[Nathan Robinson]

When creating a new product such as a sword, the maker needs to define a source of inspiration. Sometimes this source is pure imagination that results in a fantasy piece, other times he picks and chooses parts from various historic swords, and other times he might pick a specific sword to replicate. There are, of course, an infinite number of other combinations and methods from which to draw this inspiration.

I've noticed a trend in the modern reproduction world for quite some time. I thought I'd comment on it. Please note that this conversation is restricted solely to historical reproductions: swords created with the intent of replicating something that can be found in the historical record.

Everybody has preferences: collectors and makers alike. I've always found it a strange thing to try to combine the desire for 1) historical recreations and 2) personal preference of individual components of a final product. Case in point: There are many collectors who want a historical sword, but who try to dictate that it has a specific point of balance, despite this fact being completely against anything history may have brought us. Another case: collectors who have the intention to have made a historical sword but who want to pick pommel, guard, grip, and blade separately from various distinct examples. While this is a fun exercise and often creates a very appealing product, it's counter-productive to then call it a historical reproduction.

On that last point, the whole conversation of a "construction set" of parts is a slippery slope: it's the mating of guards, blades, grips, pommels, proportions and dynamics that really squarely define what a sword was, how it can be dated, and where it can be attributed. As a consumer, it's temping for us all to convey aesthetic and/or usability preferences of individual parts onto a final product. Who amongst us doesn't have such preferences? It's important that people understand the complexity of replicating something that would likely have appeared in history. This isn't an approach taken by everyone, or even an approach appreciated or desired by every collector: and there's nothing wrong with that, of course. The thing to remember, though, is that it might be a better approach to pick a finished product that's designed from the ground-up in a holistic way that also happens to meet our aesthetic preferences than it is to mix-and-match separate elements without serious regard to historical inspiration and precedence. When conceptualizing a product that does not yet exist, my own preference is to look through the books and find an item that I'd want to see replicated. History has brought us a huge database on inspiration from which to choose and I see little purpose in trying to mix-and-match a new combination, and then try to call it historical.

There's nothing wrong with collecting swords that are fantasy-based, "inspired-by" something historic, made up of qualities of various swords, or any combination of those things. But to call each of these things "historical" really must be done with care if we are to be literal about the term. The fact is, one can pick and choose parts that represent a type of sword history would have brought and then accurately call it "historical". But doing so requires careful study and knowledge that keeps those people picking parts and attributes that are consistent for a specific type of sword, for a specific region, and during a specific time. Not doing so just generates another form of a fantasy sword: something that when looked in the most general sense may appear historical, but when compared to the historical record, really couldn't have existed. While these types of fantasy creations are not as "wild" as those versions with claws, cut-out blades, jewels and other elements, they are still a product of imagination (ie, "fantasy") and not something out of the historical record, despite any vague inspirtion by something authentic.

This is an interesting topic for me. I typed this up very quickly so I've no doubt confused what I'm trying to communicate here. It's kind of off-the-cuff since I'm currently working and really only had a few minutes to sit down and type.

But I'm curious what your thoughts are.

[Sean Flynt]

I've had similar thoughts about an item I'm reviewing. I find myself saying, well here's an original element that corresponds to this part of the "replica," and here's an element from yet another original element that corresponds to this other part of the replica, etc.
I had to stop and think--is this really a replica or reproduction if it's a conglomeration of all these elements from different originals? Ultimately, I think it comes down to the point you've made above--mixing and matching within a given type, era, region and culture is a reasonable way to create an attractive piece that frees the maker to be creative but which can also be considered historically plausible--even if it's not based on a single, specific historical example. If we go farther than that I think we have to admit that we're creating "fantasy" pieces. Nothing wrong with that, but we should be honest and clear about it so we don't mislead ourselves or others about the nature of historical pieces.

[Nathan Robinson]

Sean, your post does better to sum up what I'm saying than any of my ramblings. I think it's an interesting discussion. I've seen, as an example, swords that have clearly Bavarian influences on the cross-guard, but then have a pommel or even a blade type that is almost always purely Italian. This isn't a specific example, of course, but demonstrates my point: when combining elements for a "plausible" historically-inspired piece, we always have to consider what is actually "plausible", else be careful about calling it a historical piece.

[Gordon Frye]

Nathan;

Personally I couldn't agree with you more, that there are plenty of historical examples out there to chose from when looking for a "personal sword" without resorting to "common sense" or whatever it is that many people chose to use as an excuse for not doing their homework. There was an appeal to almost every taste in the period of the use of the sword, and examples of most of these exist. Why not copy them? At least fairly closely.

I realize that this approach is not for everyone though. But as you note, to make up something out of parts from a broad span of time, or from parts that wouldn't have been considered at all compatable in the period, is a bit beyond the pale. Like, say, using a mixture of Schiovana and Scottish basket hilt parts would be just too weird, although they are contemporary. Not quite as bad as the Katana with a basket hilt, or the broad sword with a tsuba, but you get the picture. I'm sure it's been done.

By the same toke, there were certainly "parts swords" constructed in the past out of parts of unserviceable swords combined into new ones... but it's a rather dubious exercise, and was far more practiced by early collectors than armourers, IMHO. I've seen, and ehjoyed such parts swords though... and a copy of one of THOSE would be pretty cool. But then, that's a copy of an historical model, not someone's imagination gone wild.

What it boils down to I think is honesty, though. A manufacturer needs to say "This is a re-creation of THIS sword", or "This is a sword made in the spirit of these swords", or "This is just a really cool idea I had one morning in the shower, so I made it!" If it's historical, fine, advertise it as such. If it's only semi-historical or fantasy, and the manufacturerer/vendor has any integrety at all, then it should be marketed as such... not as something that actually existed, but as something that fits the broad flavor of the era, or as it's own deal entirely.

Of course, this is almost like suggesting that marketers of rat-tail tanged swords not refer to them as "Battle-Ready", but so it goes.

Food for thought...

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

Nathan;

I think you sort of covered the options well and I can see the same person having a sword made following strict historical accuracy and simultaniously having a pure fantasy sword made: The danger is in getting confused about which is which and all the shades of grey in between.

So having a clear focus of what is the objective, plus the knowledge to know the difference: Recreating a historical design as closely as possible in the hope of learning the true qualities of the real thing or an excersice in creativity trying to do it "better".

I guess when mix and matching parts from historical designs the danger of getting confused about the objective is very high, as is the danger of lying to yourself that you are still making a historically accurate piece.

[Roger Hooper]

I think you can get creative within reason.

I may want a XIIa with a double fuller. I don't see any examples of this in Oakeshott's Records, but it isn't unreasonable to think that such swords may have existed.

The last representation of Xa in the same book shows that blade type with a XVth century rehilt. Its guard is certainly something you wouldn't see in the 12th century. I think it would be OK if you wanted a sword like that. On the other hand, I don't think it would be right to ask for a XIX with a brazil nut or Viking lobed pommel.

[Alexi Goranov]

[Alexi Goranov]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Nathan Robinson]

[Nathan Robinson]

inevitably, the question of where to draw the line on calling something "historic" vs. "fantasy" is bound to happen in any conversation like this. You may be surprised that I'm not quite sure this is an important issue, to be honest. Nothing made today is an exact copy: everything has concessions built into it, be them obvious like form, volume, line, proportion or more subtle like the type of steel and the make-up of the final material, the heat-treatment method, etc. It's really only fruitful to discuss these things when comparing items, be it a comparison of a modern-made product to an antique, or two different modern-made products.

To me, the whole thing about understanding all this is really looking at this when related to other things. In other words, I think it's much more useful to say "this sword is much more historical than this sword" or "this sword isn't based on a specific example, but is historically plausible based on these similar examples" or "this sword attempts to be a copy of this specific sword, but has these concessions" or even "this sword is a mixture of parts that are somewhat similar to parts of that era, but the whole sword doesn't really represent any historical swords that really existed".

[Alexi Goranov]

[Roger Hooper]

[Chris Post]

I basically agree, but I'd also like to stress the correlation between "historical" and "plausible". Especially if you find two swords of the same time frame, and ideally of the same area, but with different guards and pommels -- what would speak against the existence of a sword with a guard like #1 and a pommel like #2?
If such a sword actually showed up somewhere in a collection or on an auction, should it be labelled "fake" or "modern production" just because we haven't seen one like it before? I quoted Oakeshott before and I will do it again -- he believed that there were about a gazillion swords that we'll never get to see, so it would be silly to deny their possibility.

Recently I saw with my own eyes a Celtic spear that was unlike anything that was seen before -- the first known specimen of a celtic spear with visible pattern welding. I think this is a prime example of what I'm trying to say: one who'd argue that it must be a fake because "the celts never polished to a visible pattern" would be awfully wrong.

Of course, there's this thin line in terminology. If it helps, then call the one "historical" and the other "historically plausible".

If the combinations and speculations are carried too far, then let it be called "fantasy". I find nothing wrong with that. I just designed a fantasy sword myself. It is inspired by various historical examples, but it is doubtful that such a sword ever existed in history. Still, it handles great and I've gotten very good feedback on the design so far.

[Joe Fults]

Two challenges with going to orginals for reprodcutions at least for me.

1 - The relative small number of originals I have exposure to in any medium from which to draw examples/samples

2 - Poor abilty to visualize something in an often currently degraded state as it actually existed

I suspect that in time, with experience, these isses are easily surmountable. In the near term my answer is simply not to design my own stuff.

[Kirk Lee Spencer]

[Bill Grandy]

I don't think anyone is saying there's anything wrong with plausible swords being made... in fact, I think we'd be fools to think that we know for absolute certainty what all swords looked like in any given time period or region. I think the issue is marketing such swords as historic. Let's face it: The majority of the sword buying population gets their "historic" information from Bud K and Museum Replicas. MRL at least says when they're attempting to recreate an original piece or if they're creating it based on what could have existed, and for that they should be applauded. While we can all pick their historical inaccuracies apart, they're at least trying.

I remember being 12 years old and reading in some junk catalog about their historically correct, fully functional stainless steel katana and wakizashi set. The ad said that the wakizashi was used as a back up sword as well as the samurai's personal tool, hunting weapon, axe, and several other things that to a 12 year old sounded quite reasonable. For years I believed that. Now, this example is a little far fetched from the direct topic, but the general idea still applies. If a company is marketing historic weapons and is making weapons that are not really historic, many people, even intelligent people whom just haven't learned where else to look for information, start to assume certain things about history.

[Gordon Frye]

'What appears to be a katana blade on a slavic saber. Published in *“Dr. David Nicolle's "Arms and Armour of the Crusading Period."'

Well Kirk, this is what happens when folks like me point to specifics while making broad generalizations! Always someone out there to slap them down hard, LOL!

I believe though that Bill G got it right in that we're pretty tired of the BS sales pitches that are heaped on with a snow shovel by the vendors. I've had long conversations with a friend about this very subject, because you're right, there ARE a lot of gullable kids who's primary source of knowledge is from catalogues. Some are good information, most aren't.

I've often thought that if I were to host an event with vendors that I would require that they provide documentation for every item they put out on their sales table. Probably extreme, but a response to the outrageous baloney that has been foisted on the gullible public for years ("Hey buddy, see this obsidian knife? LOTS better than that crummy flint one you have, it's a LOT harder!" etc). Of course, there's a LOT of truth in "Caviat Emptor", and doing your homework in a library, rather than in a catalogue designed to remove you from your money.

But we all begin somewhere, and blowing money on junk is the usual starting point.

Gordon

[Chris Post]

Heavens, I could write a book about all the nonsense that we once believed!

Thing is, there still are things about old swords that even today nobody knows. I've got the feeling that archeologists are going constantly back and forth. What we deemed true for decades may be overthrown by one single excavation. Other research that has been done for years might reveal exciting new knowledge, or turn out to be a storm in a teacup.

But talking about "laymans knowledge", I really think that the internet is helping a lot to enlighten those who are interested in the matter. I remember, yonks ago when I just about started developing an interest for swords, someone told me that true medieval swords couldn't have been sharp, because such a blade would take serious damage when parrying with the edge. The possibility never occured to us that this kind of parry did not exist at that time. So we figured that a sword did damage by the "crushing" principle alone, always.

[Tim Plourd]

I can't really respond to this issue as it relates to swords or weapons. I make armor. I can, and often times must, respond to the broader issue of reconstruction however.

I make armor for a variety of clients, reinactors, SCA, living history, professional jousters and live action role playing. On the one extreme, my living history pieces are made to every exacting detail I am capable of (to include smelting my own material, time and resources permitting). At the other extreme is the LARP pieces I have created. These are acurate to history in very few ways but do provide a medium for my expression in a way that the living history pieces do not.

It is not that one has value and the other doesn't. The issue is when one is being held out to be the other. For the pieces at either extreme this is usually not an issue. It is those pieces straddling the line that is the concern because they may be held out to be more accurate than they are. The thing here is that the piece can be held out in this way by either the manufacturer or the owner.

Another element to consider is what the expectation are in the context of the piece in question. If I am asked to recreate an exact reproduction of an extant piece I am, in essence, being asked to create a forgery ... that is what we call that in any other context but this one. I personally enjoy that challenge, but lets say someone commissions me for a set of complete 14th century "hour glass" gauntlets and I produce them to every extent that I am capable, right down to the metallurgy, if I give them to the client with gatlings I have already "interpreted" the piece. No extant examples of gatlings exist, some argue that they never did. I will have to interpret from effigies and other pieces of art what I think they might have looked like. So, do I not sell any of these gauntlets because they can never be sold whole as historic reproductions or do I sell them with the caveat attached that the facts are I interpreted the gatlings? I personally go with the latter.

It is a sad thing that we live in a society where so many things need to be black and white to so many people. archeologist, Historians, indeed the whole ivory tower is certainly no exception to this rule. There is more of history that we do not know than that wich we do. We will never know if caesar crossed the Rubicon. We will never know if Alexander cut the Gordian Knot. But up to that degree of certainty we know, but only to that degree. Considering that one might ask if it is even possible to produce a piece that is as exact as some might want.

I think that all that I can do as a student of history and as a reproducer of physical culture, is to honor the spirits of the people that created these things and learn as much as I possibly can about who these people are/where, what they found valuable, what their images of beauty might have been, what their value orientations might have been, who their enemies where, what other cultures they came into regular contact with, etc. All these things will be found in their armor. Ultimately, despite how careful or exacting I may be, I am interpreting history with my work, even if I set out to construct an absolute molecular level forgery of an extant piece.