Quality Side Swords and other weapons?

[James Brazas]

Interesting. So a Type XIX like the Albion Doge is considered a sidesword?

I was under the impression that a sidesword would have a more pronounced taper, something like a long Type XV. Am I wrong?

[Steven Reich]

Interesting. So a Type XIX like the Albion Doge is considered a sidesword?

I was under the impression that a sidesword would have a more pronounced taper, something like a long Type XV. Am I wrong?

Since "sidesword" is a modern term, I guess it's really whatever we define it to be. However, the general WMA usage seems to mean a cut and thrust type sword as used in 16th century sources with an implication that it has a complex hilt (i.e. more than just the cross).

If you look at the plates of 16th century Italian sources, you see a wide variety of blades and hilts with blades ranging from short and broad to longer and thinner, along with varieties in between. For example, look at Marozzo, Agrippa, Viggiani to get an idea of the variety.

Steve

[James Brazas]

Interesting. Are there particular Oakeshott types more frequently used for sideswords?

[James Brazas]

Thread necromancy for a quick question:

I've been looking at the Albion Machiavelli as my cut-and-thrust/sidesword sharp. I really like the way it looks, though I have yet to handle it. Does anyone have any experience with the handling characteristics?

Would the Machiavelli work well for sidesword, say, with the teachings of Di Grassi, Manciolino, or Marrozzo?

I understand that as a Type XIX it might have more blade presence than Di Grassi would have preferred.

Personally, I like the idea of a cut-and-thrust sword that can perform well in either category - though I get the impression that thrusting is slightly preferred.

What do y'all think? Is the Machiavelli a good choice or should I look for something else?

On a related issue, would a Type XIX do a decent job getting into the gaps of armor?

[Stacy Clifford]

I've only handled a Machiavelli briefly, but as I recall, the blade was livelier than I expected considering it doesn't taper very much and the tip seemed quite agile. I think it would work just fine for Di Grassi if you are properly aggressive and keep your distance close as he describes. Personally I might prefer a longer blade for that much thrusting, but Di Grassi was a military man and states that his instruction should work for any sort of sword invented before or in time to come (which I mostly agree with), so I think the old master would encourage you to try it with any blade that would have been available to him in his own day such as that one.

[James Brazas]

That's good to hear! I like the Machiavelli, so I'm glad it would work with Di Grassi's system.

Would I be at a disadvantage with speed with the Machiavelli relative to thinner, longer blades? I'm fine with a reach disadvantage of a few inches in light of the much greater cutting power the Machiavelli has. But a speed or nimbleness disadvantage could be troublesome.

Also, I'm much more familiar with the earlier Oakeshott Types. Would the Type XIX handle a lot like a XIV, XVI, or XVIII?

Thanks for your help!

[James Brazas]

I just talked with the folks at Albion. They said that the Machiavelli would work well for Sidesword and would be quite quick and nimble. They said it would feel roughly similar to a Type XV (fingering the guard probably helps with that).

However, their representative said he hadn't tested how well it thrusted. Since I'm thinking of getting a Machiavelli for Sidesword (starting off with di Grassi), I would want to be sure it's a good thrusting sword.

Does anyone know how well a Type XIX like the Machiavelli or Doge would thrust? Judging based on blade shape, I'm guessing it would thrust about as well as a Type XIV. Am I right?

[LafayetteCCurtis]

At least as well, yes. Personally I'd expect its thrusting performance to be a bit like the Oakeshott (the type Xa with a deeply hollow-ground blade that looked like it was centuries ahead of its time), except that the weight will be much closer to the hand due to the presence of the heavy complex hilt (in relative terms compared to the simple cross of earlier swords, that is).

[James Brazas]

That's good to hear. If it's at least as good as a Type XIV at thrusting, then it would probably be an acceptable thruster even in fully armored combat. Though it's probably still best as a cutter against lesser armored foes.

Would you know how it would rate relative to the Type XVI or XVII? I'm guessing it would be between the XIV and XVI in thrusting ability.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I don't think it's really possible (or useful) to generalise by Oakeshott type in this respect. Some XVIs are quite flat except for the few inches immediately before the point, and some even have flat hexagonal cross-sections very similar to XIXs; on the other hand, a few XIVs have stout points with flattened diamond cross-sections. Not to mention the undoubtedly many swords that skirt the dividing line between XIV and XVI.

Personally I find the XIX in general to be a late-medieval reincarnation of Type XII. It's probably a little stiffer and would thrust a little better, but the focus remains on cutting ability against unarmoured or lightly=protected foes.

[James Brazas]

OK. So Type XIX is basically a stiffer XII that can thrust better. That makes sense.

It sounds like it would thrust better on average than Types X through XIV, but probably not as well as a XV, XVII, or XVIII.

So a great cutter and a mid-rank thruster, correct?

Thanks for your help, by the way.

[LafayetteCCurtis]

I still wouldn't generalise that far. While the type XIX is a relatively uniform type--unusually so for medieval swords--the other types can and do vary widely in design and performance. Even in type X there was a pronounced difference between nimble cut-and-thrust examples like the sharply tapered River Witham LEUTFRIT sword and less nimble examples with longer, more parallel-sided blades. To get any meaningful comparison you'd have to pick individual examples rather than whole types spanning multiple centuries and sword families.

[James Brazas]

OK. That makes sense. I understand that there is plenty of variety even within Oakeshott Types.

I'm just trying to find some way to gauge the effectiveness of various swords for cutting, thrusting, etc. without having to spend the money on buying them all and doing test cutting/thrusting myself.

For some very popular models like the Albion Talhoffer, Regent, etc., there are plenty of detailed reviews explaining both their handling and their performance against various targets.

There just isn't that kind of material for the less popular models - whether by Albion, A&A or others.

So the most I can really do is either try to find someone who has the model in question (difficult to do) or try to find semi-accurate generalities about blade types.

[James Brazas]

There may soon be more quality sideswords on the market.

News from Albion:

The Marozzo (sidesword blunt) is supposed to be available for purchase by1st quarter 2013 or maybe even by the end of the year. From what I gathered, it isn't anywhere near as "whippy" as the earlier prototype version.

An Albion Next Gen sharp sidesword with a hilt like the Marozzo is in planning and they hope to have one ready for purchase sometime in 2013.

They said the Next Gen sidesword will be a true cut-and-thrust. The blade design is still in the works, but it should be able to perform both quite well.

Albion also said that they should have the Maestro line and Next Gen rapier out sometime in the near future as well.