Simplified Typology diagram

Simplified typological scheme, introduction to the classification of medieval swords.

(Note: this is not a new typology! This is a preliminary and simplified typological scheme, which is an introduction to an alternative method of classification and identification.)

My scientific study on the new classification of medieval swords is basically ready, but I would like to first present to you the path that led me to the obvious conclusions.
This scheme allows us to easily understand the main typological differences and evolutionary changes.
While also being a preliminary model, a key for classification and identification of medieval swords.

Let's look at the diagram.
In a general, simplified and schematic approach, medieval swords from the period 950-1400 (this dating range will be discussed separately) can be divided into four main groups. This is a clear division that is defined by the form of the blade and the proportions of the sword.
The diagram shows four main typological groups in terms of the form of the blade and the proportions of the medieval sword in the period 950-1400.
Defining these four groups is the key and starting point for developing a method of classifying each sword in this period. The examples shown (3 in each group) are also examples of the most different, most popular types of swords, containing many significant features at the same time.
The main features of each group can be found on the dioagram (dating, main features).

In order to define the general typological form and indicate the most important differences, it is necessary to use the most important features of the sword as a complete object:

1. sword proportions. First of all, whether it was designed to be used with one or both hands, which affects all the other parameters and the overall shape of the entire sword. Some swords have handles in a transitional form, adapted to the possibility of using the other hand, holding partly on the pommel. I called these swords 'early long swords'.

2. the geometric form of the blade. This is the second most important feature, at the same time strongly distinguishing individual swords from each other. Earlier swords have straight blades with parallel edges, slightly tapering towards the tip. Later ones become increasingly pointed. This affects the form of the entire sword, the distribution of mass, stiffness, balance and all other features.
In this way, you can easily and accurately both recognize a given sword, assign it to the main group, and then focus on the remaining features: length and number of fullers, cross-sections, differences in widths, etc. However, these are features, one could say, of the second category, which result indirectly from the two main features above.

It is also worth paying attention to very important features of individual blades, in terms of shape:
- main types of tip and transition between the edge line and the tip form
- shape of the blade where it meets the guard
- types of the very end of the tips

In the diagram I tried to include as many of the most typical shapes as possible, which are very important typological features, and are often treated as secondary or tertiary. In the meantime, these are the features that define the main form of the sword.

Fuller / ridge
This diagram deliberately excludes cross-section forms, which constitute a separate typological criterion and require separate subtypes. In the full diagram with all types and subtypes, I also showed cross-section types (I will show it in the next posts). For now, however, I would like us to focus on the form and proportions of the sword.

..................................................................
In the following posts I will answer several questions that have recently appeared regarding my work:
- why should the scope of the typology of Medieval European Swords be limited to the period 950-1400?
- do we actually need a new typology or to develop existing ones?
- what scope of sources, original swords and scientific criteria does the new classification cover?
The answers to these and other questions are also included in my scientific work written in 2018 and in subsequent articles.

See also the introduction I wrote earlier on Oakeshott's typology: https://artofswordmaking.com/gallery/oakeshott-typology-in-the-light-of-modern-research-part-i