Ewart Oakeshott was a pioneer, as he took a more functional approach to swords. Before him, swords were usually categorized by their hilts and decor styles, i.e. the view of an art historian. The history of swords is a science, and all science is subject to change as new facts and new data are found (it would cease to be science otherwise). I think Oakeshott wouldn't have minded if the scholars of today corrected and expanded on his findings.
The first major comprehensive work on any historical subject will always be subject to revision by later historians. It's simply because that work serves as a "jumping off point" for other historians who can give detailed attention to one or a few of the topics covered by the comprehensive work. Randy Steffan's book on U. S. military saddles comes to mind. Some of his assumptions/identifications have since been proven to be erroneous but in total it's still a remarkable achievement and mostly right. Perhaps more importantly, Oakeshott and Steffan established systems for classifying artifacts based upon their features and functions, bringing some order out of chaos and order is always helpful for studying history.
Absolutely, Björn. He always said the typology was a work in progress and would need to adjust and grow. He always talked of it as being like overlapping bubbles more than distinct boxes with finite borders.
Anything put to paper that isn't totally fiction, must face the fact that obsolescence is always creeping closer. One unfortunate aspect of our publishing model, is that its very hard to update an important reference work like that, even if it were in digital form.
Definitely cause a scholar's highest goal is reaching the truth and shouldnt be mired by personal egos of individuals vanity when one of their theories or statements is later proven to be false because the theories and statements should allways be taken with a grain of salt and be seen more like educated guesses based on data provided atthe time which of course when later may be increased in bulk and detail consequently giving a diferent theory more credibility .Then again even scientists are humans and human condition may slip such foibles like vanity or pride in the composition of one's character though the serious academic scholar allways tries rise above them and i bet Ewart Oakenshott would fall in that category given his body of work
Museum websites also have misreported dimensions, etc, which by all means should be far more readily updatable than books by deceased (and brilliant) authors.
Iv noticed huge problem with misreported artefact materials on museum websites/articles. Is it silver or tin or lead, copper or brass. Huge portion if descriptions only mention that artefact is made of metal.....arghh... It makes hands off research so difficult.
Love your channel sir, you present a great content specially that am intrested in middle eastern arms and armour coz i come from lebanon, keep up the great work
Oakeshott himself mentioned on more than occasion that museum curators were reluctant to recognize and correct errors made in the original description.
I would love to run a Kickstarter / Crowdfunder to produce a "Revised Records" which covers as many of the swords as possible, gets publication rights with high-quality photography, and would have every item properly documented with dimensions, weights, up-to-date catalogue numbers, etc.
@@scholagladiatoria or nightmares when its gets funded, and you realised now you're going to have to find some of the bastard things. also, with regard to the caution, someday, you should probably do a follow-up about XIII.4, (RMS P.97) which was listed as 33"/83.8cm - and when it returned to the antiques market about a decade ago was indeed 83.8cm long.... and when xrayed, the weld line clearly showed where nearly 15cm of blade had been grafted onto the end to make it the length it was listed in the books.
@@j.g.elmslie9901 The description being an error makes sense. Looking at Oakeshott's description and comparing it to the others, the measurements don't add up to the illustration. If correct the sword would have been of wonderous cumbersome size!
Hundreds of year from now, future enthusiasts trying to study and reconstruct _Historical HEMA_ (HHEMA, or H²EMA) will sternly admonish newcomers: _"We mustn't always treat the official RU-vid manuals, such as Matt Easton's, as gospel. Sometimes the author left some details to_ ｃｏｎｔｅｘｔ, _as was the custom in those savage times."_
Mornin Matt Good video. The critiques you point out are very valid. You also highlight some of the reasons why the scholar should be careful in making sure their sources are confirmed. I would suggest doing this even for museums. When the detailed specs of items are cataloged it can sometimes get messed up. Everything from typos to outright mixing up of items. In the case of records this is even more so and much of it has to do with the assumptions of readers about this volume. It was published with the idea of "interesting swords I have known" and Ewart had seen many of the most interesting pieces of his day. The notes on the manuscript show that in some cases he was trying to recall a sword from 30 or even 40 years before. While others had been in his hand briefly maybe a decade before. Others like Moonbrand had been in his hand almost daily from when he first purchased the sword. A crucial factor to keep in mind is at the time when Sword in the Age of Chivalry and his other earlier books where being written it was a time when even the study of arms and armor was questioned in some circles of academia. Today we live in a golden age of detailed info on these objects. Literally even 25 years ago you and I would be unable to even do what we do in this area of scholarship. :-) In that environment even publishing ol lengths was basically left to museum catalogs of which there where very few. Main point here is thinking of Records as Ewart's memory of great and influential swords in his Typology and as an addition to his other work.
Regarding museums: just the other day I caught an error in the anthropology museum here in Leiden (Volkenkunde) where an Aceh saber / peudeung was erroneously classified as Indian (probably confused with an Indian basket hilt). A year ago I would not have realized that. Always double check your sources when it's important!
I started following this channel and Tod because of smashy slashy sword-fun and I have unexpectedly learned so much about method, history, research, and, of course, context. Thanks for your diligence, Matt.
Thank you, Mr. Easton, for following up on his work as a student of his and as a researcher who honors Mr Oakshott by advancing from what he published rather than resting upon it.
Great video, Matt! I particularly admired your ability to appreciate that evidence of an author's fallibility is not the sole measure of their value as a contributor to a field of study. I'd also like to point out that there are actually three major errors on that page; he has the blade length as " 32 1/2" (81.9cms)" when 32.5 inches is actually 82.55cm. Coincidentally, your original 85.1cm is within 3-4 thousandths of an inch of being exactly 1" longer than his stated imperial blade length; make of that what you will.
Besides possible issues of memory and note taking, it's also possible in some instances that Oakeshott simply made a writing/editing mistake, and more than likely his editor(s) either trusted him enough not to fact check (which would likely be difficult anyway) or didn't know enough about swords to even question anything.
If you are the world authority on a subject, who will be able to spot an error? Without doing the exact same research, it's almost impossible in many cases.
That seems quite possible, as it comes out as almost exactly thirty two and a quarter inches, certainly close enough that one would, when converting from metric to imperial, convert thirty two and a quarter inches to eight hundred and nineteen millimetres. It's annoyingly common to find the false appearance of precision when approximate measurements - be they to the nearest quarter inch or to the nearest ten yards - are converted to metric. An example would be from the wikipedia page on the Brusilov offensive, which has "The Russians secretly sapped trenches, and in some places tunnelled, to within 91 m (100 yd) of the Austrian lines and at some points as close as 69 m (75 yd)". If that was quoted as just the metric measurements of 91m and 69m, it would suggest an awful lot more precision than was actually the case.
@@MtRevDr Not necessarily. If it was an error of arithmetic during unit conversion, there's no reason it would occur consistently at all, or even more than once at all. It could well just be misread notes or data getting confused between two swords, of course. One can get a false sense of precision from conversions, where number of significant figures suggests greater accuracy of measurement that was actually done, and that could be why there's a .9 there, but it can't explain the approx 3cm difference between the correct measurement and that published. If the swords were measured, however, to the nearest quarter inch and then converted to metric measurements, that will show up as the metric measures will correspond to a quarter inches when converted back. It would interesting to see if this is the case for other measures in the book.
@Socucius Ergalla The point is that the use of round numbers like 100 and 75 in this case, in the given context, makes it clear that these are approximate estimates, accurate to the nearest five or ten yards, whereas 91 and 69 implies that these are accurate at least to the nearest meter.
@@MtRevDr People do make the odd calculation mistakes without noticing, especially if you are converting them into units you are not familiar with. So it doesn't necessarily apply to all the displays in his book.
This is the sort of thing where the modern era comes in useful. Books are always updated in case they are wrong, but that only lasts as long as the author stays alive. These days we ought to have entire online repositories of data consisting of measurements of historical items, kept and maintained by organizations. That way, even if there was a mistake someone ought to be able to correct the description of the item, and since most scholars would have access to the database there ought to be a never-ending succession of historians willing to look out for errors and correct them. Even when it comes to books these days, all books should have online copies that the authors can update directly which then filters naturally to all other researchers.
Not really a surprise, people make mistakes but it prompted another question in my mind. Did weaponsmiths working by hand, have a target length of the blade in mind and how close did they hit it, and how big were the variations from that target or is that information that we do not have. A related question, what would you consider an acceptable deviation for a modern replica?
@@Meevious I think I remember videos on making replicas and showing the originals for comparison. Without seeing the originals, I would have thought the "wobbliness" was unintentional. But like you wrote, consumers, even the super rich knights had slightly different aesthetics than we do.
The title reminded me of a little gem of early youtube. A Cautionary Tale of Swords. And the idea of bald Matt Easton eventually becoming luxuriously coiffed Trip Fisk is funny to me.
Mediaeval people actually seem to have been highly conscious of the topological similarity between swords and scabbards and the unmentionables (e.g., in song).
Ewart owned an Atrim. He said those were the closest thing to what they had in regards to weight and balance back when. I'm happy and glad I own one too. Atrims stuff has already gone up in price now closer to Albion's prices and when he does retire, they'll be real treasures. I'll never sell mine. Too amazing.
Picture got switched during editing/typesetting, text and drawing describe one sword, picture shows another. Hence why so many things don't match at once.
I think is the swap to metric, much of the original work would of likely been done in imperial and then rounded to the 1⁄10, later given the lazy X2.5 and we have the inaccuracy.
At 11:00, that's why you should always use pencil, so that you don't have to "scratch" things out!😁 The one Oakeshott book I own is the Archeology of Weapons, and I do love it. However, I wish that I had never read the part where he talks about rain-guards on scabbards not really being a thing after the 1440s. Well, I had rain-guards included on my sword's scabbard, but I regret it now because my sword is almost certainly based on a post-1440s sword! I know, First World problems!...
These things always remind me of the expression, "Even monkeys fall from trees." I think it's more descriptive than the classic, "everyone makes mistakes", or "no one's perfect."
There may well be a bad rounding from imperial to metric in his numbers, he was in his late 50's when the uk started metrication, so an old record and a rule of thumb convert might be the route of much inaccuracy.
I have a soft spot for Oakeshott, in 1969 I passed S level history, in part with an essay based on my recollection of his account of the Battle of Adrianople in "The Archaeology of Weapons" . So he's a good chap, even if fallible here and there.
Just read these and Ewart was pretty adamant about how he would change his minds as time went. The point, I'm sure, is to help communications between sword and history people. A language (or maybe a pidgin?) so we're kinda on the same page.
I seem to recall an anonymous 17th century lyricist had something to say about this: "Take books and rent them, who can invent them? nay when the sword says 'negatur argumentum'" Also "There is no library like to the cutlers."
Thanks for citing this seminal work, Matt. The casual sword fans who want to know more need to know about it! Now about implicitly trusting the records, The Archeology of Weapons and Records of the Medieval Sword belong on every enthusiast's reference shelf. Now as to your review, Oakeshott himself states regarding some of his presented sword descriptions that some information presented is questionable. He even corrected himself at length about the typology of a particular sword that he felt had been classified inaccurately in an earlier work. That and the X!I b just to re-classify some swords at a remove from older studies. However, Oakeshott liberated the study of European weapons as a historical archeological field from the provenance of museum curators interested in artistic presentation and lazy assumptions of armchair scholars. It falls to future generations to move on from Oakeshott and do corrections, fill in the blanks, and add new material.
Do you have any information on The Bamburgh Sword? I'd love to see a video (even a short one), on it. There isn't a lot of information out there regarding this sword.
Hey Matt, congrats on your IGN bit, can't wait to watch the second video - I just hope they won't make you review the comically horrendous fights of the new trilogy.
Writers should always date not only the publishing date of their overall works, but also of their trips, observations, and measurements. Conclusions reached can then be cross-referenced with other major events in their lives, such as moves, legal court battles, illnesses, injuries, or deaths in the family, etc.
I do own the book, but unfortunatly never had the chance to visit armories around the world to compare data and anw im still making knives now the longer blades have to wait a while till i procure a better forge and workshop great video as always and appreciate the heads up mr easton
I think even Ewart Oakeshott himself (if he were still alive) would be the first person to appreciate the correction/updates on an authoritative source- even his own (though he might be a bit miffed or embarrassed at the incorrect measurements- as anyone would be). As long as history itself is being cataloged by us humans, we will have need to re-evaluate and calibrate the output of that endeavor.
As someone who has spent a lot of time reading tape measures, any time I’m building something, I only use one tape measure. I’ve seen two of the same maker, same model tape measure be different by 3/4”.
"What's one millimetre between friends" - sounds like an innuendo, but I can't quite put my finger on it. But yes, even brilliant researchers are human, and prone to error... And honestly there's no way to correct a physical copy of a printed work (the closest is to release a new copy), and there's no easy way for us to know if there's been an updated edition to the book we're currently reading.
The Oakeshott axe typology is rather underwhelming compared to sword chart. I don't think he had his heart in it, to the same degree. That incompleteness has struck me as odd for a long time, so I learned not to take his work as absolute, back then. But it's still a great tool to have in the scholarly toolbox.
All sources should be subject to review, regardless of how fundamental they are. Also, keep in mind, this is a text book, reference book and such, not a collection of peer reviewed papers. In aggregate it's still an incredibly valuable work, but the specifics are dated. Even if there were no typoes and transcription errors from twenty year old scribbles, the measurements are using measurement techniques and equipment from many decades ago. And I've been thinking about this for ages, so ordered the book in softcover. What on earth is going on with the pricing for the hardcover? That had better come bound in antique leather, with platinum inlays or something.
Hey Matt, if idk if you still do the movie and TV fight reviews, but with the announcement of House of the Dragon I started rewatching GoT, and a cool early fight I'd love to see analyzed is the Bronn vs Ser Vardis Egan fight during Tyrion's trial by combat in season 1! Fully armored knight versus some sell-sword swagger mercenary is a dynamic I'd be interested in seeing broken down!
I wonder how a patron of a crowd sourced updated version of Records Of The Medieval Sword and maybe even The Norwegian Viking Swords would do. Clearly you would need dozens of volunteers, perhaps anchored around popular social media account like, I dunno, a RU-vid channel plus Discord
Did Oakeshott measure from the blade side of the cross guard or did he measure from the start of the blade at the ricasso? It sounds like his point of reference for his measurement was not the same as yours.
As an early comment, I'd like to pass the opportunity of making a funny joke, in favor of the opportunity to remind you how well spoken you are. "You talk real gud." I like listening to you, thanks man.
The difference in length makes me wonder what he used to take the measurement. My tape measures are all metal and I have one wooden yard stick that I trust even though it belonged to my father and if quite old. Fabric tapes can show some stretch if you pull too hard to straighten them, plus they can stretch over time. Additionally the lengths are given in metric and I wonder how many of the original measurements were taken in imperial and then converted (another way that errors could creep in)
Is there a lot of overlap in these books? If I wanted one book on medieval swords as a blade maker which would you recommend, or is there a lot of difference between the books?
but he wouldnt have been measuring in metric. he did in fact write 32 1/2 inches a round number. 85cm is 33 1/2 inches. maybe he just got one number wrong in his imperial measurements.
So, what's the probability, that at some time in the last 40 years, some museum clerk mixed that up, and while moving it from one wing to another it got switched with a similar (but longer) sword?
Cataloged museum items for display are about history. If you want a working copy and research where, how it was made or if it even worked, you need a research lab. Still to know it was made around Yorkshire about 1340 in a bloom furnace is nice but, is it a good weapon or just a wall hanger?
81.9cm sounds precise but it is just three significant figures. The original measurement was probably 32.5", which is also three significant digits. BTW, someone used 2.52 when converting from imperial to metric.
There is still a difference. Significant figures are a convenient way to talk about the precision of a measurement, but there's also a difference between an (implied) error of 1mm vs .1 (or .25) inches. Either way, a measurement that's some 5% off is wrong.
Of course, any book of facts is subject to change. Like all science, we learn more and must continually revise our theories. That's what is so great about science; we're looking for truth on the shoulders of those who came before. We are not trying to prove pre-conceived notions.
Do you think it’s possible that somewhere else in his books is a blade mislabeled 85 cm that is actually 81.9? His measurements not being “wrong” per say, but misplaced?
My favorite translation problem it is easier for the hair of a camel to go through the eye of a needle. We know for a fact it has something to do with camel hair we do not know whether it is the hair that is still on the camel a camel-hair ropa or something altogether different of which there are at least two options because we have no understanding of the translation and neither do the professionals
This is why science has peer review and duplication studies to fix errors...at least part of the time as there is a tendency to try and do new studies rather than trying to replicate and verify.
A lesson to us all more often than not history has many errors in it for those who write it go off of their own flawed memories as we all have blood memories and that is why we having ink some people should use it.
He might have got his records mixed up and put the measurements for the wrong sword on that page or something. Most of that work was done pre-digital and it'd be much harder to check for things like that than it would be today.
Maybe the sword was traveling at relativistic velocities compared to Oakeshott when he measured it so it was shorter from his frame of reference? :-) In all seriousness, is it possible he mixed up notes with a different sword and a different pommel?
Out of curiosity, is this a case of "photo printed next to wrong description" or similar? Seen this before in books from before computer aided publishing
This book is on my "to buy" list already; half tempted to move it up a few notches and check whether the description belonging to the sword in the photo is lurking next to the image of something else
wonder if the inch measurement is right and the conversion wrong - mind you i know someone who used the size by the documentation (written in 1803) not realising that the inch/foot changed in Victorian period.
The inch/foot changed in the Victorian period? I thought it was standardized as far back as circa 1300, with only the slightest variation from the official inch/foot today.
@@BluntofHwicce The 1490 & 1588 yard standards, which physically exist to this day, are very, very close to 36 modern inches. The variation is negligible for most purposes, though it could come up with measuring land or for precision machinery. It shouldn't matter for swords, unless you care about a couple millimeters over a yard (for the 1490 standard) or fractions of a millimeter over a yard (for the 1588 standard). There were regional variations, but something very close to the standard yard/foot/inch we know today existed from at least Renaissance times if not earlier.
Eyewitness books are illustrated with museum artifact photographs and dated speculations, much like vintage national geographics. The curse of Oak island is evident of Jaque Cartier 1534 Nova Scotia prospecting but the money pit drilling is the effect of historical mythology absent historical minng knowhow.
Well maybe he was like I am - unable to read my own bloody handwriting. lol Well any how, it also made me think about measuring technique - along the edge or strait down - just wondering as I don't know what is the way one will measure a sword. And the fact that there was a time before the metric system was fully standardized. I mean the sample measures. Now I am not a historian per say, but I think they put a measure of one meter of material, that would not stretch or otherwise change too easy into holding at some special location against which all measuring devices should measure to these days - but a certain while this was not done. And from my father who is a builder and carpenter - he has been quite bias against cheaper measuring devices always getting a certain brand as those would at times have the feel like they were made by someone who was 'guessing a bit'. So I would wonder what kind of techniques and measure devices this man would have used. A metal measure certainly can differ from a sewing measure in accuracy. A cheap measure can change a bit depending on it's age too - especially if the material could stretch, or parts get loosen like a tip to put behind an edge and so on or is easily affected by temperatures. But over all these changes are not very huge. So even then one will have to wonder how he would have indeed gotten a measure so wrong - weather it was by memory or hard to read notes. Well and then also printing errors do happen. I have in my possession an actual book, which is one huge 'printing error'. The book exists for real, it should - but mine does not - and i mean it does not have even one drop of ink in it, never mind words, sentences and so on. While it should be indeed fully written and printed book - but the version I have is put all the way into covers and all with the tittle on the back, looking the same as others - except - no text. Perhaps someone at the press was joking or played a joke on the author to make one version like that - but it is not in any way significant book and the topic does not really merit serious consideration it self. I bought it from old books store for simply having been cheap and empty. And no it was not a 'note book' darn you. Really an actual book bind into covers with tittle at top - just no text inside - which I find mostly hilarious. Likely has no much value, but won't apart from it either just cause I find it unique in a way. So errors do happen - what ever the reason is.
Time to invest in a 3D scanner and remove all ambiguity…. Least then you can build CAD models from the scans and have some blades CNC’d like Albion does.
But surely Mr Oakeshott never recorded it as 81.9 cm. He would have done the 32 1/2 inches to the left of that figure. It would have been converted, giving a misleadingly 'precise' figure of 81.9.
Yes a history book is a good thing to own studying mini history books is the only way you can validate that you are coming close to what is really history if you are asked to give an appraisal one study of one book will not do the trick and if you want to know the exact language go to the dictionary of the exact year that is a definite answer you are ever going to get
Years from now, grey-haired yet still-bald Matt Easton will reminisce about the awesome system laid out by Oakeshott, while begrudgingly using the Shadiversity classification in his videos that has since become the standard
If you convert 32.5 inches to centimeters blade length will be 82.5 cm, and considering the actual lengths is 85 cm, i.e. 33.5 inches, the whole matter is quite a simple mistake of processing hand-written card There are errors in Oakeshott's works but considering the volume of information he processed they are minor. Mike Loades is making more mistakes in EACH of his books : ) :) :)
So, "History is written by the distracted"? It happens. At least we can be sure he wasn't being malicious or parochial about it as the Victorians often were.
The teenage mutant ninja turtles Future Shellshock featured a time window. That could look backwards in time, but not normally travel. Can someone work on that. I think we could use that.
