I haven't seen much talk about the actual blades of scottish swords in comparicent to the medieval blades. I've been going through the scottish basket hilted swords in the gallery, and the blade geometry seems extremely variable.

But nonetheless, the 'classical' medieval sword is a straight cutting blade, the highland broadsword is a straight cutting blade... how do they compare?

Now, I would like to leave that vague, and get a good number of generalized responses, but I'll go ahead and ask some specific questions.

If you were to dismount the blades, or exchange the mounts, how would they compare in Balance to various similar outlines on the oakeshott typology? What would you say the most common basket hilt outlines are compared (loosely!) to the Oakeshott typology?

Without the hilts, how does the weight of the Scottish sword compare to various medieval swords?

How about edge geometry?

How common are fullers on Basket hilted swords? What sort of cross sections do we see most prevalent?

Anyone?

WOW! Is this ever a good thread you have initiated George, thank you so much, I too am looking forward to learning about this topic :!:

Thank You Very Much!

Bob

Eh, Let's just hope someone has something to teach us. It's been here a week.

Guess I'll start. My comments will be limited to things other than Oakeshott typology, as I'm not much into the Medieval sword.

Fullers: unfullered blades are pretty scarce on Scottish baskets. The most common types seem to be a backsword with two narrow fullers at the back and a short fuller at the shoulder. Back blades are also seen with triple narrow fullers.
Broadswords will usually have triple fullers, sometimes running almost the length of the blade, but usually the fullers are short. Another common broadsword blade has a single, moderately wide, short fuller, and these often have a running wolf just past where the fuller ends. The broadsword blades often have two short fullers at the shoulder.

Blade cross-section: Back blades are generally flat, with only the edge having a bevel. False edge/back edge is a common feature. Broadsword blades are usually flattened hexagonal section or lenticular section. Sometimes a hex will look like a lenticle if there's been a lot of use/polishing over the years.

In Scots baskets of the 1700s, there are two typical English military blade types that show up. The first is the standard military back blade with one wide and one narrow fuller. Some of these can have very long backedges; I've seen some that were about 20" long. The second is a type that can be mistaken for a medieval blade of the 1400s. They are double-edged, with a high central ridge. Sometimes the blade faces are hollow-ground, sometimes flat. The blades come to a fairly acute point. This blade type has been seen in English Mortuary swords of the mid-1600s, and by 1700 are a very common military style, most often found in brass hilts with double shell guards. I've seen several English and Scottish baskets with this blade type, and most have had rack #s engraved on the pommel or somewhere on the basket, indicating military service.

That's enough to get started! --ElJay

There is a fair amount of variation, as one would expect. Some look like older Type XII or XIIIb cutting blades, with no ricasso, a wide fuller and not tons of profile taper. Some may even be recycled older blades.

Many sport a ricasso and a pattern of fullers, which are both often a little different than earlier medieval blades. As Eljay noted, they are most often hex and lenticular in section. Diamond seems to be pretty rare. They also often don't have a great deal of profile taper, though their points are serviceable for thrusting against lightly armoured people (depending on what period of the baskethilt we're talking about, plate could be pretty scarce on the battlefield).

Except for the XII-ish/XIIIb-ish blades, there often isn't a good Oakeshott Type to compare it to. Oakeshott's typology wasn't written to cover swords of that era.

Any look through a book like Mazansky's Basket-hilted Broadswords or Culloden: the Swords and the Sorrows or any book with a lot of baskethilts will show many variations on the basic themes.

As to whether a dismounted baskethilt blade balances the same as a dismounted medieval blade, I don't know if anyone has done that kind of comparison. The hilts of a medieval sword and a baskethilt have very different weights. I'd be surprised if a blade purpose-built for a basket-hilt (not possible recycled old blades) would have all the same weight/mass distribution as one built for a hilt weight much less, though I could be wrong on that one.

The Mazansky book is wonderful, IMO, but it is really more of a study/typology of hilts. Unfortunately, the blades are completely ignored. Neumann's Swords and Blades of the American Revolution has many photos of both hilts and blades, as does Bezdek's Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland and Withers' World Swords.

Jonathan

Chad,
I agree that Mazansky's is a very important and useful book. I also agree that one can learn a bit about the blades from the little that is shown is the photos. I am just lamenting the fact that blades were excluded from full documentation.

Neumann is required reading, Chad. :)

Bezdek's book is not an academic study of the swords of England and Scotland. It is primarily a guide to the makers and retailers. It does have a decent amount of photos near the end, but aside from a one-line blurb and collection credit, there is no discussion of the swords pictured. However, most swords are shown in their entirety.

Jonathan

I'm beinning to think we really are in a great need of a baskethilt typology, not just for Scottish swords but similar weapons as well.

In fact, is it just me hanging around in the wrong circles, or do we actually seem to know more about medival swords then the much newer types of blades? :wtf:

I have to agree, Anders. There IS a great deal of knowlege regarding Medieval swords here, and I also feel it is necesary to explore the whole history of the sword, including my favorite, the Scottish basket-hilted Claymore. :)

George, in connection to your original post, I'll throw in my two cents worth with this story: I have had the honor and pleasure of being a guest of Mr. Donnie Shearer (The Mad Piper) on several occasions, and am proud to call him a friend. During my visits, he has graciously given me the privilege of handling many examples from his extensive collection of Scottish basket-hilted Claymores, and these are my impressions.

Many Claymores from the early to mid 1600s seemed to be mounted with wider broadsword blades, if they are wearing their original blades, that is, and many appear to be predominantly lenticular in cross section. The blades felt very light for their size, given the fact that I handled them mounted, and are generally narrower than most reproduction blades I've seen on the market. They are very flexible, and many do not have much of a point, possesing a rather rounded tip in some cases. Backsword blades on most examples are less wide than their broadsword brothers, and I saw several examples with wide twin fullers near the blade back, running nearly the length of the blade, as well as a few examples that appeared to be without a fuller, or at least a very, very shallow one. Backsword blades were generally triangular, with false edges running around six or seven inches at the tip, and also generally more pointed (although this may be just a visual trick from them being narrower, around 1 1/2 inches at the hilt). Later 18the Century blades ran the gamut from double to single edged, as it appeared that they were mounted with whatever blades could be found, or perhaps older blades that were remounted on a later style basket. Many examples were marked Andrea Ferrera, or some version of the spelling, with several "X" marks, and other stampings. The one thing I'll say for these swords is that they felt very light, with only a few examples being near the three pound range.

I was not able to take proper measurments for any of these blades, nor was it my intention. My experience with them was a pleasant surprise late in the evening after a long day of reenacting with Mr. Shearer and his wife. I will say that on one particular visit, Donnie took a Ribbon Hilt dated from around 1600, which had an over-slender blade narrowed from years of sharpening, grasped the hilt and blade tip, and proceeded to bend the blade until its tip touched the pommel! I gasped in shock as the blade neither broke nor stayed bent as it returned to true. Donnie performed this action on a couple of other 1700 era swords on other visits, proving just how resilient and flexible the old blades still are, even after 300 - 400 years!

I know I've only touched the surface, but I hope my experiences offer a glimpse into the topic. I was given the opportunity that only museum curators often get, and I cherish the memories of handling the dozens of swords in the Mad Piper collection. Thanks again, Donnie! :D

Thanks for sharing that, Christopher. Thats about as much useable info. on basket hilt blades as I've ever found in one place, without paying for it. Congratulations on getting to handle the real things. Considering how much I've read about the type it seems odd that this is the first time I have heard anyone give the blades more than a brief comment, so I really appreciate this thread and everyone's input.