[J. Douglas]

So, everyone loves falchions? Right?

Well, I know I do. Perhaps a bit too much...

As most of you probably know, a fairly popular grouping for falchions splits them into 2 types-

Cusped- where the end ussualy ends in a clipped point,

And cleaver falchions- shaped more like an over sized butcher's knife. (Well it could be argued that's all they were.... But it wasn't animals being butchered.... )

But what was the main advantages and disadvantages with each? Obviously cusped falchions, with more acute points, would be able to thrust a lot better.


But what were the advantages of a cleaver falchion?
This is what I'm not so sure about. They appear to have more weight on the end of the blade, adding a bit more heft... But is that really an advantage? Are they actually heavier or do they just appear to be? I've never held a falchion of either type, so I'm asking for a bit of help from the more experienced members of the community here.

I speculate that the cleaver falchions would also have been cheaper and easier to make and produce... Would I be correct in saying this?

And, lastly, what do you all perfer? Personally I like the cussed falchion more, as it looks a lot better in my opinion, and I like that it is at least slightly useful for thrusting purposes.

Thank you for reading, I would love to hear your opinions on the subject.

Best regards, James.

[Mark Moore]

I much prefer the clipped-point (giant Bowie knife) style, simply because of the look and the thrusting ability. The other style, to me, just looks like a machete with a nice hilt design. .....McM

[Mark Moore]

On a side-note........I don't own a falchion. WHY don't I own a falchion, he asks? This may have to change. ....McM

[J. Douglas]

I'm thinking of getting my self a falchion. If I'm honest it's my favourite sword design both for looks and practicality.

[Luka Borscak]

Both types usually have drastic distal taper in the top part and both bowie and cleaver shapes don't have too much weight in the top part. Both are thin slicers in the CoP area.

[J. Douglas]

But what would be the purpose of the cleaver version? It gains cutter-Bility, but looses thrusting capability?

It is unfortunate that there is a large misconception about falchions being machetes when they rarely exceeded 2-3 pounds.

[Guillaume Vauthier]

Actually, looking at the historical pieces, the "cleaver" falchions seem not to be heavier than the "cusped" ones. In fact the weight are quite similar in proportions. I'm not sure that the balance point was farther to the guard on these falchions as well.

The blade shape is not the same between these two types, but there is another dramatic difference: the distal taper. I understood (from different sources, the main one beeing James Elmslie's works) that, on the cusped ones, the distal taper is quite similar (but more important) to the swords, but on the cleaver ones it is much more important. In fact, the blade on the widest part (i.e. center of percussion) is extremely thin, like 1,5mm only.
It seems logic, as the cusped one, being able to decently thrust, needs a stiff blade, and the cleaver one being highly specialized in cutting, it has a greater need for a flexible blade. There is a theory for this design's creation: it may have been used for cutting through padded and textile armors (gambisons and such).

That said, there are a few elements that we can say about historical falchions:
- The vast majority of them were pretty light.
- Several of them were made with a lot of skill, and were made for quite rich people (ornamented pommels and/or guards, blade carvings...)
- They were made by experienced swordsmiths (falchionsmiths?) as their blade geometry is actually more complicated that we could think at just looking at some pictures.

I guess that if James Elmslie comes here he would be able to give you a better answer than me.

I have in my small collection a two-handed falchion with a cusped blade, made by Marco Danelli. It may be a sort of fantasy design anyway, as we have no historical example of a "real" two-handed falchion... but we made it according to some french 15th century illuminations, and using the famous Thorpe falchion as an inspiration for the blade shape and size.
I'm waiting for another cusped one (this time "inverted", as the clip point in on the main edge and not on the back) by Maciej Kopciuch, that is actually finished now and is very closely replicating the Invalides one. I'm eager to get it!

[Houston P.]

I think you've pretty much got the " cusped " point nailed. They feel extremely lively, to the point it almost shocked me when I first held a properly made one. I found the two that I held felt a lot lighter than most arming swords. As for the cleaver type, I really don't have any first hand experience with one, but by putting so much mass in the final third it would definitely make it hit harder. Having the tip so broad would also mean that it would cut well all the way to the final inch of the blade. Despite this, they wouldn't seem heavy or slow by any means due to their being so thin. I can only imagine that they would cut very well against cloth armor. Hope that helps.

[Henry R. Gower]

The only falchion I ever admired is the famous Conyers Falchion. I have never seen that one properly replicated. In fact, it seems to be the only really famous sword of the High Middle Ages that no one has made-at least to my knowledge-a decent copy of. I wonder why not. I mean, smiths have made copies of flamberge zwei handers, really long messers, big Danish axes, all of which require a lot of metal and skill, it must be easier to forge the Conyers than a flamberge zwei hander. Just throwing it out there.
Henry

[J. Douglas]

Okay, thanks!

I wasn't sure if the cleavers simply appeared heavier or were heavier, so it's great to get that cleared up.

Of course the cusped falchions were, as a falchion, a more cutting oreintated sword, but does anyone know how well they could thrust? Would they pass as cut and thrust swords?

I have searched around good and cheap Thorpe falchions, and have found a few options. But now I come to think of it I haven't seen as many Conyer falchions.

[J. Nicolaysen]

Until James Elmslie notices this thread here are a few links for more info:

I've read elsewhere that the Conyers Falchion was not available to study for research...

Conyers Falchion http://www.foxtail.nu/bjorn/h_conyers_eng.htm

Del Tin 13th century "cleaver type" falchion http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=...Black+Grip

I think that one looks quite a bit better than this so-called John Conyers Falchion by Depeeka, though neither one is an exact reproduction (and I don't think the Del Tin is intended to be) . Weirdly Depeeka put a clip point at the end of their "Conyers:"

http://www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=...s+Falchion

Here's a long survey of falchion types from another forum, though it is 5 years old and I think J. Elmslie has had much more research since. http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?...&pp=30

I think there is another thread or three on this forum as well you can find...
Other than that I think what Guillame has said above is pretty accurate.

[Mikko Kuusirati]

[Timo Nieminen]

[Glen A Cleeton]

[Robert Morgan]

[Ralph Grinly]

Personally, I'd not consider them "Anti-peasant" or "anti common soldier" weapons. The majority of the surviving examples are , as other's have pointed out, very well made, high quality weapons. The owners of such weapons weren't all that concerned about fighting what they considered "peasants or commoners" . To them, their primary opponents were the knightly and noble classes. The peasants were the concern of other peasants. Nobles wouldn't have used, or owned weapons designed to kill peasants.

[Guillaume Vauthier]

[JG Elmslie]

[JG Elmslie]

[J. Nicolaysen]