Hi,

I am presented the choice of the 2 following Medieval sword replicas:

Can anyone advise which is the more 'authentic' of the 2?? I mean, in terms of pommel design, shape of guard, the blade shape, the fuller length... etc.

N.B. I must admit these are not 'real', expensive, high-end replicas, but somethng for my novice pocket, and I'll get the one that's MOST representive of Medieval swords, according to all your feedbacks & advise.

Many thanks~
Larry

---

 Attachment: 23.18 KB

This is the 2nd one...

Hope to hear from you guys.....

Many thanks!
Larry

---

 Attachment: 19.68 KB

Who's the makers?

Both look reasonably authentic in design, though that scabbard is obviously not period.

They're not by Windlass Steelcrafts are they?

Regards,
M.

Whats wrong with windlass?

Larry

Larry-

The blade of the first one looks a bit mismatched to the hilt. It seems to be a type XVI which is from a later period than the cocked hat type pommel. The second one's blade looks like a Xa or XI, which would be a good match for the hilt. I would highly recommend reading the following in the features section of this website: Ewart Oakeshott: The Man and his Legacy. This article will help to explain what authentic swords looked like thus helping you to make a better decision. The spotlight articles on the different sword types are all also very well written and informative. Hope this helps.....

-Tim

I'd go with the second one. The blade on the first is off, as many are in this price range. The fuller is too long to make it a typical Type XVI, though. I think many of these companies start with a diamond cross-section blade and then cut a fuller into it. I've run across this with Windlass stuff before. For swords of this era, a lozenge (aka lenticular) cross-section past the fuller would be more appropriate.

The second one just looks closer to my eye, though I'm not a big fan of the guard. It looks clunky to me.

As for Windlass, there's not too much wrong with them if you take into account their price tag and intent. They're not high-cost, high-end replicas, nor do they try to be so. Corners are cut in R&D and in production to keep costs down. The more recent ones I have seen are normally functional for light-duty cutting and are reasonably attractive. Are they as good as more expensive swords? Absolutely not. I don't believe they're intended to be, though.

I'm not sure that the the first one really fits perfectly in the typology, but I'd call it closer to a Type XII than a Type XVI. It doesn't have as much of a profile taper as most XVIs I've seen. I think I'd go with the first one, myself. The hilt on the second one really bugs me for some reason. Maybe it's the inch thick guard followed by the pencil thin grip. However it's actually balanced, it looks like it handles like a baseball bat. I like the lines and aesthetics of the first one better. But in this case, I think you might be better advised going with the one you like better, rather than the one that's more accurate. You could nitpick both weapons if you really wanted to.

As far as Windlass, they have a reputation for poorly researched blades made with improper weight and mass distribution and manufactured with substandard materials and quality control. I still have a few old Windlass pieces lying around somewhere that validate that description. But there are two points to be made about that. First, I've heard they've improved a great deal in recent years. Second, things like research, quality control and materials cost money. For what you pay, you're not being robbed. They cut those corners to keep their prices down. It's just a matter of what you want in a sword balanced against what you can pay.

Hi everyone, many thanks for all the informative & insightful inputs :-)

In the beginning, I kinda like the 1st sword due to its unique pommel shape, sweeping hilt, and tapered blade. But I begin to be doubtful after flipping through some books & online resources - cos' I did NOT come across any mentioning of medieval swords having those pommel shape! Most of the medieval swords mentioned seem to come with wheel / brazil-nut pommel... That's why I wanted some feedbacks, as I do not want to be ignorant in what I buy :-)

Hope I did not stir up any dissentment betw "pro-Windlass" and the otherwise.. I do not expect this to happen :-( And for the record, NO, those are not Windlass swords.. But I do own a couple of Windlass swords & they're rather decent stuff, I must say, for the amt. I paid :-)

Please continue your feedback / comment to me... in particular, the 2 swords pix I put up.

Larry

The pommel form on the first sword did indeed exist. Ewart Oakeshott classified similar shapes as pommel Types C & D, commonly called "cocked hat" pommels. These are laid out in our article on Oakeshott, which is worth a read. They are a late development of the lobated Viking pommels.

Thanks for the quick response, Chad :-)

All this while I thought the Ewart Oakeshott classifications only concerns the blades! Oops. Thanks for the clarifications, Chad.

Larry

Neither of these swords are accurate for what they're supposed to represent so I think a detailed analysis of things like fuller length are a bit pointless. There are also many swords from various periods that are hybrids of several features that Oakeshott uses to define his typology, as such those swords fall outside of Oakeshotts work, so-called "tweeners" yet they exist. So I don't think we need to discount a modern replica because it doesn't strictly adhere to Oakeshott.

Neither sword is a truly accurate representation of a medieval sword, but neither are just about any swords in this price range. They will all lack the finer aspects of shape, design and proportion that separates a true recreation from a mere facsimile. Hilt construction will typically differentiate from the historic norm as well. Consequently, I don't think a decision should neccessarily be made based on things like fullers and pommel designs as most everything else is wrong as well.

In this case I think the decision should really boil down to aesthetics. Which sword looks the most attractive to you? Which one would you be happiest owning? For me it would be the first sword. It at least has a certain amount of grace and aesthetic line to its form. The second one is just plain ugly an clunky to my eye.

Larry,

Albion Armorers offers a higher end version of the first sword you're looking at called the Ritter. Albion even includes a photo of the original sword that served as an inspiration for the Ritter, so you need not worry about cocked hat pommels being historically inaccurate: http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/ne...tions.htm.

If there's any way that you could afford the Ritter, even if it means saving up for a while longer, I'd say go for it. You won't regret having a sword that looks, feels and handles like an antique type XI, unlike the lower end swords, which you might be happy to have now but less thrilled later. Remember that Albion does offer a payment plan, so if you need to make the payments over a series of months, you can do it. Also, if you ever have to sell the sword for whatever reason, you can put it up here on the myArmoury forum Marketplace and recoup most of your funds, since Albion swords are generally in high demand and tend to sell at good prices even used. In contrast, it is doubtful that you'd get much at all for either of the two swords you're looking at if you tried to sell them used.

The Ritter can be seen here: http://www.albion-swords.com/swords/albion/ne...ter-xi.htm

For more photos and a hands on review, see here: http://www.myArmoury.com/review_alb_ritter.html

Hey folks,

Thanks for all the discussions & feedbacks. I've picked up much through it all. Appreciate it very much :-)

I'm neither an enactor nor medieval swordmanship practicioner, so I not quite concerned abt the durability of the swords other than the hazards posed by a broken piece flying off & hurting somebody;

I'm a novice sword hobbyist trying to pick up some affordable yet (as much) representatives of the medieval swords (and also other era); As such, I usu. go for stuffs that attracts me aesthetically, but both these swords looks quite attractive to me, that's why I post this article in order to solicit additional opinions to help me in my decision making :-) I'm aware that such budget replicas are never 100% close to it's original forms, so I'm contented as long it's quite close :-)

For now, most of what I have now are decoratives (or, sword-like objects, as some pro calls them), and I don't have any intention to sell them cos we have very, very, very (note: 3 'VERY') strict arms & explosives laws here in Singapore, and it's quite impossible for me to sell/trade-away them locally, let alone overseas, unless I obtain a license from the relevant Police department. But even then, some restrictions apply. So for now, I'd just stick to collecting :-p

Yea, I've visited the online catalogs from Lutel, Arms&Armor, Albion, Therion Arms.. etc.. And my!!! I'm really tempted to own as many of them as I could afford!!! I've set it my long term goal to own at least one of those, as my hobby & budget grow... so I'm definitely saving up :-)

Larry