Hi all forumites, today there I made a small update on my homepage, adding a new/old sword to the Blades section:
http://www.peterjohnsson.com/a-german-tuck-16th-c-style/
Very welcome to drop by and have a look!
Hope you will enjoy this little nostalgic visit to the past. :-)
Peter, that's my favorite sword you've done. It's so unique in terms of modern recreations with all those fantastic German characteristics that I love so much. Thank you for sharing all the photos of it. I had only one photo of it before. There's so many more details evident now!
Peter,
I love the Type XVII you have pictured on your site (http://www.peterjohnsson.com/sword-of-sempach-type/). I am curious why you call it a Sempach type, though, as I thought that designation was given to Type XVIIs with the wedge-shaped pommel like what was found in the graves of the two knights who died at the Battle of Sempach (and like the Albion NG Sempach).
Oakeshott noted that Type XVIIs often fall into two groups: the Sempach group (wedge shaped pommel), and the other kind, with wide wheel pommels (like the NG Landgraf):
Sempach Type:
[ Linked Image ]
Other kind:
[ Linked Image ]
I love the Type XVII you have pictured on your site (http://www.peterjohnsson.com/sword-of-sempach-type/). I am curious why you call it a Sempach type, though, as I thought that designation was given to Type XVIIs with the wedge-shaped pommel like what was found in the graves of the two knights who died at the Battle of Sempach (and like the Albion NG Sempach).
Oakeshott noted that Type XVIIs often fall into two groups: the Sempach group (wedge shaped pommel), and the other kind, with wide wheel pommels (like the NG Landgraf):
Sempach Type:
[ Linked Image ]
Other kind:
[ Linked Image ]
Thank you both for kind words.
:-)
Chad, I may well be mistaken including this pommel type within the group of Sempach swords.
I need to go back and do some homework! :-)
:-)
Chad, I may well be mistaken including this pommel type within the group of Sempach swords.
I need to go back and do some homework! :-)
I love the beast heads, among other things. I wish you had a photo of the other side of the hilt.
... kinda stumbled over this thread, and was pleasantly surprised to see a saber
you've made. Beautifully done. Have you done many ?
you've made. Beautifully done. Have you done many ?
Roger, thanks!
No, sorry, there are only photos of the front side. Stupid really. The back is plain without extra file work. The inside guard grows out of the guard much like the finger ring, if you can picture that in your mind.
Matthew, thank you!
Yes, the saber is an unusual piece in my production. I am fascinated with the type, but have only made this one so far. I have no current plans to make another like this any time soon, but who knows what will surface later on?
:-)
No, sorry, there are only photos of the front side. Stupid really. The back is plain without extra file work. The inside guard grows out of the guard much like the finger ring, if you can picture that in your mind.
Matthew, thank you!
Yes, the saber is an unusual piece in my production. I am fascinated with the type, but have only made this one so far. I have no current plans to make another like this any time soon, but who knows what will surface later on?
:-)
| Peter Johnsson wrote: |
| Matthew, thank you!
Yes, the saber is an unusual piece in my production. I am fascinated with the type, but have only made this one so far. I have no current plans to make another like this any time soon, but who knows what will surface later on? :-) |
You're welcome, it took me a bit, but I wanted to post this drawing of the saber-type I think
yours comes close to looking like, another picture from Zablocki's Szable Swiata ...
It stands to reason that I would end up here AFTER Matthew showed up and said almost everything I had wanted to say! I shall have to cudgel my brains to come up with something worthwhile.
I've found it interesting that this form of saber seems to have continued, with only moderate changes, for quite some time. it seems typical of 10th-11th century Avar sabers, and persisted into the 17th century as the szabla tatarska, or Tatar saber. (Maybe it fell from use and was revived?)
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?...ht=ordynka This is a Vikingsword ethno discussion on some of the later forms.
Your work is stellar, Peter.
I've found it interesting that this form of saber seems to have continued, with only moderate changes, for quite some time. it seems typical of 10th-11th century Avar sabers, and persisted into the 17th century as the szabla tatarska, or Tatar saber. (Maybe it fell from use and was revived?)
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?...ht=ordynka This is a Vikingsword ethno discussion on some of the later forms.
Your work is stellar, Peter.
Matthew and Lewis, Thank you!
Yes this form of saber is strangely long lived. With slight variations it seems to have been use by Khazars, Avars and Magyars in the (9th?) and 10th century and continued to be used for (almost?) as long as sabers were viable military weapons.
A few years back I got to handle a later period decendant during a visit to the Royal Armouries in Stockholm.
A beautiful saber with white sting ray skin grip and a long and gracefully curved blade. Similar to the one Matthew posted above. The blade was a fine example of Bulat steel.
Sometime I hope to get to make a blade like this from crucible steel.
-A blade smiths dream...
:-)
Attachment: 96.3 KB
Attachment: 72.65 KB
Yes this form of saber is strangely long lived. With slight variations it seems to have been use by Khazars, Avars and Magyars in the (9th?) and 10th century and continued to be used for (almost?) as long as sabers were viable military weapons.
A few years back I got to handle a later period decendant during a visit to the Royal Armouries in Stockholm.
A beautiful saber with white sting ray skin grip and a long and gracefully curved blade. Similar to the one Matthew posted above. The blade was a fine example of Bulat steel.
Sometime I hope to get to make a blade like this from crucible steel.
-A blade smiths dream...
:-)
Attachment: 96.3 KB Attachment: 72.65 KBI absolutely love the hilt in that sword! But I'm a bit confused by the whole tuck terminology. I've seen some Tucks / Bohrschwerter at the Rüstkammer in Vienna. These had a three sided (blunt?) cross-section with a sharp point.
Your design appears to be more like a narrow thick hollow ground blade. Did tucks like these have functioning sharp edges or were they more like the blunt-edged estocs described above? Thanks for answering!
Your design appears to be more like a narrow thick hollow ground blade. Did tucks like these have functioning sharp edges or were they more like the blunt-edged estocs described above? Thanks for answering!
| Wolfgang Armbruster wrote: |
| I absolutely love the hilt in that sword! But I'm a bit confused by the whole tuck terminology. I've seen some Tucks / Bohrschwerter at the Rüstkammer in Vienna. These had a three sided (blunt?) cross-section with a sharp point.
Your design appears to be more like a narrow thick hollow ground blade. Did tucks like these have functioning sharp edges or were they more like the blunt-edged estocs described above? Thanks for answering! |
This is the usual situation with exact naming of swords.
You have one nomenclature that is current with the contemporary academic use and/or the lingua franca among collectors (and these may or may not be the same). Then you have the name as used in the historic past. The same name may or may not cover the same type(s) of sword(s).
A tuck is a narrow sword specialized for the thrust (or perhaps just very good at the thrust). Looking at swords of this description among the historical material we shall find weapons that are indeed specialized for the thrust, but still have sharp edges. Some 16th century examples are indeed just square or triangular rods of steel Some have hollow ground sections making for more aggressive edges. But regardless how sharp they are, they will not compare to wide and thin cutting swords.
Perhaps I am wrong in calling my sword a Tuck or Estoc. I use this name to stress the fact it is a specialized thrusting sword. It matters not if it has edges or not. It is still a thrusting sword. My impression is that this was how the term Estoc or Tuck was used as the name stress the use of the point. Some may stand up and harrumph saying that a Tuck is not supposed to have sharp edges, but I think that this is a result of our modern enthusiasm to find simple and clean definitions.
The sharpness of the edge and the geometry of the cross section are two different things.
An edge can be very sharp but be part of a blade that is pretty thick and narrow. It will cut and slice but not be very efficient as a chopping/cleaving blade: it is a thrusting sword and sharp edges help in making narrow stab wounds more lethal. Sharp edges on a thrusting sword may also help making penetration through protective clothing/padding more effortless. Rapiers are more or less specialized for the thrust and yet many of them have edges very much alike those found on filet knives. Not that they will deliver amputating cuts, but the sharp edges still make the blade that much more lethal.
From just looking at the outline, or profile of a sword it can be difficult to see the difference between a narrow thin blade well suited for both cut and thrust and a narrow but thick blade that is more specialized for the thrust. Both kinds can have sharp edges but the cross section of the thinner blade makes it more effective in the cut.
As an example, it can be pointed out that the sword known as the Brescia Spadona has been described as a specialized thrusting sword not capable of effective cutting because of the shape of its blade (the author mentioned both cross section and its pointyness as proof for its specialized use as a thrusting sword). In Italian use it may today be called a "Stocco" (=thrusting sword).
To my mind this is a very good example of how we with our modern tendency to categorize many times may miss the real point (no pun intended) and trip on our own feet in our enthusiasm to make things clear and precise. The "Brescia Spadona" is in fact an extremely effective cutting sword. It may defy modern attempts of definition, but it will speak clearly about its intended purpose to anyone who tries to use it.
The funny thing is that the Brescia Spadona may well have been called a "Stocco" back in the day it was made! An obvious name, since it is indeed a very efficient thrusting sword. It may not have bothered its contemporaries that it is also a very efficient cutting sword, since there were other swords that were so obviously intended for the cut or for use on the battle field, and because of that were more readily recognized as cutting swords.
There is a lot of functional cross over between sword types. The naming of swords is not always exclusive of other interpretations and I think that the use of names was not always very standardized back in the day.
It puts us in a spot today when we try to be clear about these things. I think the best option is to try and understand these things with an eye for the overall rather than the detail.
-Sorry for an unexpectedly long post!
I guess it was a good question!
Thank you for the extensive answer! Highly appreciated.
I think one day someone is going to write a scientific paper based entirely on Mr. Johnsson's forum posts ;-)
I think one day someone is going to write a scientific paper based entirely on Mr. Johnsson's forum posts ;-)
| Wolfgang Armbruster wrote: |
| Thank you for the extensive answer! Highly appreciated.
I think one day someone is going to write a scientific paper based entirely on Mr. Johnsson's forum posts ;-) |
-That shall be one tediously long and very confused thesis!
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum