C&T genus or composite name?

[Guest]

Hello,
I've been wondering for a while if the C&T sword is a real genus or class or simply a name for a disordered collection of many species of swords.
To start I'll define the concept of "genus or class" as done by John Venn in "Logic of Chance", now it appears that a class of individuals can be define as a collection in which certain aspects do vary in an interval that shows an upper and a lower level and, more important, whose single individuals tend to possess average values of those aspects, this meaning that many individual of the class will possess average values.
We see that E. Oakeshott could give an average value of two pounds for the weight of the medieval sword in "records of the medieval sword".
In "Renaissance Swordmanship" JC tells us the C&T goes from 1,5 to 2,5 pounds in weight, from 37" to 45" in lenght, this alone is not indicative of a class to me because the allowed spread of weight is 50% of the average (two pounds), lenght spread seems less dramatic but it's still a poiniard. Yet, we could have a class here if many C&T swords existed which are 41" and 2 pounds. How swords look like is of little help, because allowed hilts design for the class is from cross to basket, with or without the possibility to finger the ricasso. Blade shape is typical? Again we have parallel edges an triangular blades, so...
The enviroments in which the weapon is to be used are many, so it can be asserted that the military (and heavy) schiavona is a C&T, yet xix century triangular bladed swords good for some cutting, with colichemarde hilts, fit the definition too (issued in some pre unification Italian kingdoms) as does the spadroon, but again the medieval arming sword is an almost perfect average of the class, and exists in considerable numbers, is it the typical C&T sword?
If the definition rests upon the fencing tecniques employed with the weapon, than we should see considerable commonalities between fencing text, and this could be a possible reason for making a genus, if it was true.
In Italy the C&T family is termed "sidesword" because one fences giving the side, one does so with sabres too and it's to be noted that some sabres differ from the C&T concept only for not being double edged, one does so with the scottish broad sword and it is double edged.
So is C&amp;T a real class <img src="/forum/images/icons/confused.gif" alt="" /> ?

[Guest]

In reply to:
"Averages are useful, but some folks seem to forget that there are statistics on either side of the average. They may dogmatically accept the average as the "best" representative of the category."
I do not forget that there are samples, and a good number of them, in almost any class which depart from the average, the matter here is: is there anything in this presumed class that can be said to represent that average?

And in reply to: "We might save time and good will by worrying less about broad categories and concentrating more on specific historical examples. "
If you mean that, if you tell two people to bring you a C&amp;T, they'll more often than not show up with two very different things, both historical swords, than you're implying that the word refers to no historical reality but to a classification brought up for the pourpose of explenation.
This is not the rapier matter, in that case people discuss on what the weapon is meant to do, or if specific weapons are rapiers or not. Here it would seem you might not be able to show an example of C&amp;T that makes people understand what a C&amp;T is meant to be, the role of the average being this.
By the way, it seems to me that JC classified the C&amp;T on the basis of their handling qualities, after examining them in a lot of single examples and determining an average himself, but I'm not sure of this. If I were right in so believing this would be a clear indication of the lack of an easier and more visible criterium to describe the commonalities among those many swords that should enter in the C&amp;T class.

[Webmaster]

In a general sense, here is how I have learned to classify swords I'm looking at from periods where the distinctions get muddy. These aren't hard and fast rules, just guidelines:

Cut &amp; Thrust: I consider these to be "descendants", if you will, of the standard medieval single-handed cruciform sword, usually somewhat lighter and more tapered for greater ease and control of thrusting, and usually, but not always, with more complex hilt structures. I would include most backswords in this category also. I also tend to think of them as more civilian and less military in intended use, but nonetheless with military value. I believe most people would consider wide-bladed cutting swords such as falchions to be a class of their own.

Rapier: Pretty much any long, narrow-bladed sword intended for use or only useful in an almost exclusively thrusting style of fight, from which any kind of cut would probably not be fatal or heavily damaging. Strictly civilian with no real military value.

Feel free to add or subtract from my definitions, but I think I would hesitate to classify these two sword types by much more than the general set of characteristics I've outlined. I would consider "single-handed" to be the size designation regardless of weight or length, and then fall to intended method of use as the other primary criterion. There's my 2 cents. Discuss.

[Guest]

I just hope that at least one of the following things happen, so I try to persuade the experts to make them happen <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" /> :
1) The family of C&amp;T swords become tha subject of an articulated book that shows Oakeshott's way all the sub-families that compose it and their aspects. If this happened we could say C&amp;T is a sum of families adding in a broader family.
2) A specific model is selected that shows all the traits of the C&amp;T and has been produced in numbers. If this happened, presumably with a military type of sword, we could say a C&amp;T is something that departs from the given model in non essential aspects, the given model being an historical reality existent in mumbers of individual weapons (this would clear my ideas on the subject).
One of the reasons why I hope these things happen is that the C&amp;T does not have the glamour of other swords nowdays, probably because it's so hard to define and it should get more attention on the part of the writers, with benefits for our knowledge.
Carlo