Hello,
I would really like to know the time period in which the Norman, Templar, Ritter, and Knight respectively represent. As a happy owner of the Norman I want another single-hand sword representing the high middle age period and predating plate armor. I am interested in the Knight but want to make sure that it is a a sword that would have been most likely produced prior to 1300. I believe that this is so but could you let me know for sure?
Also do the Duke and the Baron represent the same period or would one predate the other in terms of the time it would have been made. I know that both would have been contemporary but am interested in the time of origonal production.
Sorry for nit-picking but I just gotta know. Jeremy

Hi Jeremy,
The Norman, Templar, Ritter and Knight all belong to the period before the intruduction of plate armour. In dating they tend to overlap forward so that those next to each other could be seen as contemporary but each next sword in the line is a little more modern. To give absolute dates form any of these swords is of course difficult. A general time frame can be given. In some cases an not-earlier-than or not-later-than period can be given but time frames tend to be soft and yeilding.

First off I´ll also add the Gadddhjalt to your list. It is sorted among the vikings on Albions site, as the type first started to be used in the late viking age, but its popularity continues well into the 12th C.

Norman belongs to the late 11th and into the 12th C, perhaps a litle further than the Gaddhjalt.

The Templar I´d say belongs to the 12th C and into the 13thC (perhaps even up till the end of the 13th C?). Oakeshott tells us the pommel of type I has greatst popularity in the middle years of the 13thC, but as a whole the sword hints also to earlier years. This makes the Templar the sword in this group that is most vague in its dating, but also most forgving to be placed in different time frames.

The Ritter would be dated from perhaps 1225 to 1275 if we follow Oakeshotts dating of this type of pommel. I would place the Ritter to the first half of the 13th C. I don´t know if it couldn´t even be placed in the very late 12thC?
The Ritter would be a good complement to your Norman, I think.

The Knight belongs to the second half of the 13th C and may continue into the 14thC. This sword represent the most clear leap forward in time in this group. One can see a gap in time between the Ritter and the Knight of perhaps half a century or so (1275-1350). During this period the practice for wearing reinforced armour as a complement to mail was introduced. The Knight belongs to the golden age of mail, but is introduced towards its end.

Two soon to be introduced swords also belong to the time frame in question:
First a type X that is going to be produced both with a tea cosy pommel and a disc pommel. This sword (with its two variations) would be roughly contemporary to Gaddhjalt and Norman.
Secondly a sword built on the same blade as the Ritter. It is inspired from the Xa.5 in "Records"; a straight guard and a disc pommel with proportions of understated elegance. This would be strongly associated with the 12th C.

The Ritter blade is, despite its long reach, a quick and responsive sword.
The New type X will also be a quick and nimble weapon.
In comparison the Templar and the Gaddhjalt are more ponderous, but they are not sluggish. It is just that they tend to be used in wider swings.
Different temperaments, so to say.

Both the Duke and the Baron can be placed in the 13th C and beginning 14th C.
It is difficult to say wich one is the earliest sword as both types are contemporary.

No firm dates, sorry. I hope this is of some help anyways.

Jeremy V. Krause wrote:

Hello, I would really like to know the time period in which the Norman, Templar, Ritter, and Knight respectively represent. As a happy owner of the Norman I want another single-hand sword representing the high middle age period and predating plate armor. I am interested in the Knight but want to make sure that it is a a sword that would have been most likely produced prior to 1300. I believe that this is so but could you let me know for sure? Also do the Duke and the Baron represent the same period or would one predate the other in terms of the time it would have been made. I know that both would have been contemporary but am interested in the time of origonal production. Sorry for nit-picking but I just gotta know. Jeremy

Thanks so much Peter!
This information is great, as thourough and informed as always- why not write a book? ;) I did not expect firm dates but your impressions are invauable and really help me to make an informed decision.
I must ask another question however- I notice that the Norman, Ritter, Templar, and Gaddjhalt all lend themselves to calvary usage. I am interested in a sword appropriate for the infantry as well. I know that swords during the high middle ages would have been wielded primarilly by the knightly class. Am I trying to carve out history to fit my collection interests? I guess my question is did nearly all swords of this period lend themselves to cavalry? Thanks again for your time and knowledge! Jeremy

Hmm...

Sometimes I think we might make too much out of the "cavalry sword" aspect. It is just as you remarked: swords in this period would have been used by men who were more or less living in the saddle. They could make good use of powerful swords with long reach. This does not mean these swords cannot be used effectively when fighting on foot. We should also recognize that not all swords from this age have the same handling characteristics. There is a variation within the given parameters. I try to incorporate that in the line of Next Gens so that each model shows an aspect of the possible variation.
Not all cavalsy weapon share the same characteristics either. Not all are long and "heavy". Some are rather short and nimble. This, I think, reflects different apporaches to mounted tactics. Some swords that are recognized as true knightly sword (meant to be used from horseback) are quite short, like the types XVIII or XV. We also see shorter swords in the 12th-13th centuries. I would not suggest those slightly shorter weapons would not have been used from horseback as well...
Again it depends on fighting style and battle tactics.

When swords are used today as testcutting tools, the situation is far removed from the situation on the battle field. Test cutting is great fun, but one should not build too far reaching conclusions on how a sword feels cutting mats, bottles, cardboard or plywood. (A good sword will do this with ease regardless of type, but the character of its handilg will tell you more about its original intended function rather than its quality as a wepon) Todays cutting tests are standardized cutting materials used in a standardized setting. If we try to learn something of the historical aspects of different swords we need a wider perspective and a broader reference.
Unfortunately it is uncommon to do testcutting training wearing mail and a shield. That would change the setting drastically and will also change the desired functional aspects of the sword.
Taking this into account, it becomes more clear that the full function and use of a sword must be understood in the context of its original surrounding.

When fighting on foot a shorter weapon with more nimble character could perhaps be used to greater advantage, but this all depends on fighting style. There is nothing to say that a Longer sword used together with a shield while clad in full mail is not to be preffered.
As your movements are somewhat limited already by the rest of your equipment, perhaps the sword you can best use will be one that delivers powerfully when it is wielded in wide deliberate swings, rather than in quick dodgy manouvers?

Whith this perspective, a long and "slow" sword might be well suited for infatry use as well. It all depends on how the infantry fights and what kind of equipment it has.

If you are looking for a sword with contrasting handling characteristics from your Norman, the Ritter is a good choice as are the coming type X or the Xa.5 derivate built on the Ritter blade.
If you like the feeling of long reach and powerful blows, then the Gaddhjalt and Templar are obvious candidates.
All these swords should be used with a shield to be properly put in context. If you have a mail shirt, put that on as well to get a more accurate feel of what those warriors of old had to live with ;-)
All the swords we have discussed in this thread will also work fine as infantry weapons, it is only that they were perhaps primarily intended for use from the horseback as that was normal use in these times, so those characteristics are more pronounced in the design. You can make good use of that while fighting on foot as well, just do not compare them with short type XVIII´s, Single hand XV´s or light 16thC XIX´s. That is not something that really will tell us anything other than those were swords for different times and different use/tactics.

Perhaps a bit confused this, but I hope it helps a bit anyways?

Hi Peter,
If I may let me tag a related question onto this. The Laird I would guess to be more of a late 14th to early 15th century style but what about the Caithness? In Oakeshotte's "Records.." type XII numbers 10 and 11 remind me a lot of the Caithness and Oakeshotte puts them between 1100 and 1150AD. The crosses are the big difference. Would the cross of the Caithness push it to a later date or was that style of cross in use in the 12th century?