Hi everyone,

My swords interests are widening into Western swords not only because I've ordered a cuphilt and left hander from
Glen Parrell (BTW anyone heard from him?) but because of my visit to Rainer Daehnhardt's 500.000 pieces collection of which I would like to highlight these swords

[ Linked Image ]

early XVI century Portuguese sword with crab hilt guard and

[ Linked Image ]

this second half of the XVI century Portuguese sword (note the huge simplification).

Here are two main questions

1
I would like to hear from you knowledgeable folks, if you had to make a systemization based on this approach, how would you place Western swords?

Period-Century __________ Country___________ Type of Sword

This would be a kind of a chart type thing where we could all have a vision of what sword types appeared in different countries of Europe at a given Century.

2
Inter-influence comments such as any connection between the Baskethilt and the Schianovva?

I truly appreciate if you guys do not resort to typology but rather to full sword-type description, such as baskethilt in Scotland as an example.

Thanks and I do look forward for your precious inputs :)

Wow, Antonio no matter how I try and wrap my mind around it, that just looks huge. Even with holding a constant with the time period or country of origin, that would be a major project. I mean all the different sword types native to an area over the course of 1000's of years, or maybe a little better, all of the sword types in use in europe at a give time period. Both of those would seem to me to be dissertation/book length. All three variables together would just be volumes of information and even with all of that information, I would imagine it would be hard to present it in a user friendly manor. I am most likely thinking about this in a different way than you are though.

Shane

Hi Shane,

The difference between European swords and Chinese, Korean, Japanese and South East Asian swords is indeed big because when one speaks of the Migration Era Swords what is the real meaning of these title? In other words,
Migration should mean IMHO also contact, mutual influence

I wasn't asking anyone to do a treatise on this issue, but I think that if we could just attempt to make a chart that would be great. Comments could come later.

I feel that sword shape typology is one way to see the issue. The other is a historical perspective where we could all have an understanding on the different periods.

Let's say that each of you, knowledgeable ones, provide an input or two on a Period - Country. Isn't this a constructive and inter-active way for everyone to cross-information? :) Then one of us could sum it all up.

This is how we could then contextualize swords into History and further understand how South-Eastern Europe, as an example, was part of the Ottoman Empire, and how this succeeded the Mongols in its European presence.

What I find fascinating is not only a sword itself but how it is contextualized. Let me say something further:
Look at the Tulwar

[ Linked Image ]

then compare with the Napoleonic period sabre and the many similarities in the hilt.

[ Linked Image ]

The Tulwar is in its plenitude while the Napoleonic sabre shows the incorporation of the motif.
What I love here is that once we have an overview we can zoom in with a much different vision. :)

I guess I fell short of what I wanted to mean.

Here it goes and hope it is successfully written :)

A sword, like a country could live by its own, but the country had borders and these borders brought contact as well, be it through trade, migration or war.

So it would be extremely interesting to see the puzzle starting to take shape by several inputs from everyone that wishes to contribute and can state the source of the information for we would all want something credible and undisputed (no offense meant to anyone as obvious :) )

The issue is that when we see the XII century and the Crusades, we are seeing warriors or knights from two different worlds meeting in combat. I don't know how much of each European sword of any given time has influenced Eastern swords at any given time (global vision), apart from its own evolution (topical vision).

I hope I am not confusing anyone. What I mean is that when we study swords through the Period - Country - Sword type we will not only have a perspective of the topical vision but also of the European inter-influences, and by comparing with other periods of world history we may end up seeing the entire picture.

But not without this first chart :) Hope I was clear :?:

Mr Cejunior
Just to give a flavour of what you're after, level of detail, layout of information etc., would it be possible to give an example for one of the eastern countries in, say, the past 1000 years (I'm asuming that you are already informed to an adequate level to do this on such countries, since you appear to be asking more about western countries in your opening post)? One problem I would immediately have is that of defintion of country for the purposes of such a chart. For example, would you want, say, Poland, to include all of the parts of Europe that have ever been under that name. What would you then want to do for Lithuania, or Russia, or Germany, or Austria or Bohemia? Also, I don't really understand the problem you appear to have with the term 'Migration Era'. Are you trying to determine whether designs have diffused as opposed to having been arrived at independently as solutions to similar problems? I'd not have the knowledge to answer your questions with a sufficient degree of rigour anyway, but I'd like to understand what you're asking. At the moment, I find that I agree with Mr Allee's post.
regards
Geoff

Hi Geoff,

Thanks for posting. Before exemplifying briefly, allow me to answer your questions.

Quote:

One problem I would immediately have is that of defintion of country for the purposes of such a chart. For example, would you want, say, Poland, to include all of the parts of Europe that have ever been under that name. What would you then want to do for Lithuania, or Russia, or Germany, or Austria or Bohemia?

It is a very pertinent issue in fact.
However, if we consider that during a certain period of time nothing really relevantly new appeared on a country that we now call Austria or Germany (just an example) and some new sword appeared in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, this could be the depth of information required. A slight comment such as originated in Zagreb would suffice.
As for something relevantly new in sword terms, let's say that a sudden change from a certain blade shape, length or hilt to another.
As for something not relevant would be variations on decorative elements that are not relevant to the shape of the sword. Example: flarings, inscriptions, etc.

Quote:

Also, I don't really understand the problem you appear to have with the term 'Migration Era'. Are you trying to determine whether designs have diffused as opposed to having been arrived at independently as solutions to similar problems?

It is not a problem with the term itself, but I was voicing my own thoughts about possible technological exchanges. What I have seen so far most weapons from the Migration Period that are represented appear to be Viking, if I am right.
I have seen nothing on the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths weapons, and its presence at the Hispanic kingdom just to name an example. It is surely just my ignorance, but I am led to think that there may have been some influences or even appropriations from Roman weaponry perhaps?

On the other hand the Viking damascus and the Persian wootz, could there have been some contacts?
That is what I meant earlier in terms of the contacts of the Migration Period in both Viking and Goths cases.

Here's a brief example as asked:

JAPAN PERIOD TYPE OF SWORD

Yaioi Period Introduction of iron in Japan from Korea
(300 BC-300 AD)

This simple. This could go on with Kofun period, Nara, Heian periods and correspondent swords from chokuto to Kogarasu-maru.

Hope the chart shows Yaioi Period beneath the word PERIOD

Thank you

Here's how it should look

---

 Attachment: 4.06 KB

Mr Cejunior
Thanks for the example. I'll leave it to the more knowledgable than me to supply the information, but based on what limited knowledge I have, I think the term migration era tends to precede the viking era and the upper and lower guards in the migration era often (not always) have a metal/organic sandwich construction (but that is based on a very limited sample that I've seen). As for the Roman influence, I think that would have operated both ways. The spatha may be an inspiration for, or may have been inspired by, swords of the tribes entering from the east and north. I also think we have to consider the complexity of the definition of 'Roman', since many of those from migration era tribes became/thought of themselves as/ were thought of by the other Romans as, 'Roman'. It could be a very inclusive definition.
Geoff

Wow, this certainly is going to be a rather ambitious undertaking :), maybe even the first major academic publication by myArmoury.com :D .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you trying to classify western swords by correlating the appearance/prevalance of a sword type with historical events and cross cultural influences?

What a wonderful idea , Antonio ..... albeit a huge undertaking !

But with input from everyone , all across the community, it should not be so daunting a task, 'eh !

Time to hit the books ;-)

Viva & Slàinte, my friend, Thomas

Hi again Geoff,

Time zones are sometimes a barrier. I find that all the information and questions are of great interest.
Like I love to say: what each of us know, it is not possible to make an encyclopedia. However without what each of us know it is also not possible to make an encyclopedia. :D

I am just a humble forumite here, and am here more to learn than to preach :)

The Roman concept may be argueable, specially under an Ethno-Historical perspective. To find distinctive traces before we find the common traces of Romanization. However, being myself a Portuguese born in China, living in the first European outpost in the Southern Coast of China, established in the XVI century I am myself a product of miscigenation. In other words, perhaps I am projecting myself, but I know that each Asian Portuguese is distinctive from the European Portuguese as we are born speaking three languages: Portuguese, Chinese and English.
This must have been a similar case with the acculturation process from invasions. There must have been two identities at the same time: one the own identity and culture plus the assimilated/imposed Roman culture.
I must say that inclusive or exclusive (as in exclusion) are possible. I would personally find it richer to view an exclusive view before the inclusive. They are not incompatible in my humble opinion.

Greetings Robert,

It would be a very interesting publication by myArmoury.com indeed :) And probably it could even be printed (winking to Nathan and Mac)

Quote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you trying to classify western swords by correlating the appearance/prevalance of a sword type with historical events and cross cultural influences?

I tend to diverge a bit from my original objective or be less concise because my fingers can't keep up with the flow of thought :\ :)

I am suggesting a global cooperation in the task of defining European swords evolution by country and century-period. Sword shapes appear as a consequence of evolution of different civilization (technological and political) aspects.
And whenever possible, a comment on a cross influence.

What I mean is to build a scheme, a structure, like a skeleton from where we can all perceive the different parts of the body before placing the organs, the muscles, the lymphatic and blood systems, the tendons, and finally the skin. :)

Any ambitious project has to start from the first step :) And the fact that we live in a globalized information world means a new level of citizenship and of scholarship. The virtual world is the best way to join forces within the nation of men of goodwill and I view participation as the first consumation of the global village as McLuhan has put it long ago already :)

I sure hope I was clear :)

Good morning on my end Thomas :)

Thank you. It is just an idea, but it could be done, specially the structure that I've just mentioned above :)
Yes, I think that this is what makes whatever task or project wonderful: it is that it can become a collective task.

I've always followed one thought: no one is someone alone :)

Sláinte & Viva my friend,
Antonio

Hey Antonio,

I'm afraid I'm a little dense tonight or perhaps it is just late. I'm still not completely clear on what it is that you are proposing. If you are suggesting a breakdown by country or region and then further subdividing that breakdown into time periods based on sword types perhaps I got it but I'm not clear. Is that what you are suggesting? It's what comes to mind after seeing that little example that you put together....

Hi Guys

Checkout this timeline ....
http://www.timelines.info/history/ages_and_periods/

Does it jive with how we all define the periods by dates ?

I've always considered those 15th century Scot singlehands as late medieval ..... but by this chart they'd be into what some call the beginning of the Renaissance ?

Any hard lines here ? , Mac

Hi Antonio

Yes, I agree we dont have to define it too much !
Perhaps if you made up a simple timeline chart ,that we could all run with, it would keep us all on the same page!

The Medieval Resource Site breaks down the early periods like this :

Germanic Iron Age (Migration Period) ~ 400 to 700 AD
Viking Age ~ 700 to 1066 AD
Norman Period ~ 1066 to 1180 AD
High Middle Ages ~ 1180 to 1450 AD

Mac

Ah.... Another "Big Picture" guy!

Antonio this is a project I have wanted to do for some time.

In my mind the first column would be a time division into dates with common period designations. The next column would be the sword types dominant during those periods.

And the third column would be the country or region designation. One of the problems we will need to resolve is the fact that a sword type might have a place of origin (hard to define), but it also has a distribution or dominance. In the cases where we have this information (or a consensis of speculation) maybe we could enter the origin first and then the dominant region to which it spread. (i.e. Roman Gladius would be something like "Spain to S. Europe."

It seems to me that it is only when we begin to see clearly defined nation state identities that we can speak of a sword being indicative of a particular nationality (i.e. Scottish Claymore ) even this is rare... I can not think of another example in the west.

This is a very worthwhile project...

I have begun a chart as a first draft.
I will post it soon. It might give us something to work from.

Thanks for the inspiration

ks