| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Jack Horner
Location: Palmer, Alaska Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 17
|
 Posted: Wed 15 Jun, 2005 9:54 am Post subject: Tang Question - European Swords 1100 -1450 |
 |
|
I have always assumed that western swords use whittle tangs. While modern rat-tail tangs are wimpy, it's a tang width and weld strength issue, not one of basic construction technique.
Recently, I have been puzzling over the opening image at Albion Arm's site ( http://albion-swords.com/ ) Their 'museum piece' in the background is clearly a scale tang. Is this a correct technique for medieval western sword construction? How common was it? How is the grip afixed? I would thing that this affords a much more durable weapon, but have never encountered it in western swords before. (But that is probably an issue of lack of research)
Any suggestions re: resources on sword construction?
Thanks,
-Jack Horner
|
|
  |
 |
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Jun, 2005 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Grips were made in one of two ways, according to Oakeshott:
1) Made in two halves carved to fit the tang and surrounding it like a sandwich.
2) Made of one piece bored through the center
If I recall, the broad, flat tangs of earlier medieval sword Types were more likely to have grips of sandwich construction. The thicker, narrower tangs of the later swords were more likely to use the bored-through contstruction. Oakeshott discusses it in his Sword in the Age of Chivalry, I believe.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Jack Horner
Location: Palmer, Alaska Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Jun, 2005 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: | Grips were made in one of two ways, according to Oakeshott:
1) Made in two halves carved to fit the tang and surrounding it like a sandwich.
2) Made of one piece bored through the center
If I recall, the broad, flat tangs of earlier medieval sword Types were more likely to have grips of sandwich construction. The thicker, narrower tangs of the later swords were more likely to use the bored-through contstruction. Oakeshott discusses it in his Sword in the Age of Chivalry, I believe. |
Chad,
Ok, this describes the basic techniques for scale (sandwich) and whittle (bored) tangs. And there is a shift from scale to whittle tang over time. Is there any reference to scale occuring later, say by the 1350's, or was the transition complete by then?
As for the Oakeshott ref, I'll look it up. I've got 'Archeaology of Weapons' and have been looking for an excuse to buy Sword in the Age of Chivalry.
Thanks,
-Jack
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Flynt
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Jun, 2005 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
We should note, too, that the sandwich construction such as shown on the Albion site would not have been uncovered, but rather would have been bound with cord and/or leather. It's also worth noting that Messers are distinguished, in part, by their true scale grips, which were riveted and uncovered (see Albion Meister and Knecht models). Have a look, too, at the Albums here, where you'll find a number of messers, including this one minus its grip scales:
http://www.myArmoury.com/albums/photo/1258.html
-Sean
Author of the Little Hammer novel
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Hammer-Sean-Flynt/dp/B08XN7HZ82/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=little+hammer+book&qid=1627482034&sr=8-1
Last edited by Sean Flynt on Wed 15 Jun, 2005 10:21 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Jun, 2005 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Please refer to our various Spotlight articles in our Features Section to see many, many photographs of swords with exposed tangs. The Oakeshott Spotlights may mention some details of the tangs as well: particulary size or shape. Our photo albums will show many examples, too.
In my opinion, the terms "Whittle Tang" and "Slab Tang" don't really describe the hilt construction for most medieval swords. I think the "bored" and "sandwich" words are better descriptors, but describe better the grip's construction method than the tang itself. To me, the term "slab tang" invokes the image of a slab tang with two scales attached, rather than having a grip that "surrounds" the entire tang. Likewise, the term "whittle tang" invokes an image (to me) of a very narrow and tapering tang that inserts into a bored grip and is either affixed with an adhesive or a tang nut of some sort.
Owning Sword in the Age of Chivalry is an absolute must.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
Eric McHugh
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 15 Jun, 2005 10:56 am Post subject: Definately not a scale tang... |
|
|
| Jack Horner wrote: |
Recently, I have been puzzling over the opening image at Albion Arm's site ( http://albion-swords.com/ ) Their 'museum piece' in the background is clearly a scale tang. Is this a correct technique for medieval western sword construction? How common was it? How is the grip afixed? I would thing that this affords a much more durable weapon, but have never encountered it in western swords before. (But that is probably an issue of lack of research) |
Hi Jack,
That picture of the original Solingen is not a scale tang construction in the commonly understood sense of it. Sometimes what happened on originals is that since the makers didn't have handy tools like a router, they would use woods slats on the top and bottom of the grip and put thinner wood slats on the sides of the tang. In other words, the tang was completely surrounded by wood. This wood was glued into place with a natural resin or even hide glue and then it could be further shaped with a rasp or something similar. Many times it was then wrapped by a cord which was likewise glued to make a strong foundation for the leather wrap that went over the whole thing. Sometimes, the wood slats had a tang slot cut out via a chisel. But the idea is that the tang was completely surrounded with wood then covered...this was the common method of construction (with variations, of course)
When we talk of "scale tang" construction, usually it refers to a knife or even a Messer where two wood scales are cut then placed on the broad sides of the tang. The scales are secured by the use of rivets or tubes that are driven through holes drilled through the tang and wood scales. With the addition of some adhesive, the scales are secured in this method and are left exposed.
The Solingen is a "whittle tang" but only part of the wood grip is left so it is hard to tell if they used slats of wood to surround the tang or if the wood has just rotted away and left that section intact. But in any event it was not a "scale tang" construction. Peter's recreation is in the same header, and the will give you a clear idea of the finished construction.
I hope this helps.
Find me on Facebook, or check out my blog. Contact me at eric@crownforge.net or ericmycue374@comcast.net if you want to talk about a commission or discuss an available piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Horner
Location: Palmer, Alaska Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2005 2:28 pm Post subject: Re: Definately not a scale tang... |
|
|
| Eric McHugh wrote: | When we talk of "scale tang" construction, usually it refers to a knife or even a Messer where two wood scales are cut then placed on the broad sides of the tang. The scales are secured by the use of rivets or tubes that are driven through holes drilled through the tang and wood scales. With the addition of some adhesive, the scales are secured in this method and are left exposed.
The Solingen is a "whittle tang" but only part of the wood grip is left so it is hard to tell if they used slats of wood to surround the tang or if the wood has just rotted away and left that section intact. But in any event it was not a "scale tang" construction. Peter's recreation is in the same header, and the will give you a clear idea of the finished construction.
I hope this helps. |
This and some of the other posts have highlighted the inappropriateness of the terms 'scale' and 'whittle' when describing sword tangs (which I borrowed from my infinitesimal knowledge of knives). The suggested terminology has been based on the method of affixing the grip ('slab', 'sandwich', and 'bored') rather than the nature of the tang. It seems that multiple interchangeable forms of grip can be applied to almost any type of tang. Is grip based terminology sufficient? Are there concise terms for types of tang in swords? Do there need to be?
To everyone who has answered, thanks very much for the kind replies to a rank amateur.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2005 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: Definately not a scale tang... |
|
|
| Jack Horner wrote: | This and some of the other posts have highlighted the inappropriateness of the terms 'scale' and 'whittle' when describing sword tangs (which I borrowed from my infinitesimal knowledge of knives).
To everyone who has answered, thanks very much for the kind replies to a rank amateur. |
As Nathan has already said, this has been an interesting thread. I don't think the term "inappropriteness" is quite the right one, though. You pulled what you knew, presented it, and were close enough to get better info. I can respect that, man... it's how we all expand our understanding.
-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________
Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Thu 16 Jun, 2005 3:04 pm Post subject: Re: Definately not a scale tang... |
|
|
| Jack Horner wrote: | The suggested terminology has been based on the method of affixing the grip ('slab', 'sandwich', and 'bored') rather than the nature of the tang. It seems that multiple interchangeable forms of grip can be applied to almost any type of tang. Is grip based terminology sufficient? Are there concise terms for types of tang in swords? Do there need to be?
|
Actually, the terms apply more to how the grip piece(s) are formed than how they are affixed, but that's just a semantical issue . It very much has to do with the shape of the tang, though. Big thick knife-like tangs on messers are usually seen with slab grips like on knives, which makes sense since messer is German for knife I believe. Wide tangs would be better served with grips made in two halves; I'd think it would be easier to get a good fit that way. The thin stalk-like tangs, as Oakeshott calls them, are more square in section and I'd think bored-through would be the best method. In the bored through method, the wood core was roughly shaped, then bored/drilled through its center (some filing might have been done too). The tang of the sword was then heated up and the grip was shoved down onto the tang, which burned a hopefully-perfectly-shaped hole in the grip.
You could try to use any grip construction method with any tang, but it may not work so well. A wide flat tang like what's commonly found on Types X and XI wouldn't necessarily be a good candidate for boring and burning. You'd have to spend more time creating your hole through the grip prior to burning. Similarly, it would probably be easier to bore and burn the narrow thick, often square tang of a Type XV through a grip, rather than carving a thin channel out of the two halves of a sandwich style grip.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Horner
Location: Palmer, Alaska Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 11:08 am Post subject: Tang Types |
|
|
 Ok, been doing some thinking...
It seems to me that there are five basic tang types. I have included an image for grins. (Please ignore the fullers) Do any of these have names? Are there any I've missed?
A is what I called a scale tang. It's a wide flat tang that could be sandwiched or boxed by grip material. Isn't this also the basic tang in Japanese swords? Are there any western analogs to the removeable japanese grip? (I don't know what it's called)
B is a tapering tang that goes down to a square-ish bar at the bottom to be afixed to the pommel. Over simplification of the Albion piece I originally was looking at?
C is what I was calling a whittle tang. A narrow tang along the flat view of the sword, but widens out a bit from the edge view? Still contains a significant amount of metal
D is a 'rat tail' tang added this for completeness. Most common method of modern display swords, one that broke off in my hand is what got me started on all of this... Are there any examples of this historically?
E has no tang, the blade is directly riveted to handle. Added for completeness. Common type for early bronze swords. I doubt it was used in middle ages?
 Attachment: 5.39 KB
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Horner
Location: Palmer, Alaska Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 11:58 am Post subject: Grip Types |
|
|
Ok, so here's my take on grips... Does this look about right? Anything major I'm missing?
Attachment: 11.7 KB
Last edited by Jack Horner on Sat 18 Jun, 2005 2:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 12:29 pm Post subject: Re: Grip Types |
|
|
| Jack Horner wrote: | | Ok, so here's my take on grips... Does this look about right? Anything major I'm missing? |
Your first illustration is better termed slab or scale. I've never seen anything like your second illustration, the box grip. The sandwich style that was used historically and that Albion uses takes 2 pieces ("U"-shaped in cross-section) and surrounds the tang that way. The two U's meet on the short sides of the tang, in line with the plane of the edges. I've also never seen a grip get screwed onto a tang before.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Horner
Location: Palmer, Alaska Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 2:26 pm Post subject: Re: Grip Types |
|
|
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
Your first illustration is better termed slab or scale. I've never seen anything like your second illustration, the box grip. The sandwich style that was used historically and that Albion uses takes 2 pieces ("U"-shaped in cross-section) and surrounds the tang that way. The two U's meet on the short sides of the tang, in line with the plane of the edges. I've also never seen a grip get screwed onto a tang before. |
I have changed the terminology on the scale/slab grip. I mis-read the descriptions.
Also, after re-reading Eric McHugh's post, which is where I got the 'box' grip, I have reclassified it as a subtype of the Sandwich grip. Here's Eric's post.
And re: my last grip, I've changed the wording to reflect what I had intended. I meant that it was held in place by a screwed-on pommel (i.e. modern wall hanger)
| Eric McHugh wrote: | | That picture of the original Solingen is not a scale tang construction in the commonly understood sense of it. Sometimes what happened on originals is that since the makers didn't have handy tools like a router, they would use woods slats on the top and bottom of the grip and put thinner wood slats on the sides of the tang. In other words, the tang was completely surrounded by wood. This wood was glued into place with a natural resin or even hide glue and then it could be further shaped with a rasp or something similar. |
I am not sure which box grip would have been used on the Solingen, my guess is the second, after I reflected on how it would have to be pieced together. I will probably get rid of the first box as it is feeling increasingly like it would be more work.
Also on reflection, is my type B tang correct? Would the taper be at the end, actually tapering inside the pommel?
Attachment: 11.02 KB
Last edited by Jack Horner on Sat 18 Jun, 2005 4:54 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The second variant of the box-grip is an historically accurate method of assembling a medieval sword grip. There are several surviving swords that have been documented with this type of grip. While the method of using two pieces of wood that are hollowed out to accept the tang (sandwich) seems to be the most common other methods like the box-grip were used.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
 |
|
|
Aaron Schnatterly
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Kelly wrote: | | The second variant of the box-grip is an historically accurate method of assembling a medieval sword grip. There are several surviving swords that have been documented with this type of grip. |
I believe the reason this second variant of the box method would have been preferable to the first box method is one of stability.
What I mean by this is this second variant would likely handle the shearing forces generated through use better than the first box method. Torque would be developed in the grip, and the transfer of internal and lateral forces on the components would be better dealt with by that arrangement - the 4 pieces of wood would be more locked in. In the first box variant, the top and bottom would be more apt to slide apart.
-Aaron Schnatterly
_______________
Fortior Qui Se Vincit
(He is stronger who conquers himself.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Patrick Kelly
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aaron Schnatterly wrote: | | Patrick Kelly wrote: | | The second variant of the box-grip is an historically accurate method of assembling a medieval sword grip. There are several surviving swords that have been documented with this type of grip. |
I believe the reason this second variant of the box method would have been preferable to the first box method is one of stability.
What I mean by this is this second variant would likely handle the shearing forces generated through use better than the first box method. Torque would be developed in the grip, and the transfer of internal and lateral forces on the components would be better dealt with by that arrangement - the 4 pieces of wood would be more locked in. In the first box variant, the top and bottom would be more apt to slide apart. |
I agree. While they seem to have done these things any number of ways, depending on circumstance and supply, there were undoubtedly methods that were prefered over others.
"In valor there is hope.".................. Tacitus
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shane Allee
Industry Professional
Location: South Bend, IN Joined: 29 Aug 2003
Posts: 506
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your sandwich style grips wouldn't just have been limited to your type A tang, pretty much all your tang types could have this style. Grips that have been bored out could also go an a variety of tang types as well, they can even be drilled then filed to any tang shape. Cast grips are even another option for both modern and period swords. Tangs like those found on japanese swords, some seax, some knives, some ancient, and some ethnographic swords that don't run the full length of their grips are pretty much a whole other ball game.
There are two big problems with naming tang and grip types. The first being the number of variations and the second being no universal terms used from different groups. It is hard enough getting the sword community to agree to certain terms and definitions, but we also have the knife community and historians/archaeologist who have their own sets as well. Factors like differences in language also play a part.
Shane
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Horner
Location: Palmer, Alaska Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Sat 18 Jun, 2005 4:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shane Allee wrote: | Your sandwich style grips wouldn't just have been limited to your type A tang, pretty much all your tang types could have this style. Grips that have been bored out could also go an a variety of tang types as well, they can even be drilled then filed to any tang shape. Cast grips are even another option for both modern and period swords. Tangs like those found on japanese swords, some seax, some knives, some ancient, and some ethnographic swords that don't run the full length of their grips are pretty much a whole other ball game.
There are two big problems with naming tang and grip types. The first being the number of variations and the second being no universal terms used from different groups. It is hard enough getting the sword community to agree to certain terms and definitions, but we also have the knife community and historians/archaeologist who have their own sets as well. Factors like differences in language also play a part.
Shane |
I agree with you, my grips illustration is not meant to be any where near exhaustive. I just was trying to come up with a few quick diagrams with the tangs that <I assume> would work best with them. As for 'drilled and filed', or cast grips; how would they differ appreciably from a bored grip?
How do the tangs for Japanese swords and Seaxes differ in construction from my type A? Am I missing a grip type, where the tang does not protrude from the bottom of the grip?
Images and lettered types aside, I really am not trying to construct an 'Oakeshott typology' for tangs. I am just trying to get a feel for what is actually out there and set a scope on the outer limits of the variation. Mostly to set it in my own head.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic