Does anyone have more information on the giant falchion second from the top. I have never come across it before

https://sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/39070/?page=3

Have you asked Mr Elmslie, he posts on here under his name so will be easy to find. he did the drawings.

Photos of it in this thread from a few years ago:
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=232600

It's thin, under 2mm I think.

thanks guys. so 2-2.5mm no distal taper, I wonder what the performance characteristics/purpose of this weapon would be. Its like a giant machete. Maybe some of the Asian swords equate this blade presence? I assume no modern makers have done one before.

Let me guess. It is relatively long for a falchion, 100 cm or 39 inches total length. It has thin, broad blade with no distal taper. It assume this would mean that you can sharpen to extremely fine edge and the point of balance would be very far down the blade. It also has a very curved edge. I would guess is that this was designed as light calvary ie jinete hobilar, etc sword for clipping mostly unarmored or soft armored infantrymen. I bet it could equal the cutting capablity of straight double edge blades which are much longer than it and match much more radically curved but thicker but slimmer blades of the same length, like a shamsir. But, with a blade that thin , I bet it would have a high chance of edge rolling, blade warping and intense vibrating upon bad cutting or striking highly rigid materials.

Thanks to Nathan for fixing my clearances so I could reply to this!

The image linked is inaccurate in a number of ways, the most critical being it was before I'd collected data from that falchion. (Unfortunately, what ends up on the internet stays on the internet, so its still doing the rounds.... Much like pictures of me from the Rocky Horror show in 1998 that I'll never live down! :D .)

It is in fact, upside down in that picture, - the reason people have been saying its 2mm thick and has no distal taper is they've been looking at a photo of the edge and thinking its the spine.

an image corrected can be seen here:
https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/305681893435841478/ (along with various other images of the falchion research work.

As such, I'm afraid Phillip Dyer's guess about it is pretty much completely wrong in every possible way, sorry.

the fundamental stats are:
Overall length 1089mm.
Weight 1685g.

blade thickness is an extreme, non-linear distal taper.
7mm at the cross,
rapidly tapers down towards 4mm in the first 200mm from the cross,
tapers very gradually from there to about 3mm thick 700mm from the cross
then tapers more aggressively for the last 200mm down to about 1.1mm.

Cutting edge is the straight(er) edge, not the curved edge. The cutting edge is very slightly concave in study. As such, it is not a Type 1a blade, but an exaggerated profile type F5b(-), per the typology published in the 2015 "das Schwert: Gestalt und Gedanke" catalogue. In this, it is mirrored by a slightly later example in the collection of the National Museum of Scotland which is also an F5b (-). The blade is fairly heavily decayed especially round the tip, there's a pretty good chance that it was originally 50mm longer.

Its a fairly heavy cutter, the blade does have a lot of presence, but its not flexible or machete-like at all.

strangely enough, no-one's made it, though I don't doubt that'll change soon as someone reads those measurements!

I'd like to be the one to get there first, if someone wishes to patronise me.... (Though knowing my luck, that'll mean pat me on the head and go "well done". :D )

Thanks JG for all of the information. What a strange beastie indeed it is, like a giant seax shaped blade?

One thing is I am surprised no one has taken this on yet as you say. Did it only surface onto the radar recently?

[quote="JG Elmslie"]

Michael Brudon wrote:

So for the shapes of these weapons To use marine biology, as a nod to Dean's monumental influence, they're perhaps best not described as related species, but as Elvis Taxons; or to put another way, they're not two species of similar sharks, but species of ichthyosaur and dolphin.... Fundamentally similar shapes developed for similar environmental conditions, but entirely different species in origin.

I like the analogy JG. Will your book go back as far as seaxes?

Hi J.G. Elmslie, thank you for this great information. I love falchion types and it's fascinating to hear your research and opinions. Thanks for posting here. Consider me a reader of your forthcoming book. Do you have a link for the typology you reference above? I have looked at your website before and think your work is extraordinary. It's great to think about seeing more reproductions of these falchions.

Thanks,