Here is a preview shot of the waxes before molding...

[ Linked Image ]

Best,

Howy

WOW! Can't wait to see this one in steel.

Ahh. My favorite pommel and cross combination! But is that the Kingmaker blade, with a fuller? The website 'artist concept' still shows a typical XVIII, with a strong central ridge all the way from cross to tip.

:D

Right on time :)

It definately looks like a fuller to me.

Is the kingmaker based off of Henry V sword?

Man oh man Albion just keeps adding more and more swords. I had decided on the prince, then the constable, then the yeoman and now I like the kingmaker. Sheesh :D

well if its a kingmaker then its a 15thc based sword no? then theres no fuller that i'm awaire of used then.

Hey all, and thanks for positive remarks.

The Kingmaker is not based on the famous weapon of Henry V.
That sword is shorter and wider in the blade.
It does share some similarities in the hilt, but so does many, many swords of this type: many follow exactly this design concept.
The Kingmaker is a XVIIIa (according to the Oakeshott typology in The Sword in the Age of Chivalry): a little longer and slimmer than the typical XVIII. Some of these XVIIIa´s do have fullers, so you are not completely out of your way in thinking the Kingmaker might have one.
It does not however. What you see is shadings left by the milling in the tang plug.
Also to keep in mind, the tang plugs I use for the hilt waxes do not have to include all the features of the finished blades.

There are several original swords that are the source of inspiration for the Kingmaker.
I have used this opportunity to include features from s few swords that I long have admired, and relied most heavily on the ones I have personally documented.
There are two in the wallace Collection that belong to the XVIIIa grup and another in the Royal Armouries in Leeds (and this one have had the most prominent influence) that have all been an inspiration for the visual design of the Kingmaker. The Leeds one is published ion "Records": XVIII.3 page 174. Those who have the book might have a look. The kingmaker is much closer to this sword than the sword of Henry V.

Many swords of this type and from this time have similar look and character. There are a few features that you see repeated with small variations over and over again.

The Kingmaker is intended to be a homage to those swords.
I have documented some of these and used this detailed data to design the blade. It´s balance and mounting is also influenced by swords from the casitllion find that I have had the privilige to handle and take detailed notes of.

In hand the Kingmaker feels solid and substantial. The blade is thick and stiff, but light as a result of the deeply hollowed edge bevels. The very edge is of apple seed section, modelled after the actual swords Ive seen first hand.
When put in motion it shares the feel of many of its historical counterparts: a strong intuitive feel and an understated but clear aggressiveness. A good, dependable fighting sword in the press of battle for use by both foot soldier and mounted knight.
It might look a bit fancy, but it is all business.

I hope this weapon will meet and perhaps even exceed your expectations.

Thank you.

Looking forward to that sword!

It looks GREAT! I do like the lines of the waxes. Just a matter of time now until mine arrives.... :D

Jeremy;

Just had a quick look at Albion and the Kingmaker is described as an XVIII and not as an XVllla so the size makes sense.
( if I have it right " a " at the end usually means the longer variants ! Although there might be one or more exceptions to this. )

( Edited: rereading the Post Peter wrote I see that he wrote XVIIIa but the Albion site does say XVIII , so there may be a little confusion here with the type it's supposed to be ??? )

And as Peter said it's not a copy of the Henry V so dimensions should respect the type but need not be identical to the
Henry V .

I could be wrong but the Oakshotts typology is a system of organizing and describing swords in an organized way but it shouldn't be used as meaning that any variance from " type " is wrong: Many swords can be hard to type when they have attributes that could be seen as tweeners by having unique characteristics like fullers on types that usually don't have fullers or vice versa.

If you went back in time and told a swordsmith that a sword he is making is wrong because it doesn't neatly fit into a type he would not have any idea what you were talking about ! :eek: The whole typology thing is just for us to have an easy way to describe swords to each other in words and have an idea about it without a picture or having to go into a long description every time.

Perhaps part of the confusion lies in using different books as reference points. Peter was referring to the Kingmaker as an XVIIIa as defined in SAC, whereas the XVIIIa longswords as listed in Records were classified as XIIIb in SAC. I've not seen an explanation from Oakeshott as to why he adjusted the Type XVIII subclassifications, but it does seem to be a bit confusing, to me at least. So, to the best of my understanding, the Kingmaker would be a type XVIII according to Records, but a type XVIIIa according to SAC.

Clear as mud,
;)
David

The blade length of the Kingmaker is 82 cm or a tad over 32 inches. This fits right with the typical XVIIIa.
The stats you see describing the sword are unfortunately quite dated, and belong to a very early proto version of this sword.
The Kingmaker has gone through quite a few transformations during its development.
We wanted to have a type XVIII single hander in the NG line.
Initially the Kingmaker was concieved as a shorter and broader sword.
I admire many of the swords in the Castillion find that is of this type. At the time we first started development of the Kingmaker it turned out it was not feasible to produce such a thin and wide blade in a hollow ground configuration.
Instead the Kingmaker became less wide and instead longer turning into a XVIIIa (according to The Sword in the Age of Chivalry), but still a XVIII if you go by "Records". In records Oakeshott only presents one subgroup of type XVIII. You can still see a progression from the shorter and broader XVIII via XVIIIa to the XVIIIb in the layout and sequence of the photos in the book. Many of those that are presented as XVIII´s would have been classified XVIIIa´s in SAC.
This is the cause for any confusion, I should think, plus the fact that old data for the dimensions of the
Kingmaker unfortunately has remained unchanged from an early stage in development.

In the end, if you choose to classify the Kingmaker as a XVIII or an XVIIIa depends on what version of the Oakeshott typology you feel most at home with. I normally refer to the typology as seen in SAC as it offers a more defined coverage of types. Oakeshott kept evolving and developing his typology, so one need to be aware this.

There are resons to return to the type XVIII for the NG line.
I still want to see a classic Castillion type sword with a bold broad and pointy type XVIII blade of handy size. To me those swords are among the most beautifull and functional shapes the medieval sword ever had.
The Kingmaker in its final shape is meant to be a sword just like those you see on many effigies of men at arms and knights of this period: a weapon with a little more reach than their shorter cousins, but a weapon that is still handy enough to be supremely functional in close hand to hand fighting.
The XVIIIa type (SAC definition) is a clear type with merits of its own. They do have a place beside the shorter XVIII swords. The XVIIIa´s might give a more "Knightly" impression, even if this was not so in actuality: both XVIII and XVIIIa were obviously used by nobles and soldiers of more humble standing.

Hope this helps to clear any misunderstandings and confusions.