Analysis and Doubts about Oakeshott's Type XIV

Analysis and Doubts about Oakeshott's Type XIV.

(At the outset I would like to state that it is not my intention to challenge Oakeshott's Typology, but rather to point out inconsistencies and generalizations, most likely caused by access to the limited, too little research material available to this outstanding author)

Let us try to characterize Type XIV and its features using examples from Records of the Medieval Sword.

Oakeshott characterizes this type in a very general way, showing examples of swords that differ quite a lot from each other in blade shape, length and width of the fuller, and general stylistic form. Among the examples that he assigned to the same type, there are significant typological differences that elude the criteria assigned by the author. Some blades taper strongly to a sharp point, and some have almost parallel edges. Among these swords we see examples of quite rare swords that are represented by 1 or 2 similar examples in other museums. This is not a proper criterion for creating a type that is currently considered very characteristic. 

It can be summed up that the Type XIV Sword Group is built on the basis of very rare and different examples, which, together with similar swords, give less than 20 swords. And if we assume that several of them are very unusual individual examples, then this will be a group of about 12 swords. The problem is that even among these dozen or so swords there are large typological discrepancies to classify them as one type.
This is a discussion of just one type where we find many doubts and it is a type that seemingly has very consistent and clear features. However, it turns out that this is not the case, on closer examination.

It seems that Oakeshott's observations, although general, are correct, but they do not allow for the selection and definition of any specific type of sword, which leads to many interpretative ambiguities.

What features of the Type XIV does Okashott himself point out? Let`s see:
' Its characteristics are a short grip and comparatively short blade which is broad at the hilt and tapers strongly
to a sometimes very acute point with a generally flat section fullered in its upper half. Crosses tend to be generally quite long and
slightly arched, while the pommel-type most commonly found allied to these other elements is of Type K, broad and flat with
'small raised bosses.'

Let us try to look at some examples Oakeshott gave:

1.
The first sword is in the Metmuseum and is currently dated half a century later than Oakeshott dated it. The sword is very unusual and may be the result of later modifications. The inscription on the blade is etched and the style of the lettering indicates a much later date. The decoration of the crossguard is also very unusual and there are practically no analogies. However, the form of the blade is similar to swords from Copenhagen, Denmark and De Roos Museum, Netherlands. Similar, but not the same.

2.
The second sword is a very unusual example of a hilt. I personally know of only one very similar example but it comes from an auction house so the lack of archaeological context raises doubts. The sword is in the Royal Armouries. There is also the same sword can also be seen in the collection of Kreuzenstein Castle, but we have no more information on this.

3. 
The next sword is in the collection in Copenhagen. The blade has a double fuller, or rather two narrow grooves, a straight guard and a round pommel. This is an interesting sword, small in size, generally fitting the characteristics of Type XIV.

4.
A sword in very good condition, with a clearly pointed tip, a long and narrow groove that passes into the ridge. A very similar sword is found in Solingen, but the latter has a wider fuller and the blade, despite its similar shape, has different typological features and cross-sections. However, the pommel is of a similar type, the guard is also bent downwards and the entire sword has a similar form and proportions. I personally know 3 or 4 examples of swords with similar features, including a similar hilt from one of the tombstones.

5.
The next sword has very unusual features and stylistic features. There is basically no other equivalent or analogy among other original swords. Oakeshott writes that it is in the collection in Copenhagen, and previously in the collection of E.A. Christensen. Dating it to circa 1300 seems completely unrealistic. From what I know, the sword is currently lost or in a private collection. As for this sword, researchers have serious doubts whether it is not a 19th century copy, made for auction or collector's purposes.

6.
The next sword, classified by Oakeshott and given as an example of type XIV, is the famous Moonbrand, whose name comes from the crescent moon symbols stamped on the blade. This sword was in the possession of the author himself, so as he writes, he knew it well and was very fond of it. In terms of form and proportions, this sword is very, very unusual. Oakshott dates it to the years 1270-1320, but there are no analogies or clues here that could place it in that period. If the sword is genuinely medieval, it is certainly later, as may be indicated by the form of the crossguard, blade and pommel, which have many features known from swords made after 1350. The form of the blade is unusual, with four short and narrow grooves. The pommel is very large and flat, with a rectangular peenblock, which is unusually wedged in a notch in the pommel. The blade, although flat, has a hexagonal cross-section. The hilt has been partially preserved. Despite the sword's fame, it is difficult to judge its authenticity without archaeological context.

7.
The last of the presented swords is currently in the museum in Zurich and is quite well preserved. The sword is small in size and has inlaid letters on both sides of the fuller. The very small pommel, flat guard and short blade make the sword very light and at the same time excellent to use. As we can see, the blade has almost parallel edges, which casts doubt on assigning it the features of Type XIV. In this case Oakeshott is rather suggesting the form and length of the fuller and the general form of the sword, because as he notes, many of the swords of this type have curved guards.

In addition, Oakeshott does not distinguish in this type such features as:
- lenticular and ridged cross-sections
- width, number and length of fuller (although in some cases these are clearly secondary features)
- shape of the tip
- general form of the blade line, the ratio of parallel edges to strongly tapering

Conclusion
The lack of distinction of these features does not allow for typological identification and Type XIV itself is not sufficiently defined. Characteristic features are determined on the basis of a very small number of examples of swords. In my opinion, we are talking here about at least 4 different types with clear typological features.

Despite this, I consider the author's observations to be important and correct. The ambiguity lies in the small amount of research material he had access to at the time and the fact that he was strongly influenced by unique features rather than those that were replicated in many swords as important for the function of the sword.