Hello everyone,

This is my first post on this forum. I would consider myself the average sword collector as far as knowledge. I have read Oakeshott, Burton etc. and privately study WMA but without a guild or orginization.

I've read differing accounts of the zweihander flame shaped/wavy blades often called 'Flamberge'. Some sources seem to say they were only ceremonial weapons, others that they were functional battlefield weapons. I am aware of two points- that the conventional zweihander was well documented as a battlefield weapon, and that the myth that the flame blade creates a special wound is false. However I'm interested in knowing if the 'flamberge' was, at all, seen in combat.

So thats my main question, was the flamberge ever a common or efficient battlefield weapon or merely for show?

My interest was sparked when I acquired the sword shown below for 200 US dollars at a antiques store. I own swords ranging from $100 to $900 and this definately feels worth more than 200. It is balanced very well, with a full tang and cuts great. There are no markings and was no package only bubble wrap. The store had 2, and the owner said he didnt know their origin and that those were the only 2. It's not a lutel or mrl or other flamberge model that I've seen. Any guesses?

I apologize for the horrible photo quality, I am currently without a scanner so it's done with webcam. The sword is 58 inches long and weighs in at approx 6-7 lbs (the blade is actually quite well done, I'm guessing the extra weight is from the huge ring guard and lugs).

The book beside it is exactly 1 foot long. Unfortunately the camera couldn't stay in focus far enough to fit the big sword in 1 photo.

---

 Attachment: 31.96 KB

Right, almost forgot, the sword beside it is an Angus Trim 1530 xviii about 45 inches with a blued hilt. I have not had a chance to do anything more than admire it, I recieved it as a late birthday present just yesterday. Thanks Angus!

If anyone requests, when i get my hands on a better camera and test it out I can post results.

Hi Allen.....Well, I am certinally no expert and Im sure that the other members can help you out here a whole lot more than i can but I found this info on line ...........
"A flamberge (meaning flame blade for the wavy resemblance to flame) is a sword (typically a rapier, though there were longswords as well) with a wavy blade, which, although beautiful to look at, also serves a practical function. When parrying with the blade, it can cause a series of unpleasant vibrations which can disrupt the technique of anyone who isn't correctly prepared. Also, when another blade came into clash with the flamberge, it was often slowed down as it slid across the waved formation of its blade. The name isn't entirely correct as it is a modern term for the form, and as such it is more properly called a "flambard" or "flammard". Also, a Flamberge is a large Zweihänder, a two-handed sword most commonly known from the Landsknechts of the 16th century and it, too, has a wavy blade. However its purpose was mostly for knocking away enemy pike- and spearheads (cutting off the heads was very hard as most had langets, strips of steel to protect them from just that) and chopping up the enemy hiding behind it, unlike the rapier, which was more often used for personal combat than the battlefield. There is an area between the hilt and blade called the ricasso which can be used as a prolonged grip, which were sometimes wired with leather and had small protruding hooks called Parierhaken, meaning, literally: parrying-hooks...."

Hope this is of some help.............
Cheers !

Hi Merv,

Interesting stuff. Specifically, I've never seen the name Parierhaken before. I feel silly for refering to them as "lugs" for so long now. Thanks for the response.

Just as i was reading your post, I was reading some of the same thing here, a site I've browsed 1000 times but completely missed this article, go figure.

http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html

It shows examples of wavy blades at proper functional combat weight.

Hello all!

Allen G. wrote:

was the flamberge ever a common or efficient battlefield weapon or merely for show?

Allen,
The short answer to your question is: both.
Of course, the "flamberge" (called a flamboyant blade by many scholars of arms and armour, like Claude Blair) was never extremely common. There is also a bit of debate on whether or not it gave any advantage to the user. I doubt it gave much, or most blades would have been made with a "wavy" silhouette!

I've found a few examples of flamboyant blades, or blades similar to the flamberge. Regrettably, I've never handled any of these sword, but I can arrive at some possible conclusions as to their usefulness from their descriptions.

Here you go, a few flamboyant or related blades:

Italian Sword of the late 16th century with a "wavy" central ridge-possibly functional, but not necessarily a "battlefield" weapon. Perhaps more of a "duelling" sword. (Wallace Collection)

German Boar Spear/Sword c. 1530 with a wavy "flamberge" edged spear-point tip-probably a functional boar hunting weapon. It includes a hole that once held a transverse bar so the point wouldn't penetrate too deeply into the boar. (Wallace Collection)

German Two-Handed Sword with flamboyant blade. Weight: 7.25 lb, overall length: 63.5 in-possibly a parade or processional sword. Probably a bit on the heavy side for a battlefield weapon. (Wallace Collection)

German Two-Handed Sword with flamboyant blade, second half of the 16th century. Weight: 6.7 lbs, overall length: 74.7 in-possibly a parade or processional sword, but may just be a battlefield weapon. (Severance Collection)

Spanish Rapier of the 18th. c. with flamboyant blade-probably functional, but more as a "duelling" weapon than a "battlefield" weapon. (Tower of London)

I hope this helps a bit. Someone with more intimate knowledge about these weapons could correct me if I'm wrong about my "intuitive" conclusions about their usability. But, the bottom line is, flamboyant blades, or "flamberge" blades, could be for show, or could be functional.

Stay safe!

Hello,

Thanks for all of the replys. I'm looking around at accounts of those blades Richard kindly took the time to list. I don't have trouble believing the 7 pounder listed was functional, as this one is the same weight and handles beautifully with that long handle to offset the blade. With 1 hand behind the Parrierhaken (my new word) and 1 near the pommel, it feels almost weightless.

Daniel, great post but I missunderstood one point. Are you saying that all forms of Ger/Swiss Zweihander were exclusive to officers or just the 'flamberge' in specific?

Jean, from handling this sword (which by no means represents an original, but should come close) I've really not noticed any special cutting performance. However it does create some awkward parrying, and seems like having the porturding parts of the blade would create an effect similar to a maces spikes, (not against armor liek a mace of course) but like you said, the difference of 100% and 120%. Very minor.

I agree about the psychological factor visually. I know its cliche but I can't help thinking.. this is what a Berserker would have wielded in the 16th century..

Hello all!

Allen G. wrote:

Thanks for all of the replys. I'm looking around at accounts of those blades Richard kindly took the time to list. I don't have trouble believing the 7 pounder listed was functional, as this one is the same weight and handles beautifully with that long handle to offset the blade. With 1 hand behind the Parrierhaken (my new word) and 1 near the pommel, it feels almost weightless.

Allen,
Glad my little bit of information helped. I wish I had more information for you about swords with flamboyant blades, but it's a bit beyond my main period of interest.
I guess both of the two-handed swords I listed could be functional; I was just wary to declare them as such, since some of these swords seem to be merely processional swords. In the thread on sword weights, I listed a 14 lb two-handed sword (not a "flamberge" style, however) I found pictured in one of my books!
Stay safe!

Approximately how thick is the last six inches or so of the blade? Or is the thickness from the ricasso uniform? Does the pommel thread on?

Hi James,

Assuming you're asking about the pictured sword, here are some additional dimensions (assuming you're talking about one of the mentioned originals then allow me to make a fool of myself):

Ricasso is 2 inches wide.

The blade goes from just under 2 inches wide after the ricasso to 1 1/2 inches half way and 1 1/3, 4 inches from the point then obviously drops off quickly at the tip.

Thats the width-if you meant conventional thickness as in how thick the blade is vertically while laying flat, then the blade is definately tapered after the ricasso and is narrow enough that its sharpened. How tapered? I don't have anything to measure a gradual difference that small..

Edit: i got the pommel off, it is threaded, bit of a let down but not for the price.

Not really expecting it to be a $900,000 antique just hoping i got a good deal.