. Sorry :p
Also, when taken in context of the examples Oakeshott cites, the Sture is also too broad... an XVIIIe could sort of be thought of as an XVIIIb blade preceeded by a long ricasso.
The Sture is an awesome sword, no doubt about that. But I think trying to pigeonhole it into an Oakeshott sub-type is both impossible and pointless. It's too broad to be an XVIIIb, too short and broad to be an XVIIIe, doesn't taper enough to be an XVIIIa, and the diamond cross-section prevents it from being a XX...
Can't we all just simply agree that it is a cool sword and leave it at that?
Or, those who are well-versed could answer the following questions:
1) Is this more of a cutter? Or a thruster?
2) Why is the blade so short, and does that create problems when facing an opponent fighting with a longer blade, like an XVIIIb?
3) Taking into account profile, ricasso, cross-section, and length, are there other swords like the Sture in the archaeological record?
4) If so, what region were they from?
5) What fighting styles were popular in that region?
6) How would the Sture sword have performed in the popular fighting styles?
These are valid questions and can provide more insight into the sword than trying to pigeonhole it into an Oakeshott type.
Posts: 556 Location: Central PA
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 9:05 am
| Russ Ellis wrote: |
Well I suppose again it's all relative compared to a sword with a 26 inch blade a sword with a 33 inch blade is pretty long. However for the sake of arguement assume you are right and we have a zero and zero by the metrics that I pulled from the descriptions. In that case is it a coin flip between which type it is? Not really, the narrowed ricasso alone precludes it from being an XVIIIb.
The other questions you bring up are of course noteworthy however if they were all answered and I didn't have a picture of the sword how would I describe it to you? I could bang out a bunch of dimensions and if you've got the ability to be good at mental imagery you might be able to piece it together. However if I tell you it's an XVIIIe with a short ricasso a T type pommel and a type 12 guard you would instantly have an idea of what the sword looks like. If I tell you it's an XVIIIb your mental image would be totally wrong. That's all the typologies are really for, and they are a fascinating exercise in their own right. |
Take into consideration swords like ATrim's Swedish Longsword. While the flare isn't very noticeable, it does have one, nonetheless. Last I heard, the category it fit best in was XVIIIb, as it is long and slender, with a long grip, and a flattened-diamond cross-section. A small ricasso doesn't completely rule out the sub-type...
I suppose I see your point about the typologies, though. Yeah, it does make explaining the appearance of a sword easier, assuming the person I'm speaking to is equally well-versed.
The best way I can describe the Sture sword:
"33-inch-long, evenly-tapering blade roughly like that of an XVIIIa, but with a short, narrow ricasso. The grip is very long, with a faceted scent-stopper pommel and a pair of short, deep-S-curve quillons."
To me, the profile taper and the breadth of the blade are what prevent me from classifying it as an XVIIIb, which I've always viewed as slender, and evenly-tapering to the point. The final taper to the point on the Sture sword is much more dramatic than what seems to be typical in the XVIIIb subtype.
At best, the typologies are a measure of TREND, like a small collection of set points on a curve... there are unlabeled and unclassified points between those set points, but those set points help give us context to help us determine the strengths and weaknesses of a blade pattern.
Using the AT-1434 as an example, I can say it looks like a 2-handed grete sverde version of Moonbrand, a quad-fullered XIV. The AT-1434 clearly doesn't fit into the XIV type-- but it doesn't fit the XIIa or XIIIa subtypes either. I used the type XIV as a point of reference to help me effectively describe a massive, two-handed war sword.
If my other post came across as trying to prove the Oakeshott types meaningless, then you have my apologies, as that was not my intent. However, I still think it is a waste of time to try to assign an Oakeshott type to the Sture sword... but that doesn't mean we can't use the established types to help determine where, in the evolution of the sword, the Sture sword fits. That it tapers like some XVIIIa's is significant. That it flares after the ricasso like an XVIIIe is significant. But the fact that said ricasso is much, much shorter than the typical XVIIIe is also significant.
Posts: 11,553 Location: San Francisco
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 10:10 am
| Russ Ellis wrote: |
| Not really, the narrowed ricasso alone precludes it from being an XVIIIb. |
Well, this is again a good example why this whole thing is flawed.
If the ricasso alone precludes it from being a XVIIIb, then the lack of a downturned cross and pear-shaped pommel precludes it from being a XVIIIe.
This is pointless. The Svante doesn't neatly fit into any category. So be it.
The point of this topic:
Find me a sword that neatly fits in the XVIIIe sub-Type.
For that matter, find me a XVIIIc, too.
Thanks.
Posts: 2,608
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 10:26 am
| Jeremiah Swanger wrote: |
| Russ Ellis wrote: |
Well I suppose again it's all relative compared to a sword with a 26 inch blade a sword with a 33 inch blade is pretty long. However for the sake of arguement assume you are right and we have a zero and zero by the metrics that I pulled from the descriptions. In that case is it a coin flip between which type it is? Not really, the narrowed ricasso alone precludes it from being an XVIIIb.
The other questions you bring up are of course noteworthy however if they were all answered and I didn't have a picture of the sword how would I describe it to you? I could bang out a bunch of dimensions and if you've got the ability to be good at mental imagery you might be able to piece it together. However if I tell you it's an XVIIIe with a short ricasso a T type pommel and a type 12 guard you would instantly have an idea of what the sword looks like. If I tell you it's an XVIIIb your mental image would be totally wrong. That's all the typologies are really for, and they are a fascinating exercise in their own right. |
Take into consideration swords like ATrim's Swedish Longsword. While the flare isn't very noticeable, it does have one, nonetheless. Last I heard, the category it fit best in was XVIIIb, as it is long and slender, with a long grip, and a flattened-diamond cross-section. A small ricasso doesn't completely rule out the sub-type...
I suppose I see your point about the typologies, though. Yeah, it does make explaining the appearance of a sword easier, assuming the person I'm speaking to is equally well-versed.
The best way I can describe the Sture sword:
"33-inch-long, evenly-tapering blade roughly like that of an XVIIIa, but with a short, narrow ricasso. The grip is very long, with a faceted scent-stopper pommel and a pair of short, deep-S-curve quillons."
To me, the profile taper and the breadth of the blade are what prevent me from classifying it as an XVIIIb, which I've always viewed as slender, and evenly-tapering to the point. The final taper to the point on the Sture sword is much more dramatic than what seems to be typical in the XVIIIb subtype.
At best, the typologies are a measure of TREND, like a small collection of set points on a curve... there are unlabeled and unclassified points between those set points, but those set points help give us context to help us determine the strengths and weaknesses of a blade pattern.
Using the AT-1434 as an example, I can say it looks like a 2-handed grete sverde version of Moonbrand, a quad-fullered XIV. The AT-1434 clearly doesn't fit into the XIV type-- but it doesn't fit the XIIa or XIIIa subtypes either. I used the type XIV as a point of reference to help me effectively describe a massive, two-handed war sword.
If my other post came across as trying to prove the Oakeshott types meaningless, then you have my apologies, as that was not my intent. However, I still think it is a waste of time to try to assign an Oakeshott type to the Sture sword... but that doesn't mean we can't use the established types to help determine where, in the evolution of the sword, the Sture sword fits. That it tapers like some XVIIIa's is significant. That it flares after the ricasso like an XVIIIe is significant. But the fact that said ricasso is much, much shorter than the typical XVIIIe is also significant. |
:) No apology required, you have a valid viewpoint and you make your point without getting personal or anything of the sort.
Posts: 2,608
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 10:32 am
| Nathan Robinson wrote: |
| Russ Ellis wrote: | | Not really, the narrowed ricasso alone precludes it from being an XVIIIb. |
Well, this is again a good example why this whole thing is flawed.
If the ricasso alone precludes it from being a XVIIIb, then the lack of a downturned cross and pear-shaped pommel precludes it from being a XVIIIe.
This is pointless. The Svante doesn't neatly fit into any category. So be it.
The point of this topic:
Find me a sword that neatly fits in the XVIIIe sub-Type.
For that matter, find me a XVIIIc, too.
Thanks. |
I know that was the original point, but the discussion has moved a bit beyond that really? It's better to have the discussion of the ins and outs of typology here rather then in the manufacturers forum I would guess. According to the letter of the law as laid out in the descriptions you are correct with your point above about the pear shaped pommel and the cross. However adding to your arguement that the editing of Oakeshott's books is rather poor I would point out that the ricasso is a feature of the blade and hence a part of blade typology where pommel and cross have little to do with the blade and in fact have their own typologies. If I'm not mistaken in other places Oakeshott also mentions that pommel and cross should never be used to classify the blade type. I'm not sure why he does so here. I wish I was able to constructively help you with pictures but unfortunately I have none of the types you need. As for pointless... well I've enjoyed it... :)
Posts: 2,160 Location: New Hampshire
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 10:34 am
Type XVIII C, D, E
[ Linked Image ]
* Artwork/classification by Peter Johnsson
Posts: 4,393 Location: Northern California
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 10:43 am
So what are the defining characteristics of an XVIIId? Is it the simple compound hilt, the grip length? What is it about the
blade geometry that differentiates it from a slender XVIII?
Posts: 11,553 Location: San Francisco
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 10:43 am
| Russ Ellis wrote: |
| As for pointless... well I've enjoyed it... :) |
Good point! haha
Posts: 556 Location: Central PA
Tue 30 Nov, 2004 4:06 pm
| Thomas McDonald wrote: |
Type XVIII C, D, E
[ Linked Image ]
* Artwork/classification by Peter Johnsson |
:lol:
As I said, Nathan-- set points on a trend curve. Many swords fall between the points... some hit them right on the dot. :)
Thanks to Mac, I now finally know what XVIIIc and d look like! :D
*does the happy dance*
Posts: 395
Thu 16 Dec, 2004 3:22 pm
Hi, I'm the new guy from Albion, Brett. I Just thought I'd ask, what's better than typologies? Well that would be actually swinging a Svante prototype around like I have!!!!! Hahahahahahaha..... :lol: !.
Typologies aside, performance wise this sword is an incomparable thrusting sword. This sword is THICK. Though hollow ground the reinforcement of that, dare I say it again, thick stiff spine all the way to the tip makes this an anti-plate armour weapon. As well I would imagine it would have no issues in cutting. After handling it in person I can see Peter's deep infatuation with this very unique and, in a good way, peculiar sword. It's, in a word, extreme. My impression was the welding of a sword to a polearm. I think I would feel this less if it weren't for the very rigid nature of the Svante IMO. Regardless of that, it's a sword you can spend some time just looking it over. Experiencing the "enginering" of this fine and impressive sword.
It's really in a class by itself from my experience. I've not encountered anything like it in 15+ years of looking at, reading about, buying , playing and goofing with swords. It's been a good experience watching this sword develop into a semi-custom production piece.
Posts: 1,422 Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Mon 20 Dec, 2004 8:56 am
Type XVIII and its substypes
Hello All
Sorry I did not catch this sooner. I have been really busy trying to catch up on orders and such and have had less surfing time in my schedule :cool:
You have all pointed out an excellent example of where the typology put down in SAC (first published in 64, Forty years ago now) and RMS (published 1991, 13 years ago) and Ewart's other works are not in accord. Why? In his own words, "swords are to complex to cleanly categorize". He was constantly revising and adjusting details and parts of the way he looked at swords. In fact the very issue that is being addressed here is one that he felt strongly about and is probably the most overlooked aspect of his typology. Sword families. These are groups of swords that relate and can be included in a distinct stylistic group. This is not a type but a look at the whole sword and its relations to other pieces. Here is a bit from Ewart's comments in the Appendix to the 94 reprint of SAC
?These facts reinforce and stabilize the belief that while medieval swords were not made to patterns in any ?Regulation? manner, they did fall into clearly defined ?families?. These ?families? may cut across the Types_ the swords referred to above are a case in point, some being of Type XV and some of Type XVIII-but remain quite distinct as a family group. It might be tempting to use these families for typing, but it will not work: they have to be accommodated within and as apart of the present typology.?p139
This is the great strength of Ewart?s Typology. It allows definition of parts clearly and also the ability to cross reference art, period, style, and use to create families that are clear and distinct.
Thus I believe the Type XVIIIe issue here maybe more correctly looked at as the Danish Two Hander long bound grip family some with Type XVIIIe blades and another family the ?Sture Family?, which would include the Sture Sword as well as swords like XX.4 from RMS seems to be a very distinct group that can de identified.
This creates the ability to paint a finer picture of any sword one is describing but of course makes the boundaries overlap some. This was by design. The points on the curve analogy is correct but I prefer to use the visual of bubbles. The types are each a sphere that can intersect with other spheres were the blades transition from one to another. It gets a little messy at some points but that is reality in a real way.
Hope this helps and does not confuse too much.
Happy Holidays all
Craig
You
cannot post new topics in this forum
You
cannot reply to topics in this forum
You
cannot edit your posts in this forum
You
cannot delete your posts in this forum
You
cannot vote in polls in this forum
You
cannot attach files in this forum
You
can download files in this forum