Talk:Oakeshott typology

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gkneiselwiki. Peer reviewers: OdellZ17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Objective

My objective in the expansion of this article is to expand it into a functional quick reference that would allow any individual familiar with the basic components of a sword (pommel,crossguard,blade,tang) to classify a sword that distinctly falls within one of the types. Additionally, I would like to add an "External links" section to the base of the article connecting to other types swords that do not fall within Oakeshott's Typology. Important among these links will be the "pommel" especially, since Oakeshott also classified pommel types, as seen in the pommel article. It may be appropriate to bring a reference set of images and labels to this article as well.

Proposed additions to Oakeshott Typology page

Find images corresponding to each subtype.
Expand on existing definitions.
Increase the amount of hyperlinks on page.

Additional section indicated “backround/defining criteria” maybe both to shorten introduction length and facilitate comprehension. Gkneiselwiki (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

References to ::The Archaeology of Weapons: Arms and Armour from Prehistory to the Age of Chivalry:: will likely be needed, I will have to obtain a copy via a library, some limited access to this text seems to be available via amazon.com

https://royalarmouries.org/collection/ Will likely be a strong authoritative source on the subject. I have yet to find a "contact us" section though, searching Oakeshott in their image archive reveals a treasure trove of swords classified by type. It is worth noting (this will likely have to be added to the article somewhere) that the Typology is something of a neologism, not a contemporary system of classification at the time of the weapons' dominance. As such Oakeshott's authority on the subject may be slightly questionable, though the acceptance of his system by the Tower of London, one of the largest collections of medieval and and archaic weapons in the world (citation needed) should bolster the authority of this. Further exploring indicated to see if Tower of London will permit photos to be utilized in Wiki Commons/ wikipedia. Gkneiselwiki (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately royal armories will not be able to allow use of thier photos in Wikipedia commons due to previous licensing violations. This resource remains open for individual research. Gkneiselwiki (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources (mistitled bibliography continued)

Additional sources badly needed. Challenge still seems to arise from the quantifiable but individually designed nature of the Typology, while it has been reasonably widely adopted, speculation/criticism/ expansion on it appear to be in short supply.

Additional review necessary to determine that already present definitions of types are sufficiently original in wording and structure, yet still loyal to the original definitions. Gkneiselwiki (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach to Oakeshott Institute (Oakeshott.org) made, awaiting response. Additionally peer review of the credibility of ARMA organization sources needed. Gkneiselwiki (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gkneiselwiki: My Armoury (assuming this is what you're referring to with ARMA) does not appear to be a credible source. Here's a search for "Oakeshott" on Library Genesis to acquire more. –Vami _IV† 02:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add pommel and guard types, families

See...

pommel types: http://myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott3.html

crossguard styles: http://myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott4.html

sword families: http://myarmoury.com/feature_oakeshott5.html

Aminomancer (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]