|
Post by casparmuseum on Sept 4, 2023 13:12:55 GMT
Dear all, I'm new here, but that won't stop me from barging right in with a big question. I'm looking for anyone with knowledge of actual historical European swords to help us learn about a mysterious old sword in the collection of the Dutch museum I work for. Any information, no matter how trivial, is welcome, and any advice for people to contact who may be able to tell us more would also be very much appreciated. Background: our museum has several swords from different periods. One of them stands out, but we know practically nothing about it. We know it used to belong to the city government (which goes back to the early 1400s, and before that, a complicated quasi-feudal construction starting some time in the 1100s at the latest). It is first listed in a catalogue of the historical items in the city's collection in the 1850s simply as "a very old sword". We know that, in the second half of the 19th century, a new palm wood handle was made for the sword, and it is clear from even a cursory inspection that the tang has been cut down (possibly at the time the new handle was made/affixed) and so no evidence of the original length of the handle or the (type of) pommel remains. Physical characteristics of the sword: Length: 102.5 cm (40.35 inch) Blade length: 88 cm (34.65 inch) Handle length: 14.5 cm (5.7 inch) Blade width: widest (just above handle): 40.5 mm (1.59 inch) narrowest (near tip): 30.6 mm (1.2 inch) Blade thickness: thickest (near handle): 8.5 mm (0.33 inch) thinnest (from about 1/4 from the tip to the tip): 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) Weight: 735 grams (1 pound 10 ounces / 1.62 pounds) Point of balance: currently (with non-original handle): about 26 cm (10.24 inch) from the handle. No engraving, no decorations, rounded tip (does not seem to have been altered). Feels like a blade meant for use, but that means very little of course. I hope you can help me out with some information, but at the very least I hope you'll find this interesting!
|
|
|
Post by perignum on Sept 4, 2023 19:06:25 GMT
This looks like a type xiiia with longer than average fuller. The relatively long handle (in its original state) and rounded tip coupled with the relatively long blade makes me think that.
Looks to me like somebody re-hilted it and messed up both the point of balance and its aesthetics. The 1800s were full of collectors and curators who thought the originals in their possession needed ‘perfecting’.
|
|
|
Post by larason2 on Sept 4, 2023 22:33:43 GMT
Actually, this looks like a viking type/migration era sword to me. For instance, take a look at replicas of the sword found at sutton hoo. The long and wide fuller and relatively blunt tip suggests against most medieval blades, particularly the XIIIa. It's too bad the hilt has been so poorly replaced!
|
|
|
Post by takitam on Sept 4, 2023 23:40:04 GMT
This probably won't be of much help, but my first impression is that this blade could have belonged on a basket hilt or a schiavona. Why? Because of how blade 'shoulders' look like at the tang junction and the narrowness of the blade combined with its distal taper. Also its length. A combination of these factors was probably not as common in medieval swords. But this is pure speculation on my part. It will be a tough nut to crack but it's a very interesting piece nonetheless. Good luck!
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Sept 5, 2023 1:10:43 GMT
Dear all, I'm new here, but that won't stop me from barging right in with a big question. I'm looking for anyone with knowledge of actual historical European swords to help us learn about a mysterious old sword in the collection of the Dutch museum I work for. Any information, no matter how trivial, is welcome, and any advice for people to contact who may be able to tell us more would also be very much appreciated. Background: our museum has several swords from different periods. One of them stands out, but we know practically nothing about it. We know it used to belong to the city government (which goes back to the early 1400s, and before that, a complicated quasi-feudal construction starting some time in the 1100s at the latest). It is first listed in a catalogue of the historical items in the city's collection in the 1850s simply as "a very old sword". We know that, in the second half of the 19th century, a new palm wood handle was made for the sword, and it is clear from even a cursory inspection that the tang has been cut down (possibly at the time the new handle was made/affixed) and so no evidence of the original length of the handle or the (type of) pommel remains. Physical characteristics of the sword: Length: 102.5 cm (40.35 inch) Blade length: 88 cm (34.65 inch) Handle length: 14.5 cm (5.7 inch) Blade width: widest (just above handle): 40.5 mm (1.59 inch) narrowest (near tip): 30.6 mm (1.2 inch) Blade thickness: thickest (near handle): 8.5 mm (0.33 inch) thinnest (from about 1/4 from the tip to the tip): 2.5 mm (0.1 inch) Weight: 735 grams (1 pound 10 ounces / 1.62 pounds) Point of balance: currently (with non-original handle): about 26 cm (10.24 inch) from the handle. No engraving, no decorations, rounded tip (does not seem to have been altered). Feels like a blade meant for use, but that means very little of course. I hope you can help me out with some information, but at the very least I hope you'll find this interesting! Have you considered if it might be an executioner's sword? The combination of rounded tip, overall design, and civic ownership suggest that to me.
|
|
|
Post by casparmuseum on Sept 5, 2023 10:25:04 GMT
Dear all, thanks for your replies! perignum : the clearly lenticular cross-section, as well as the overall length, seem to support your suggestion. The fuller is very long, though, and I get the impression that the sword is rather narrow and *very* light for a type XIIIa, considering it weighs less than 1 3/4 pounds. I could be wrong there, though! larason2 : it's an odd sword, that is certainly clear. I thought it had some characteristics that point to that early period too, but other traits look much later to me. Considering the sword's provenance doesn't really resolve much - it was part of a collection of what are essentially "old items that have belonged to the city since time immemorial". Other items in that collection that we can date run the gamut from the early 15th century to the 18th century. If we were, hypothetically, to assume that this is a very old sword that was kept by the city because of some association with an important person, it could date from anywhere between the middle of the 12th century and the 18th century. I'd be inclined to push that final date back quite a bit, as we have a number of surviving 17th century swords (sabers and small swords/court swords), and know from bills and paintings that rapiers were common. This looks to be much older than those swords, not just as a type, but also from signs of natural aging. takitam : that is actually a very interesting idea. I must say, it is very light, and with a very deeply fullered, rather thick blade for a Schiavona. treeslicer : another good point. Yes, we have considered that (and at some point in the 20th century someone in charge of the collection actually decided to label it as an executioner's sword, though without any supporting evidence), but there are a couple of problems with that hypothesis: - First, there are three other undoubted executioner's swords from surrounding cities still in existence - they are *very* different from ours, and extremely similar to one another: double-handed swords with a short, wide blade that is engraved with images and texts referring to justice, very heavy (4 pounds and over) and with the point of balance a lot nearer the tip. Also, the tips are almost perfectly flat, almost as if the tip were cut off, and the blades do not taper towards the tip, they are almost perfectly straight. - Our city did not have its own executioner - we still have the documents showing that, on such rare occasions that an execution was to take place, the executioner from another city had to be called in, and he was not only paid for his services, but also for the use of his equipment, which strongly implies that the city did not provide said equipment. - The weight of our sword. At just 735 grams, it seems extremely light for a sword meant to behead - you wouldn't use an execution sword in combat, so there's no need to make it agile, but you do want it to deliver a very strong blow, so mass is a benefit rather than a hindrance as I understand it. My personal 'best guess' at this point is that this is a sword that was once made as a combat sword, but, because of association with an important person, came into the collection of the city as a 'sword of justice', possibly the sword of office of the local sheriff. That would mean it was replaced at some point before the middle of the 17th century, as we have a record of an incident in the 1650s when a sheriff was forced to resign, and that involved him being forced to relinquish his sword of office, which is explicitly called a "degen", meaning "court sword", in a contemporary report.
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,202
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Sept 5, 2023 10:59:52 GMT
Maybe it was a bare blade. The grip, with the ferrule looks quite similar to agricultural implements, like a sickle or a wood chisel. The shoulders above the grip look odd to me, like they either were part of a longer ricasso or fit into a slot in the guard. I have read the 19th century curators of collections sometimes liked to "refurbish" blades without caring for authenticity so they might not only have changed the grip but refinished the blade somewhat so it is shiny again. No Idea how widespread this was though.
I don't think it's an executioner either, too light and the tip does not fit the picture.
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Sept 5, 2023 12:55:22 GMT
we need someone who is a member over at MyArmoury.com to post a link to this. There are some very knowledgeable members there, but the forum software has bugs which prevent registration of new members.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Sept 5, 2023 15:59:25 GMT
Looks to me like it could potentially fall more in the 11-12th century of arming swords based on your description of it possibly being from the 12th century. In that vein were looking at it being a Type X, Xa, or XI. Three key traits pointing it in that description is the general blade dimensions especially length, width and fuller termination.
The one thing that is off putting to me placing it in that time period is the blade shoulders and finish at that part of the sword. The shoulder section itself looks very much like a riccasso transition point (you also mentioned that in its history at the museum it was described as being cut down at the tang at some point.). This would lead me to think potentially this sword is later period and perhaps more in line with a 15th-16th century Bastard Sword. And perhaps the damage was at the hilt section which had someone raise the shoulders up to the riccasso termination and blend the tang from the riccasso downward, thus making it an arming sword length.
Hard to really tell unless the grip was removed and we could see the tang. Is that something you would be allowed to do?
Generally speaking though I would personally place this sword late 15th century.
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Sept 6, 2023 21:00:29 GMT
older swords usually had the fuller continuing into the tang
|
|
|
Post by takitam on Sept 6, 2023 21:41:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by casparmuseum on Sept 13, 2023 14:42:44 GMT
Hi all, sorry for the long delay in responding! nddave : I'm afraid removing the grip would be impossible without damaging both the grip and the sword - it was attached by (groan...) feeding the tang through the wood, then hammering the end of (what remains of) the tang into a roughly 90 degree angle to lock the grip into place... eastman : I did not know that! Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to check our sword without causing irreversible damage... takitam : that is a very interesting suggestion! The blade length, the weight and the design of the blade would make sense for some sort of 16th century broad sword. If so, there is also a likely origin: a 1572 siege by the Sea Beggars, among them a sizeable British force led by Humphrey Gilbert. Several helmets and a breast plate were captured at the breaking of that siege and kept in the city's collection - a sword could easily fit in with that. Some sort of simple basket hilt might also make sense considering the shoulders. Attachments:
|
|
mrstabby
Member
Posts: 1,202
Member is Online
|
Post by mrstabby on Sept 13, 2023 15:15:43 GMT
Well, this is the worst attempt to attach a grip I have seen to this day.
I don't know, if it is anything you are willing to do or anything that might shine more light on it, but you could X-ray the sword, it might let you see the tang more clearly. It could also show traces of engravings (if there were any) using the right settings.
|
|
|
Post by treeslicer on Sept 13, 2023 15:25:36 GMT
older swords usually had the fuller continuing into the tang eastman : I did not know that! Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to check our sword without causing irreversible damage... eastman is undoubtedly referring to the way that the fuller on Oakeshott Type X, and similar types, extends under the crossguard and hilt in such a way that the upper termination of the fuller cannot be seen. This is obviously and visibly not the case with your swprd, because the fuller is terminated by the raised shoulder of the blade. I would date your sword !6th. century or later because the shoulder looks swaged to me, and that's a late addition to the blacksmith's bag of tricks.
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Sept 13, 2023 16:54:05 GMT
Yeah this is definitely not a viking sword or any migration type I've seen. Viking age swords didn't have those shoulders, the fuller would continue to the tang, and it's just not quite the right proportions. It does have the rounded tip of a viking sword, but my guess is this was for other reasons. I'm afraid that's all the help I can be. If it's not migration/viking I'm lost! But it's an interesting one to be sure. My gut feeling is that it's a renaissance period or late medieval sort of cut and thrust sword.
EDIT: If you just look at the second half of the blade, I totally see the resemblance to migration era and viking era stuff, but the shoulder and the flaring near the grip are giveaways that it isn't likely from that period.
|
|
|
Post by nddave on Sept 13, 2023 19:20:42 GMT
Hi all, sorry for the long delay in responding! nddave : I'm afraid removing the grip would be impossible without damaging both the grip and the sword - it was attached by (groan...) feeding the tang through the wood, then hammering the end of (what remains of) the tang into a roughly 90 degree angle to lock the grip into place... eastman : I did not know that! Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to check our sword without causing irreversible damage... takitam : that is a very interesting suggestion! The blade length, the weight and the design of the blade would make sense for some sort of 16th century broad sword. If so, there is also a likely origin: a 1572 siege by the Sea Beggars, among them a sizeable British force led by Humphrey Gilbert. Several helmets and a breast plate were captured at the breaking of that siege and kept in the city's collection - a sword could easily fit in with that. Some sort of simple basket hilt might also make sense considering the shoulders. Makes sense. So regarding the sword itself, it's pretty clear it's later period but one thing you haven't made too clear is where you stated it was cut down at some point. Again if it was cut down it probably was a bastard sword. If not then it would more than likely be something in the sidesword/arming sword categories.
|
|
|
Post by eastman on Sept 13, 2023 23:58:53 GMT
older swords usually had the fuller continuing into the tang eastman : I did not know that! Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to check our sword without causing irreversible damage... eastman is undoubtedly referring to the way that the fuller on Oakeshott Type X, and similar types, extends under the crossguard and hilt in such a way that the upper termination of the fuller cannot be seen. This is obviously and visibly not the case with your swprd, because the fuller is terminated by the raised shoulder of the blade. I would date your sword !6th. century or later because the shoulder looks swaged to me, and that's a late addition to the blacksmith's bag of tricks.
better stated in your post than mine (that was not a good day for me, so I am actually surprised my spelling was correct)
|
|