Stats:

Weight: 2 lbs 8.0 ounces
Overall Length: 37 and 1/8 inches
Grip: 5 and 1/8 inches
Blade Length: 32 inches from guard
Point of Balance: approx. 6 and 1/4 inches from guard
Center or Percussion: approx. 19 and 3/4 inches from guard
Distal Taper
At Crossguard -.4 cm
At COP - .275 cm


Initial Impressions:
Stiff blade for a Windlass, better quality control, decent handling

Appearance:
The pommel and cross type of this Windlass offering are certainly something you don’t see very often in the production market. I would roughly call the pommel and Type N, perhaps a blend between a Type N and a Type O in the Oakeshott typology. The blade is either a Type X or XA. I like the blade shape very much, and the pommel. I am not thrilled with the Crossguard. It is blocky and doesn’t really match the rest of the piece. I feel if there were a different Crossguard on this piece, I would be very fond of its appearance. As it is, The cross lacks the grace of the rest of the piece. The fit and finish are good, with one notable exception. The Crossguard has a significant gap over the blade of about a good half centimeter. This isn’t major, but a good example of the difference between a Windlass piece and more expensive pieces. For the price, this is a good looking and unique sword.

Handling:
This is hands down the stiffest Medieval blade I have ever seen on a Windlass. Its not at all whippy like many of their other offerings. Its truthfully a very good handling sword, and that is without even quantifying it with remarks like “for the price”. I was worried the pommel would not give a good grip, but it can be handling either hammer fisted or with a Viking style grip effortlessly and comfortably. It has a decent amount of flex for its type. I feel it is a good piece for usage in dry handling, and I am confident it would cut soft targets very well once sharpened.

What you should expect:
This sword will cost you $160. If you like the pommel type, you will like everything else about this sword. In the end, it wasn’t what I hoped it would be in person. I was considering buying this piece, but in the end, I am going to hold off. I would recommend it highly to potential buyers that like the way it looks. It would make a great starter sword for a first time buyer, and would even keep veteran collectors happy as an “unusual” piece to add to their collection.


Sorry for the bad pic, not the best weather, had to run out between rain storms.

Excuse me, sir, and please pardon my french, but this thing is ugly and looks very, um, generic.

Nice review, Mike. I agree with you about that cross guard: It is very blocky and really detracts from the rest of the sword. Considering that the sword is already a style that probably will not appeal to that many modern enthusiasts, I'm surprised they made the guard this way.

Thanks very much for the review Mike. I was curious about this sword since it recently appeared in MRL's current offerings. I agree 100% on the cross guard. I happen to like the pommel, but the guard is just not appealing. I wonder if they came up with such a blocky guard as a result of trying to approximate an actual historic sword. If that's the case, at least there would be a method to their madness.

Can you tell if the pommel is peened? If not, I wonder how hard a project it would be to disssemble and sub out another guard or grind/alter the existing one to be less chunky and more attractive.

I do like the fuller running into the guard as well.

Cheers,

Terry

An important note: Anyone scouring the web for info on this sword should use the spelling "Naumburg" not "Naumberg" as was posted here.

I suppose it is supposed to look like a sword of one of the Naumburg benefactors´ statues?

They have been made between 1250 and 1269, and either show variations of brazil nut pommels or disc shaped variations. The replica apes the general silhouette, but not the three- dimensional shape.
The funny triangular shape on the quillon block originally is an extension of the scabbard leather that in the replica has been made into this funny little step.
The crossguards as such may seem a bit blocky, but the statues are made of sandstone, so require a bit more "meat" to last.

Well, go figure, I attached some detail pictures.

---

 Attachment: 14.83 KB



 Attachment: 13.95 KB



 Attachment: 26.96 KB



 Attachment: 20.93 KB



 Attachment: 16.31 KB



 Attachment: 30.37 KB

Mike,

Thank you for getting this one for review. Something about this sword interests me, but I don't care for some of the execution. Two quick questions if I may: Do you think there's room to grind away and repolish the thickest part the guard without damaging the grip? And can you tell if the pommel is slotted with a peened tang, or screwed onto a threaded tang?

BTW, I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I really appreciate you going to the trouble of doing all these preview reviews. It's the only chance many of the rest of us have of seeing so many different offerings, especially without experiencing a financial hardship. Please keep up the good work. :)

According to Windlass's marketing, this sword's hilt is based on the sword of Wilhelm von Camburg, which is to be seen at the Naumburg Cathedral, apparently as represented in a statue. The hilt of this sword is shown as Figure 107 in The Archaeology of Weapons by Oakeshott (page 226 of the Dover edition) Most of the sword is hidden behind a shield.

The bottom photo submitted by Ivo Malz above seems to be of the same sword, but taken from a slightly different angle than the one from which the drawing was made.

I think the Windlass sword's hilt looks a lot like that in Figure 107, but differs from that of the photo. The little step that Ivo refers to above is shown on the drawing as part of the cross, but doesn't seem to be on the statue.

And thank you Mike Arledge for the review.

The sword of Wilhelm von Camburg has a brazil nut pommel, not a flat fishtail. Windlass ought to do their homework or employ someone to do it.

This is Wilhelm von Camburgs original sword.

---

 Attachment: 30.37 KB

Thanks Jean, its now fixed. I will make sure to get some more pics taken tomorrow. Glad this is generating so much discussion

A postmodern style sword. I had missed this type ... a good work by Philip Starck it seems http://www.philippe-starck.com/

Thanks for the review, Mike!

Alan H. Weller wrote:

... I think the Windlass sword's hilt looks a lot like that in Figure 107, but differs from that of the photo. The little step that Ivo refers to above is shown on the drawing as part of the cross, but doesn't seem to be on the statue....

I agree with the comments from Alan and Ivo. It looks like Windlass just extrapolated the pommel and cross from Oakeshott's sketch, and that was the limit of their research. I do think that the step in the cross is present in the photo, just not very obvious. I don't mind the way Windlass did the pommel (accurate or not), but the way they executed that cross is really ugly.

I did a Google image search for Wilhelm von Camburg and got more images of the effigy:

[ Linked Image ]

[ Linked Image ]

Too bad they're small.

The polite part first.

Russ:

I nicked the pictures from bildindex.de and edited the details. In the pictures Chad posted Wilhelm von Camburg is the one on the left on the first pic.

Chad:
The states are no effigies, they are standing upright and are portraits of the benefactors of the cathedral of Naumburg.

Now for the sword- shaped object under review:

I think Windlass are stretching it a bit far to go by a simple sketch and steal thunder from the name of the late Ewart Oakeshott. Especially because Oakeshott´s sketch reveals just about as much as the photograph I posted, even in the Dover reprint that rests on my bookshelf !

The replica is a poor job, both in terms of craftsmanship and research, that´s the bottom line.

Windlass didn´t do their homework and ought to employ someone a little more passionate about swords to do their research. Oakeshott here, Oakeshott there doesn´t fit the bill if they don´t read Oakeshott thoroughly or simply do not know enough about medieval weaponry to understand an Oakeshott sketch.
Maybe they don´t have to because people are buying their stuff anyway, and the more "discriminating collectors" are happy if the name Oakeshott appears somewhere in the ad, who knows?

Here´s two pictures, scanned from the Dover edition of Oakeshott´s volume "The Archaeology of Weapons".

The first shows Oakeshott´s classification of pommels, and the pommels in frontal perspective and seen from the side. Wilhelm von Camburg´s swords has a type N pommel, the Windlass "replica" claims to be Oakeshott- based. Go figure.

The second pic shows Oakeshott´s sketch of Herr Wilhelm´s statue. Look at the pommel, and say for yourself- does the "replica" look anything like it? Maybe when looking into the sun.
Okay, the step in the crossguard could be interpreted from the sketch. But isn´t it a poor job of research to go by one sketch only, especially when the sketch was made to stress the type of pommel, while there is a whole chapter dealing with crossguards in the book (starting at page 231 in the Dover edition) that at no point whatsoever mentions this particular feature?

I am sorry, but for a company that claims to base their work on the research of Oakeshott this sword- shaped object is a major disappointment in all aspects. And the claim that they have done worse in the past doesn´t make it better.

Oh, and no, I do neither work for any company nor do I claim to be the almighty Dr. Knowitall. I am just a private arms and armour scholar who is highly annoyed at how people are trying to steal thunder from a great name in order to sell sub- average items, to put it politely.

Regards

Ivo

---

 Attachment: 23.1 KB

Oakeshott´s typology of sword pommels- watch type N closely!

 Attachment: 19.89 KB

Oakeshott´s sketch of the statue of Wilhelm von Camburg