These two swords are attributed to the early part of the 1400's from a Lake, that is now drained and non-existent.

The first (one on the right) was found in the Sjørring Lake in 1868 during fishing.
Its 120 cm long, inclusive the grip of 24 cm length. Pear-shaped pommel.
The cross-guard has a rectangular shape and is 8,25 cm long (it's currently lose)

The second sword (one on the left) was found in 1877 during the digging of a ditch.
It has a mark on the blade - a running wold, a cross and a crosier - from either Passau or Solingen in Germany.
It has lost its pommel.
It's 100 cm, inclusive the grip of 22 cm length.
Slightly down-curved cross-guards of 12,5 cm length.

So looking at the blades the sword on the right still has a visible fuller yet also a rather pronounced profile taper as it ends in a long narrow point.
The sword on the left have a diamond cross-section (thrusting orientated) and also ends in a narrow point (unclear from the picture if something of the tip is missing?).

Experts: So is the sword with the diamond section younger than the fullered sword (being even more specialized against plate armour) AND are the early 1400's a correct estimate for these?

[ Linked Image ]

---

 Attachment: 810.56 KB
Source: The Danish National Museem. http://samlinger.natmus.dk/DMR/168295 [ Download ]

Hello Niels, thank you for the interesting weapons.

Panzertecher, the Polish Koncerz and Estoc are all very interesting and specialized weapons. I'd like to learn more about them and see examples. These are nice blades you show. But I thought early 1400s are too early for this type of sword, more like 1480 to 1600. I'm not an expert though.

It's true there are some XVs like the Shrewsbury and Black Prince swords that almost have this kind of distal taper and hexagonal blade that are from the 1400s, but I associate Panzertecher and Estoc and Koncerz with a little later date myself.
http://myArmoury.com/feature_spotxv.html

From Nathan's article which I linked above:

Quote:

XV.6 "Shrewsbury Sword", found in the Wallace Collection (A.645) Sword of possible English origin, circa 1400. The pommel is faceted and fig-shaped with recesses for small shields of arms. The quillons are flat and straight, with pierced cross cut-outs. The blade is a diamond section with a central fuller and traces of an inscription. Looking at the proportions of this photo may make this sword appear as a XVa, but Oakeshott classifies it as a Type XV.

The Black prince sword is earlier, probably 1330-1360. His most famous battles were Crecy, etc. It's a XVa. I don't know the length of the Shrewsbury sword, but A&A's repro of the Black Prince sword is about 43 in or 109 cm, so a little shorter than the Panzertecher you have. The Koncerz were pretty long as well, but not necessarily two-handed as I think of many Panzertecher.

All I mean to say is that perhaps the XV and XVa are early in the development of the Tuck/Estoc, and so it is a good place to look for examples of the blade. However there are many examples of XV that do not have the severe distal taper. But as the development of plate mail came in the 14th and 15th century the swords were also in a transitional, developmental period.

Do you consider all panzertecher to be two-handed? These English swords are hand-half. Koncerz can be almost like a saber grip. I think there are many different types of Koncerz, I don't know much about them.

The sword on the right looks like a pretty archetypal example of Oakeshott's Type XVII, and 1400 doesn't seem too early for it.

Third quarter of 14th century to first quarter of 15th century seems to be a pretty safe bet for the dating of these two swords.

From the blade shape alone (fuller vs. no fuller) you cannot say which one is older than the other. It may well be that the type XVII with the fish tail pommel is older than the toe XVa that lacks a pommel. -Difficult to say.

Thanks Lafayette C Curtis & Peter Johnsson for your inputs.

As the dating of swords in Danish Museums sometimes is a bit iffy, it's nice to see they nailed it correctly at around 1400 this time!

As for having fuller or not cannot determine the age between them, is it safe to say that the type XVa (left sword without the fuller) is more thrusting specialized than the type XVII (sword on the right with the fuller) or is it about the same in efficiency??

Is it two equally timed development towards thrust orientated swords? So two different solutions on swordmaking to the same problem of piercing increasingly heavy plate armour......with the type XVa lasting longer (until 1550?) than the type XVII (popular until 1425?).

Niels,

It *seems* like the type XVa has a thicker blade and that *might* make it more dedicated for the thrust, but this is not always so clear cut forgive the pun).

Both swords would seem to be made to favor the thrust over the cut, but a narrow pointy silhouette might be misleading, hiding pretty decent cutting performance.

Tp really know you would have to know the cross section and dynamic properties of the sword. The shape of the cross section will have great impact on the cutting performance. So will also the character of the balance.

Niels Just Rasmussen wrote:

Thanks Lafayette C Curtis & Peter Johnsson for your inputs. As the dating of swords in Danish Museums sometimes is a bit iffy, it's nice to see they nailed it correctly at around 1400 this time! As for having fuller or not cannot determine the age between them, is it safe to say that the type XVa (left sword without the fuller) is more thrusting specialized than the type XVII (sword on the right with the fuller) or is it about the same in efficiency?? Is it two equally timed development towards thrust orientated swords? So two different solutions on swordmaking to the same problem of piercing increasingly heavy plate armour......with the type XVa lasting longer (until 1550?) than the type XVII (popular until 1425?).

So while some swords were ultra-dedicated thrust weapons having basically no cutting edge to speak off (what we call "estoc", "tuck" or "panzerstecher"); you really can't presume anything generally, but have to look into the cross section and point of balance of each individual sword.
In the terminology its likely the thrusting ability in itself and not whether it cut well or not, that would classify it as an estoc, tuck or panzerstecher?!

-Correct!
We all know catalogues and publications where swords are designated as thrusting swords based on their pointy profile. The "Brescia Spadona" is one such sword that is presented as a "Stocco" by established scholars in the field. A carefully made replica of the same sword shows this to be an oversimplification, to put it kindly: it is in fact a really good cutting sword with above average all around cutting and thrusting capability.

The well known long sword in the Bayerisches Nationalmuseum in Munich is another sword that is deemed to be a sword mostly favouring the thrust. You may have good basis for this assumption based on balance and cross section and it seems further reinforced when tested against popular targets like mats and water filled plastic bottles. When the same sword is used against the head of a pig, it reveals another side of its personality, easily splitting the solid skull.

Broad thin blades with spatulate points are as a rule said to be intended for slashing blows on the expense of thrusting.
Again, practical tests reveal that such swords will be devastating in the trust against less protected targets.

That is why I try not to be too quick or too absolute in defining swords as either thrusting or cutting swords. We need to understand that there is more involved in the design of swords than their outline. We must also be mindful about the fact that our preconceptions may play us for fools even when we submit swords to testing to learn about their function. There is much to study and learn here.