Swordology Ep.1 | What are Sword Typologies?

In a new series of blog posts, Florentine swordsmiths, Malleus Martialis, bring you:

Swordology

An introduction to sword classifications, sword anatomy and museum highlights to help you understand the world of swords so much better.

If you’ve always been intrigued by swords and wanted to know more about them, we’ll be bringing you all the details you’ve been craving. We’ll help you find out all there is to know about swords, provide insights into how to interact with them, “how tos” and much more. 

If you have heard names like Oakeshott or Peterson but always wondered what people mean when they talk about Type XVIII swords – don’t worry. Our first Swordology post will enlighten you about sword types and classifications so you’ll never feel unenlightened again. 

Sword Typologies and Classification

What are sword typologies and why do they need to be used?

Typology is a system of dividing swords into groups based on the aesthetic and functional attributes they share. However, it’s important to state first that classifications are not universal, they’re created in a more organic way.

When looking at a sword to decide on its classification, we rely upon different definitions left by several scholars. Ewart Oakeshott, Elis Behmer and Alfred Geibig, to name merely a few, all used different systems to recognize groupings, types or styles through the centuries and these act as a reference point for a sword’s classification.

Despite the difficulties arising from the process, typology remains an extremely important process, which allows swordsmiths and researchers to define a sword and categorize it in as precise a way as possible.

The way of presenting a sword’s type, through the shared method, is to use the name of the scholar, followed by the type of the blade and/or hilt parts.

To show you what we mean, let’s use the classification:

Oakeshott Type XV with a style 8 curved guard and a J1 pommel. 

With that definition in mind, we find it is our very own Belladama that is being described.

Sword Typologies

By using the sword typologies we have a way of categorising swords without the need for long explanations all the time. But it is important to note that typologies are artificial constructs that are often imperfect and are not to be taken as absolutes.

There are exceptions among artefacts that are hard to categorise as they don’t fit into standard typologies. As a result, this doesn’t make these artefacts “wrong”, but unique.

While we have several sources to refer to when discerning a sword’s typology, this process can be harder to determine with historic weapons.

It might seem easy to describe a sword based on its anatomy, but factors such as its adaption for warfare, trade and fashion can potentially obscure its original form. This makes the dating of a weapon’s manufacture, use and retirement problematic or even unreliable.

By using sword typologies, we can also recreate swords that are in certain parameters in a given time without reproducing an extant piece.

We can make educated guesses about what a specific configuration would have looked like and opt for certain properties and functionality depending on the intended use. We can do this whilst maintaining important parameters like ratio, point of balance, and weight close to extant examples.

What sword typologies are the most important to know?

Some of the most famous and widely used typologies for swords are listed here:

• Petersen – typology of the Viking sword, introduced in 1919 and simplified by Wheeler in 1927
• Oakeshott – categorises European swords of the Middle Ages to the Industrial Age, introduced in 1960
• Behmer – late antiquity to early Middle ages, only concentrates on the hilts, introduced in 1939
• Geibig – Viking blade types, 1991
• Elmslie – focuses on single-edged blades, 10th – 16th century, 2015
• Norman – only analyses the hilts, from the Rapier to the Small-sword, 1460-1820, 1980

Why should we still look at originals when we have sword typologies?

Besides original swords being awesome, as stated before, typologies are no absolutes, they need to be updated or extended when new artefacts are found. Also, some typologies describe forms from a certain time period for which we have no physical proof and written records can only go so far in describing a physical item. It’s important to cross-reference typologies on paper with original swords to accurately define a new weapon’s category.

What should we look for when inspecting original swords?

Original swords hold a myriad of clues to the expert eye. On them, we find details which allow us to link original swords to new models. And when inspecting the originals we try to ask ourselves the following questions:

• What makes a sword special?
• Why was a sword built a certain way and how was it made?

Besides being a weapon, we also look at swords as pieces of art, with their different and sometimes unique styles, and we try to incorporate them into our works. Also, we collect the data not provided in the typologies: weight and point of balance, for example, that is essential to our craft.

What classifications are we mostly using at Malleus Martialis?

Here at Malleus, we mostly use Oakeshott and Elmslie for medieval swords and Norman for Renaissance swords. The typologies of Oakeshott and Elmslie are mostly covering the medieval sword types, Norman focuses on the later swords with an emphasis more on the hilts than on the blades themselves.

Knowledge is power – if you’d like to deepen your knowledge of sword typography you can invest in some books. 

To find out more detailed information, we recommend reading:

• Behmer, Elis / Meyer, E. A. (Übers.): Das zweischneidige Schwert der germanischen Völkerwanderungszeit. Stockholm, Svea, 1939.
• Geibig, Alfred: Beiträge zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter : eine Analyse des Fundmaterials vom ausgehenden 8. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert aus Sammlungen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Neumünster: K. Wachholtz, 1991.
• Grotkamp-Schepers, Barbara / Immel, Isabell / Johnsson, Peter / Wetzler, Sixt. Das Schwert – Gestalt und Gedanke : Ausstellung 26. SEP 2015-28. FEB 2016. Solingen: Deutsches Klingenmuseum, 2015.
• Norman, A. Vesey Bethune, and C.M Barne: The Rapier and Small-Sword : 1460-1820. London [etc: Arms and Armour Press [etc.], 1980.
• Oakeshott, Ewart: Records of the Medieval Sword. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1991.
• Oakeshott, Ewart: European Weapons and Armour : from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution. Guilford ; London: Lutterworth Press, 1980.
• Petersen, Jan: De norske vikingesverd : en typologisk-kronologisk studie over vikingetidens vaaben. Kristiania: i komm. hos J. Dybwad, 1919.
• Pierce, Ian G.: Swords of the Viking Age. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002.
• Tzouriadis, Iason- Eleftherios: “What is the Riddle of Steel?”: Problems of Classification and Terminology in the Study of Late Medieval Swords: Deutscher, Lisa, Sixt Wetzler, and Mirjam Kaiser. The Sword  : Form and Thought : Proceedings of the Second
• Sword Conference 19/20 November 2015 Deutsches Klingenmuseum Solingen Woodbridge, UK ;: The Boydell Press, 2019, p. 3-11.
• Wheeler, Robert Eric Mortimer: London and the Vikings. London: Lancaster House, 1927.

Tell us what you loved about our first Swordology post.
Share this post with other sword enthusiasts and let them know about sword classifications!
Next time, we will take a closer look at Oakeshott and his sword classification.

See you next time!