This thread is meant to celebrate the irregularities, oddities, and eccentricities of genuine antique medieval swords.

The purpose of this thread is to help generate greater awareness among sword enthusiasts as to the reality of the shapes, proportions and forms of genuine medieval swords as a means of changing our perceptions of how a medieval sword—antique or reproduction—should look.

To that end, this thread is also meant to encourage collectors—including myself—to relax their expectations that modern reproduction swords must rigidly meet strict aesthetic standards of visual harmony without blemishes or defects of any sort.

Hopefully, it can also encourage sword makers to be more experimental in crafting swords that achieve the authentic look and feel of genuine antique swords, as opposed to the nearly always hyper-proportioned and perfectly symmetrical artifacts of modernity.

******************************************************************************************************


Please post pictures of some of the antique medieval swords whose shapes and forms are eccentric, irregular or “aesthetically displeasing”.

For the sake of ease for readers, please post a brief explanation of what is irregular or unusual about a given sword, even if these features are fairly obvious.

Some of the types of things worth posting are swords with unusual hilt/blade proportions, excessively small pommels, canted pommels, fullers that are not straight, lopsided cross guards, and other asymmetric characteristics.

Please avoid posting antique swords where the marring that has occurred is probably a result of the sword being in excavated condition. Instead, try to find swords whose shape and form were already eccentric prior to being lost, buried, deposited in a lake, etc.

I’ll start this thread out with examples from Records of the Medieval Sword by Ewart Oakeshott, Beiträge zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter by Dr. Alfred Geibig, and The Sword: Form and Thought by Peter Johnsson et al.

I want to emphasize: the comments below reflect likely modern perceptions of these swords. The purpose of this thread is to encourage people to recognize that these "flaws" were perfectly acceptable from a medieval perspective, and to encourage sword collectors and makers to explore faithfully recreating these eccentricities instead of trying to fix them or otherwise alter them.

1) Even before it suffered wear, I’m pretty sure this sword had a warped tang, as evidenced by this photo.

[ Linked Image ]

2) Notice from Geibig’s sketch that the pommel is asymmetrical, which can be seen from the shadow in the photo. The pommel is also canted to the left. I’m fairly sure the arms of the cross were never equally sized, even when the sword was first made.

[ Linked Image ]

3) This is a sword where the hilt portion appears somewhat out of proportion with the robustness of the blade.

[ Linked Image ]

4) Another asymmetrical pommel, and a second instance of a cross with arms of different thicknesses.

[ Linked Image ]

5) This cross would probably make most modern collectors want to scream—and I don’t think its size is just a matter of irregular wear and deterioration.

[ Linked Image ]

6) This sword, also found in Records, is a classic example of a sword whose pommel is tiny in proportion to the rest of the weapon.

[ Linked Image ]

7) The hilt of this sword seems entirely too small for the blade.

[ Linked Image ]

8) Yet another instance of mismatched hilt and blade proportions.

[ Linked Image ]

9) A pommel like this would almost certainly be viewed as entirely unacceptable by a modern customer, but it seems to be fine for the purpose of a fighting weapon actually used in the Middle Ages.

[ Linked Image ]

10) Another good example of a tiny pommel on a sword.

[ Linked Image ]

11) This sword is probably well known to fans of Records—it’s the sword with the exceedingly broad blade dated to the 12th century. What may not be so well known is its extraordinarily thin pommel, as seen here in The Sword: Form and Thought

[ Linked Image ]

12) This Type XII doesn’t have a fuller, already making it quite unusual for a sword of the High Middle Ages. The appearance of the cross is also not really aligned with most modern people’s expectation of how a sword should look. Yet this sword was found in a house after centuries, so it’s most likely genuine.

[ Linked Image ]

13) If you look closely, the pommel appears slightly canted to the left.

[ Linked Image ]

14) This Type XIII.a is one of my favourites, despite the rather peculiar cross and the asymmetric tang.

[ Linked Image ]

15) A number of antique Type XVI.a have small cross guards, including this well-known example from Borringholm, yet how many modern collectors would want a cross like this one?

[ Linked Image ]

Hello. One of the oddities of early medival swords were "real zweihanders" they were accompanied with swords, which could be called today as half and handers. The longer ones possibly came from Chinese influenced area and the swords with elongated grips might have been modification for either hand protection or for double handed grip. There are more examples of pictorial and even material evidenceof theese pieces but i have reached my 1mb limit.
Btw. Chinese used such swords from bronze age onwards.

---

 Attachment: 39.17 KB

Afrodisiada sword from 8th century Along with others from central asia.

 Attachment: 12.03 KB
Sassanid disc pommel sword from 4th century. [ Download ]

 Attachment: 104.15 KB
Sogdian half and handers in mural painting from 7-8ct. [ Download ]

 Attachment: 60.86 KB
Bulgarian examples from 10-11. century with elongated grips [ Download ]

 Attachment: 25.07 KB
Sword from auction with elongated handle. 10-11 century. [ Download ]

Can you post the link to that catalogue please?

Great thread, very interesting. My earliest antique is from the late 1500s or 1600, so I can't contribute directly here. But in general I love the messiness and irregularity of these antiques. Looking forward to more examples!

This is very interesting indeed... but let me have some reflection.

To be very honest - and as a maker and researcher - I find nothing "irregular or aesthetically displeasing” in these swords here.
(Except maybe some with a bit debatable origin or looking non-original) and I couldn`t choose any other to share here :)
However I want to put your attention to something else, by the way.
The point is WHY we consider them as weird or unusual? What is their "fault" that they do not satisfy our modern expectations?
I think this depends on modern makers choices for their design. The problem is that we have a completely different aesthetics and we do not use swords today as a regular weapon...
Maybe this choice of modern makers simply follow the number of most common swords in museums - but maybe this is only their personal choice according to modern expectations - or also the influence of mass culture today. I mean - customers expect and choose swords more like those well known from mass media. In time, we can`t find today recreations of these types / style swords posted by Craig. But they are not weird in my opinion.
"Too thin pommel? Too small hilt? Assymetry? strange proportions?" - who would judge like this in medieval time? If it was useless in battle - then I guess it was remaded to be usefull. And if it was usefull - then its ok.

Great topic, thank you for starting it Craig. It is interesting how much the modern eye and mind fixates on symmetry and it's connection to high end items. While the people that used them to defend themselves did not care about the fact that they were not perfect as we see it.

On a side note/question Craig, do you have any more information on the third sword that you posted? I am drawn to the profile of the blade.

Wonderful insights from Maciej as a high-level craftsman (whose work I aspire to purchase some day, but right now lower-condition antiques are more accessible).

Maciej, I think you're agreeing with Craig, who is opening our eyes to exactly the changing standards you mention. We tend to idolize idealized proportions and build quality, when functionality was probably far more important to the everyday customer.

Then again, would a "clumsy" looking repro sell? Maciej, would you, as a businessman, choose to spend many hours reproducing one of the "awkward" (by modern collector standards) examples above? Probably not, because it would limit appeal and demand in the market. I'm not criticizing, just thinking out loud. All your pieces are graceful and idealized in their proportions. Would a "weird" one sell? I guess if it was a custom commission, but I suspect otherwise no.

I think Maciej makes some good points, as does Craig.

I see some of the above swords as awkward, and some as fine, though holding the actual object or the object as it was first made might change my mind. Some swords speak to us, others don’t, and sometimes we don’t really know why we like or dislike them, or end up changing our perspective with time or new information. Maciej has made and recreated some of ‘awkward’ swords, but those are my favorite ones: seeing a photo or drawing of the artifact and then the recreation of the like-new piece is fascinating to me, and I often find myself drawn back to the more extreme or ‘strange’ designs.

They inevitably speak more about the function of the piece and how it may have been used than the more ‘normal’ proportions (huge blades and wee hilts, or crazy long guards, or rapiers that go on forever!). I love our modern world, where we can immerse ourselves in the figures and images of the past, and marvel and appreciate (or dislike) them, and then have something that really tickles our fancy made just to our specifications, or find recreated hidden gems we never knew existed. And the ability to jump time periods only opens the doors for the ‘weird’ and ‘wonderful,’ which often go hand in hand!

Here’s a few more that don’t necessarily fit with modern perceptions about how swords should be. The images come from L'épée : Usages, mythes et symboles by Dr. Fabrice Cognot et al, Beiträge zur morphologischen Entwicklung des Schwertes im Mittelalter by Dr. Alfred Geibig, and The Sword: Form and Thought by Peter Johnsson et al.

As before, I want to emphasize: the comments below reflect likely modern perceptions of these swords. The purpose of this thread is to encourage people to recognize that these "flaws" were perfectly acceptable from a medieval perspective, and to encourage sword collectors and makers to explore faithfully recreating these eccentricities instead of trying to fix them or otherwise alter them.

16) This one from Geibig has a pommel that seems slightly deformed, and I don’t think this is entirely from aging.

[ Linked Image ]

17) A sword whose cross guard would probably be “corrected” to lengthen it by modern enthusiasts, and yet which was entirely acceptable in the Middle Ages.

[ Linked Image ]

18) A good example of a short grip, and again one that would likely be corrected by modern people, without realizing it was made short for a purpose.

[ Linked Image ]

19) Here’s a great example of a sword that doesn’t fit modern aesthetics for a variety of reasons. The grip is short, the pommel is unusual, and the cross is short, too.

[ Linked Image ]

20) The St. Omer Type XI sword has a short grip. Again, this is something many modern enthusiasts would want to “correct”, despite the fact that it was clearly made to be used by cradling the pommel in one’s fingers when holding the sword.

[ Linked Image ]

yes I agree with you Craig, and I meant this indeed :)
In fact, that is also about medieval swords aesthetics and knowledge about them in general.
Many times I was writing about all these assymetries, proportions, imperfections of most of original swords - not caused by the time, but simply made like that.
It is related to our modern vision and expectations. I don`t mean poorly made swords, non-historical geometry, etc. but if the maker will follow all details of the base-sword, then he will meet many surprising things.
On some stages of producing every fully hand made object will have imperfections, small flaws, asymetries - which are simply results of style of maker`s work and because he is making a tool - NOT AN OBJECT TO ADMIRE ON MUSEUM`S WALL :)
We sometimes see them like artwork. I believe we can think about swordmaking and the final effect of this work like that today.
But then - it was very different point of view :)
Anyway - I think we can add here probably EVERY ORIGINAL SWORD, unexpectadly finding some details to be ... striking somehow :)

The St. Omer is always gorgeous, thank you for posting that. Do you have any more photos or information on #17? I rather like that cross and would like to see the full monty, as it were. The grip is a little thick for me, but then that’s the point of the thread, isn’t it?

Something that I have not focused upon, but is worth noticing, is the fullers on these and other swords. In many or most cases, the fullers seem to wander a little, have inconsistent widths, and inconsistencies in depth. Of course, evaluating these "flaws" is trickier, as the profiles of many blades have suffered degradation through aging which can give misleading ideas. Nevertheless, fuller variations are undeniably present.

The St. Omer sword is a great example of a nearly pristine weapon, yet it is quite obvious that the fuller does not maintain a perfectly consistent width as it extends down the sword. Nor would I be surprised if I learned that the depth varies noticeably also; it certainly appears that way from a visual inspection of the sword. Likewise, take sword 16 from Geibig, whose blade appears relatively intact. It could just be the way the photos were taken (my photos or Geibig's) but if you measure with a ruler on the screen, the fuller starts closer to the left side (viewer's perspective) of the sword blade than to the right. I'll double check this when I get home to make sure it's not just a consequence of my photography. At any rate, the fuller certainly seems biased to the left.