I think that one of the great things about this forum is how the actual creators of these great pieces post here and let us know about the ideas behind their creations.

Peter,
Thank you for the great informations as well as the picture with Eric and an original sword. That thing is massive and beautiful looking. I am with Chris about wanting to get a pre-order in. Now to try and figure out where to get the money.

Julien,
Thank you for posting your pictures from The RA. Those are some very nice detail pictures.

Scott

WOW.. the photos of the Raw blade are outstanding. the picture of Eric with the original makes it seem like a truly large sword (I like truly large swords). however my deep personal hatred of disc pommels, should that be the way of finishing this sword. would make it a non starter for me. That of course is just my opinion I could be wrong.

An interesting point: In his discussion of the very thin section of these swords Clive Thomas wrote, "It is certain that these swords were designed specifically for use in the middle east, where heavy plate armour was not in use because of the local climate."

I'm not sure how it can be "certain," but it's an interesting idea.

The hilt combo on the original is almost exactly what I was hoping for. * sigh * Bye bye pay checks. I shall miss you.

Would it be possible that a sword such as and XVIIIc could equal XIIa's & XIIIa's with regards to cutting power against their respective contemporary armours.

Seeing Michael Edelsons cutting tests a while ago versus cloth armours it appeared that some of the later blades (the Brescia Spadona in particular) cut as well if not better than some cut oriented earlier blades. In a brief email discussion with Michael he agreed that it was possible that blade stiffness could contribute to cutting effectiveness when measured against realistic targets (as opposed to pool noodles, rolled up newspaper, cardboard tubes, water bottles or tatami mats).

When will this beast be available for order and delivery?

Not for the first time or the last, thank you for your in depth explanation Peter. To know that they may match the earlier swords in cutting ability is impressive. It is not what I would have expected.

I have owned a Regent before so although the two types that these swords represent may share some characteristics, it also sounds like they are very different in some respects.

I think this might be the same sword from the Alexandria arsenal.

I took this picture in 2004 at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York.

[ Linked Image ]

---

 Attachment: 160.34 KB
XVIIIc [ Download ]

Wait, Albion has a facebook page? Oh lord...

I agree though, the sword really is a impressive good looking piece!

Thanks for posting, Clive! Your article is outstanding, truly illuminating on the subject of these swords. You should treat yourself to one of Albion's interpretations (professional expense?) :D

Clive,

Thank you for posting here! I was greatly helped by your article when I studied this type of sword. I have had only opportunity to document one of them and previously knew of a small number. Your article included many examples the I did not know of before. Before I did not think there were so many of this type surviving. This was very helpful in getting a richer idea of this group. Interesting to see what similarities and variations were.

I hope that the Principe, while not being an exact reproduction of the RA example, may still be useful in tests showing the functional properties of this type of sword. Aspects like the stiffness of the blade, dynamic properties of the sword, and details in how the edge is shaped and sharpened will be copied closely from the original I documented.

I wonder the type may not prove to be stiffer in both cutting and thrusting than one might think from seeing how thin these blades are.

Edge geometry is very interesting.
The edges have a narrow zone where the sharpness is shaped from the body of the blade. This is a clever combination of minimizing "drag" in the cut, while preserving material for strength directly behind the sharpness. If this geometry was shaped on a thicker blade, the sword would be heavy and not cut very well. With the thin body of these blades, a blunter angle is not damaging to cutting performance, but rather needed to be resilient enough for the battle field.
Sharpening of the point is equally interesting, or even more so. Here the shaping of the sharpness is even more evident. The very tip of the sword looks pretty much like an awl. Again, the thinness of the blade allows a pretty beefy final angle of the edge to be formed without detrimental side effects in penetration.
I wonder if this type of blade may actually be rather efficient in dealing damage (I am not saying cleaving!) to plate armour (or rather to the person inside the armour)? The edge is like a very long and thin cold chisel (and pretty similar to the edge of a battle axe). I am very curious to learn what others will see when testing these swords against targets like Michael Edelson did some time back. That thin blades can warp during a cut is not at all unusual. You can see this also in later era sabers. I wonder if the great width of these blades won´t actually make them pretty rigid compared to a less wide blade.
The point (as well as the edge) seem well suited to penetrate padded armour.
With edges shaped like this up to the very point, you get an awl with sharpened edges: it will start to cut the penetrated material after only a very shallow penetration.

The question if these swords were made especially for export to Mamluks is interesting. I agree it is completely possible, but I wonder if they may not be seen as examples of the finest work one can make to impress an opponent, rather than something made to fit the demands of the Other?
With the mixed nature of amour depicted in Italian paintings of the time, I wonder if they were not developed to be efficient swords for fighting enemies across the sea as well as hostile troops at home.
I know of at least one representation in art of a wide bodied XVIIIc sword from a Memling painting. The hilt is different, but the very wide base, longish grip and not very long blade is typical. I shall scan a print of this painting and post below.

Are there any representations in Mamluk art, that show swords of this type? The type seems a foreign concept in this martial culture. I am only aware of one type of extremely broad blade in Arabic culture, and those are mounted on single hand hilts, have very little profile tape and blunt points.

Perhaps this variety of XVIIIc was abandoned after a limited period and therefore never did much impact in artwork and popular imagery? That a type of sword is abandoned may not be a result of functional shortcomings in tactical use. It may be that the blades demanded an especially high quality steel to be made with dependability. Possibly the heat treating was pushing the limits of what was practical. Even grinding may pose greater difficulties than blades of more normal width?
As design can be abandoned, not from lack of functionality, but because other designs are *almost* as good, but made at lower cost and less trouble.

If these swords are indeed examples of especially high level of skill and know how, they would be perfect gifts to someone you wish to impress.

Here is a scan of an Angel painted by Hans Memling in 1479 or 1480. It is one of two surviving panels in a triptych. The other panel shows an Angel with an olive branch (this one is kept in the Louvre, inv. r.f.1993-1). The painting of the Angel with the sword is kept in the Wallace Collection (inv. p528)

It is difficult to make out, but the sword may have a narrow fuller (and would so be an unusually broad type XVIa!). It is otherwise of the same general shape and dimension as these broad and thin type XVIIIc swords. I think Memling based his painting on an actual sword.
It is possible to make out Memling painted a very narrow edge and a marked midrib. This can be an artistic convention, but it could also be a perceptive observation of two defining features of such wide and thin blades with sharp points.

It is interesting to note that the proportion and size of this angelic sword is very similar to other weapons like the broad XXII of Heinrich der Frommen in Dresden and the sword of Svante Nilsson Sture in Västerås. There is a family of sorts of these not very long, but still hefty war swords with long grips and powerful blades.

---

 Attachment: 109.71 KB

Peter (if I may call you that without proper introduction), I have been engaged in sort of a running argument especially with Mr. Edelson about the sword's use as more of a blunt instrument with cleaving power second and cutting running third in the use of the sword. The Type XVIII was a combination of cleaving and thrusting instrument in my view appropriate for penetrating mail, cloth padded jackets with a thrust or alternately using the blade as a sort of iron bar to deliver blunt trauma even thru plate and the point thru areas not covered by plate.

My smash 'em and bash 'em paradigm is not well taken especially by those who view the sword first and foremost as a cutting insturment. I view it from the early Vikings thru early middle ages as more of a cleaver at best and an iron bar to beat an opponent down. Yes, I agree that cutting is desirable but with armored opponents and shields the only choice left was to beat the defenses down or strike unprotected areas. Of course this depended on the period one is referring which is often overlooked in my detractor's arguments. The fencing groups simply refuse to accept that early medeival sword play was dispatching one's opponent as quickly as possible and moving on to the next one.

An analogy would be military hand to hand combat versus the martial artist's sophisticated moves which are used against someone using his own discipline's techniques.

Sean, Peter,

Thanks very much for your compliments on the article, they're much appreciated!

The first time I had a chance to handle one of these weapons (which was the 'Leeds Castle Sword' being shown off by Eric a few posts back at the Royal Armouries, Inv. No. AL40.1), I was as truly astounded by the quality of the workmanship as by the handling characteristics of the piece. The Italian masters who designed and produced these swords were exceptional craftsmen, especially with the design of the cutting edges as Peter explained above. I think they really nailed it with these, because the very broad blade imparts enough strength and mass to make an extremely good cut, the relatively thin cross section allows the blade a certain amount of flexibility while doing so (while at the same time keeping the weight down to manageable levels), and the taper of the blade combined with a longish tang ensures that the 'point of balance' remains quite close to the hilt. In fact, this point seems to be about 80-120mm down the blade (from the crossguard) for many of these swords, combined with an average weight of around 1,520g (3lbs 6oz). That's the average, though. The one in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (the 'Bashford Dean' sword, Inv. No. 29.150.143), while not the longest example, is an absolute monster with a blade 88mm wide at the hilt and weighs 3lbs 11oz.

We're also very fortunate that quite a few examples of this group have been fitted with the two-piece wooden grips attached to the tang by a pair of rivets (again shown earlier in this thread). While these grips are indeed rather crude replacements, probably added by the Ottomans around the mid-nineteenth century, they do at least give us an idea of how the swords would have handled with a proper grip in place. I think this goes a long way towards getting the proper 'feel' of a sword, even if the present grips vary from the originals which would have enclosed the whole tang.

They must have made excellent diplomatic gifts for the Mamluks. As I've said elsewhere, the Lusignan-Mamluk treaty of November 1414 coincides very well with the earlier dates (1414-15) of the inscriptions on these pieces. The ones inscribed with dates of 1415-16 may have been sent to further cement this treaty. However, those inscribed with the date of 1419-20 are a little more intriguing, as the treaty was not renewed at this time. Also, arguably the best examples of the whole group all bear this latter date. I suppose it's possible that the Sultan al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh could have requested a few more of these exceptional swords, having been suitably impressed with the previous consignments. The fact that they would most likely have been very expensive in relation to other swords, given the craftsmanship as Peter suggested above, is likely to have stroked the inflated ego of that particular sultan, who was a lavish spender of royal funds.

Peter,

If I find any representations of these swords in Mamluk art, I'll certainly let you know. I'll need to go through all of my reference material, but none spring to mind straight away. There are one or two blades of this general shape depicted in 14th century sources, but it's difficult to know if they are accurate if we take account of some of the rather stylised forms in use in mamluk artwork. They did use straight bladed swords, of course, but these tended, as you say above, to have a negligible taper and rounded, spatulate tips. They are, to my knowledge and seemingly without exception, single-handed weapons. Several examples of the latter are stored within the Military Museum in Istanbul, and what is interesting about these so-called Syrian-Mamluk swords is the fact that some of their number have European blades, easily identified by the marks upon them. We know that despite Papal pressure against selling arms to the mamluks (among others), a very healthy trade in these items was maintained by the mercantile republics of Venice and Genoa. It's not unreasonable to suggest that a few of the Type XVIIIc swords could have reached the mamluks in this way, although of course we can only speculate upon this. I think the idea that they were princely / diplomatic gifts holds up a little more convincingly, though.