[Michael Pikula]

Lots of interesting points I'd like to toss a cent or two at. In regard to:

[James Arlen Gillaspie]

I have long noted that people often have difficulty seeing asymmetries and off-center holes in photographs; their minds 'adjust' the image to make more sense to them. The photos I posted were taken DEAD ON. Take a ruler and find where the center should be in the picture, as opposed to where the holes are.

[Jody A]

Great post, and discussion. It seems that without machines and computers symmetry as we know it today would have been an anomoly and not the norm. We have been raised and conidtioned in a world where symmetry is the norm and asymmetry is the anomoly. I think medieval swordmakers would have strived to achieve asymmetrical perfection or greatness versus symmetry, which would have been not only elusive but perhaps not even valued in the same way it is today. I have contemplated this often while examining my Albion Knight and Liechtenauer, where the only flaw I have found in these fine swords is their perfection! Just a few thoughts.

[Fabrice Cognot]

Hi all

[J.D. Crawford]

I'm glad this subject came up. I've been thinking about this for years.

The most specific dillema I've had concerns a certain medieval sword with a highly asymmetric cross. I've been thinking about having a custom version of this sword done for quite a while. But should it be done asymmetric like the original, or symmetric? I love historical accuracy, but I also love symmetry from an aesthetic viewpoint. One might argue that the person who made the original cross wanted to make it symmetric, and may well have made the next one symmetric. However, the fact remains that a true reproduction of the surviving sword would need to be assymetric. I can't make up my mind which way to go.

[JE Sarge]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Simon G.]

[Jeremy V. Krause]

[Michael Pikula]

[Jean Thibodeau]

J.D. : One possibility is to have one made as exactly reproducing the specific sword as it appear to have been made originally and have a less expensive version of a sword of the same type made for the modern eye but with the same basic design.

Maybe if we knew and saw the sword you have in mind we might be more precise in our advice or opinions ?

Obviously a more expensive option to have two swords made instead of one but the second sword may not need as much detailing and easier to do without having to replicate another's flaws and " individuality " to as close tolerances ?

It might be very interesting seeing the two next to each other both reflecting good craftsmanship but with different criteria as to what is acceptable aesthetically ?

[Peter Johnsson]

To get a perspective on the matter of asymmetrical details in historical swords, it is important to understand that the sword smiths produced swords in series. Most probably according to some kind of specifications.

Work was most probably shared between several subcontractors, each with his own responsibility. This affects the scope and perspective of the work. The major concern for the blade smith would not have been if the midrib lined up with the guard. He did not make the guard, and may not have known what it would look like.
The blade smith was concerned with weight, heft, a good edge, making sure the steel was sound and without serious flaws and given a good heat treat (if that was part of his responsibility).

The same goes for the hilt smith. He may not have had the blade at hand to work with. He could have been working from drawings or verbal descriptions.
The hilt smith may have known the type of blade his work was intended for, but not necessarily. If there were specifications on dimensions, he could have followed that. With some margin of error, and not always with symmetry as the deciding factor. Without the blade to check against it is not always as clear how of centre the tang hole is...

The smith forging cross and pommel, would probably not have been the one to add gilding or embellishment. That was the work of another craftsman. That is why we see richly gilded and engraved hilts with obviously asymmetrical forging work.

The cutler was the man who put all together. He wanted it all to come together in a good way, but had to work with what he was given. Some adjustments would have been made, but you cannot turn a crow into a falcon.
It had to end up as a dependable weapon. If it was a rich man´s weapon with rich work in the hilt and scabbard, it had to look good as he was wearing it. If the midrib was a bit off, that was perhaps not a fatal flaw, as those who saw this may not be in a position to notice, or tell about their observation afterwards...

This is what we need to keep in perspective when we discuss these things.
Asymmetries and other flaws are results of the process of making, and the organization of the production.
It was not part of an ideal. These swords were not supposed to look crooked. They ended up that way for some reasons, some better than other.
Most swords were probably made based on an idea of the finished product. In some cases this idea was fairly generic, wis margins of change all the way, in other cases the production may have been very specific in its parameters from start to end.
In any stage of the process for any craftsman involved, there were traditional and product specific goals to meet. Things were made to be *right* according to the ideas of each class of craftsman involved.

I am pretty sure there was some bickering and bad mouthing between the craftsmen involved in the process.
We have written records of London blade smiths complaining that sloppy grinders destroyed their blades.
All craftsmen men involved were on a timed schedule for delivery.
I am pretty sure they all had good excuses for their own mistakes, and were prone to complain about the mistakes of others, but not in a position do actually do anything about it.
Medieval craftsmen were restricted by guild rules. A blade smith could only forge blades. A cutler could only do the end part of the process. Each class of craftsman was guarding their rights and trying to carve a living from the margins (perhaps sometimes by bending the rules, or delivering just barely OK goods as long as contract and delivery time was met).

Ancient swords tell about how they were made, if we look for it. We can see the traces of different hands and mindsets being involved in each sword. Each type of craftsman would have different ideas of what was important and would be working in his scale. What goes as precision of a blade or hilt smith, is not the same as the notion of precision for a gold smith.

Sloppy work today hardly compares to flaws in ancient swords, because it is born from completely different reasons. Most often it comes from a shallow understanding or lack of interest in the object made. This cuts both ways. If customers are happy with sloppy work or badly researched swords, that is what the market will supply.

Ancient swords were made with a professionalism and understanding that is very rare to find in contemporary swords, even if they show flaws that are rare to see in good work today. Those swords that are made today that show these kind of flaws are generally far below in quality of ancient swords, because fatal compromises have been made that affect functional quality in a way that would have been unacceptable by the guilds in medieval times.

We see a romance today in "primitive" work methods. But to get things right it is not as easy as to take a length of steel and hammer it on a stone instead of an anvil, or only use hand tools. That is no guarantee the end product will be any more authentic.

It all boils down to an understanding of the craft and the ancient blades.
If you study these old swords in detail, you get a detailed image in your mind. The result that comes from your hands will tend to be meticulous and precise if you want to capture all the details you have noted.

To get the kind of not-precise work we see in ancient originals, we have to work at a certain speed, but at high skill. That is the only way to come close to this quality. Speed without skill, or flaws without understanding only results in bad work.

[Michael Edelson]

I don't want to take anything away from Peter's post, which is fascinating reading. I just want to add my two cents to the topic itself.

I disagree with the idea that modern tools and production methods result in symmetry and "perfection" while hand work resulsts in flaws. First, I can find flaws in all my high end modern swords, but that is neither here nor there.

Japanese swords, good ones, were perfect in every human measurable sense. Completely symmetrical. And they were made entirely by hand...no grinding wheels, etc. So if perfection is desired, it can be done by hand far better than by machine (primitive or modern). This is true even on modern swords. Hand polished swords made by top makers have much better (more perfect) finishes than swords that come out of even the best production shops.

I think the issue with medieval swords is that people back then had a different way of looking at things than we do. We had to be taught to expect symmetry and perfection, they never were. I've been in a bunch of cathedrals and surviving medieval houses and there is not a straight line to be found in any of them. Look up the seemingly perfect column of a cathedral and you will see wavy lines. Look at a carved wooden wall partition in a wealthy man's home and you will see different size pattern elements, crooked lines and all sort of other "flaws."

Having seen so many of these things, and having seen so many period swords (mostly pictures, but a good number of originals), I'm convinced that they simply didn't see these things as imperfections, if they even saw them at all.

[Paul Hansen]

[Simon G.]

I'll try to revive this thread a bit... Thanks to everyone and especially to Peter for contributing!

Another thought. We like to look at collections like the Wallace, in museums like the Cluny, and in arms & armour books... But do we sufficiently take into account the understandable tendency that curators and editors would have, consciously or not, to display the best and most beautiful pieces?

This especially struck me looking at the daggers in the Wallace. I was thinking, wow, these are all so finely decorated, were they all like that? Then I went to the Portable Antiquities Scheme website and found very different-looking dagger parts...


Guard from a quillon dagger, 14th century?


Dagger guard, 15th c.


Dagger guard, 16th c.


Dagger guard, 15th c. ?

These can't really be called shabby, just simpler. Yet the craftsman took the pain to decorate them a bit. Today we tend to see three things in reproductions:
1. Very simple (ie not decorated at all) but very precisely made pieces, with crisp lines etc. Albion Next Gens are probably the best example (except some models).
2. Pieces that are somewhat decorated, but with decorations somewhat lifted from historical pieces and then mass-reproduced with a symmetrical, somewhat industrial look. Windlasses and Hanweis often illustrate this.
3. High-end custom works with very precise and finely-made decorations.

But we don't see much work like these guards, and especially the last two, illustrate: pretty simple, somewhat decorated, but not symmetrical to a notch. For instance, I really like the third one, which is really simple yet elegant, but the ring does seem a bit crooked to one side... Not that you would notice unless really inspecting it closely.

Nowadays, only DIY projects and works by people we think as "minor" or "junior" smiths capture that look.

[Nathan Robinson]

[Simon G.]

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

This last one is a very interesting example. Grip and pommel being off-center are not a problem. Actually the grip is bent "the right way", just as it would be bent on a saber or messer. So it may actually be even better than a perfectly straight grip. But the pommel and handle junction looks too odd and may well be due to age. A once solid grip shrank and shifted when somebody tried to swing the sword.

[Peter Johnsson]

Just pointing out what is perhaps obvious: all asymmetries we see today were not there originally. Quite a bit can happen a sword over the centuries.
Even well cared for swords on display in collections have had their knocks and bumps. It is not unusual that they have been taken apart for cleaning and put together again. If the parts are not assembled in the right way, a slight asymmetry (that may have been adjusted for originally) can be exaggerated by turning the grip or pommel the wrong way.

[Aleksei Sosnovski]

That's right. Some of the asymmetry is too obvious and at the same time too easy to correct, just like the handle and pommel being misaligned on the last picture.

On the other hand, some of the asymmetry is not that obvious or even totally invisible. I don't think somebody would easily notice that handle is not perfectly aligned with the blade, especially when the hilt itself is asymmetrical. Aslo swords were usually held in scabbards so asymmetry in the blade itself (fullers, etc.) is hidden from the onlookers.

This asymmetry can also have a practical meaning as I stated previously, after all handles on sabres are usually not in line with the blade, so why not do the same thing on a sword that, though double-edged, can only be gripped in one way due to complex hilt? Or at least why care about it?

But still we may be too strict about symmetry. For example if a hilt is anyway asymmetrical (for example messer with nagel) there is no need to make both ends of the crossguard of same length. But such a messer would probably look "wrong" to most of us.

Yet again asymmetry may be introduced to make the weapon more comfortable. Nagel of a messer and sigle side ring on some parrying daggers may well be examples of that case. We are simply used to this asymmetry so it does not bother us.