[Craig Peters]

Today when I came home I picked up the delivery notice on the counter and went down the local courier office, where my white box from Albion was waiting. After a long walk home, I was able to open the box and see, for the first time, my new Sempach. I wrote an informal review of my Sempach, and I thought I'd share it here. I think the Sempach is an under appreciated weapon, and I hope my review might inspire others to take interest in this sword, just as reading other's reviews has inspired me to take interest in certain swords. I did not discuss fit and finishing in this review because it's consistent with the other reviews of Next Generation swords here at myArmoury.

My first impression was that the Sempach is a beautiful long sword that is agile and well suited for Liechtenauer's system. The sword blade near the tip is, for lack of a better word, quite oval in its cross section, (that was my first immediate impression without considering the issue; it's actually more hexagonal in shape), a fact that was quite striking when compared with my Knight and Late 15th Century Bastard Sword. One thing I noticed was that the edge of the Sempach doesn't feel quite as sharp as the Knight, although on closer inspection, it is obviously just as sharp as it's high medieval cousin, yet it feels different at the same time. Perhaps this difference in perception is due to the fact that the Knight is primarily a cutting sword with a flatter blade, whereas the Sempach is a dedicated thruster with a more hexagonal cross section?

As part of handling the sword, it was only natural to compare it to my Squire line Bastard sword. To my surprise, when I handled the bastard, it felt somewhat more agile in my hands compared to my Sempach, despite the fact that the Bastard is wider at the "ricasso" (2.5 inches wide to be precise). Yet upon handling them again, it seemed that the two swords seemed very similar in terms of agility and ease of handling, and yet there was a subtle difference between the two. It took me quite a while before I could articulate that difference in words.

The Bastard's blade is very flat cross-sectionally, in contrast with the more oval blade of the Sempach, and I think this makes a bit of aerodynamic difference in the handling when delivering a cut. Also, you can feel that the Sempach is a heavier sword than the Bastard. Part of this difference in weight is that it feels as though there's just a little bit more mass at the tip of the Sempach, which makes for a subtle difference when cutting with the sword. Because of having a little extra mass, the Sempach has more blade presence, feeling just a bit more solid on a cut that the Bastard did in my opinion. Though it does weigh more and feels less aerodynamic, the Sempach feels very agile when cutting, yet the Bastard seems to travel through the air in a cut with more ease. However, the oval cross section of the Sempach gives the point far more stiffness than the bastard, which means it is better suited to dealing with harnischfechten than the Bastard, who's point I could more easily wiggle with my hand. Also, the more rounded point of the Sempach, (pretending, for the moment, that the Bastard is a typical sharp XVa), leads me to suspect that the Sempach is less likely to have its tip warp out of shape when contending with armour than the Bastard.

Both the scent-stopper pommel on the bastard sword and the Sempach's flatter type T2 pommel are very nice for your left hand when gripping the sword. When grasping the pommel entirely with the left hand, the Sempach's flatter pommel is slightly preferable to the more curvaceous scent stopper on the bastard. This is because the place where the side facets of the scent stopper and where the top meet forms a metallic seam and this is a bit less comfortable to grip in my opinion. However, I think this matter is entirely based upon personal taste, and the reader needs to compare and contrast the two types of pommel in order to decide which type they prefer.

I grabbed a cardboard box and folded down the flaps to make it a thicker cutting target. The Sempach cuts quite well, putting a three inch deep angular gash in the box when I struck a right to left oberhau. I also compared the Sempach's ability to thrust with the Bastard, keeping in mind that the latter had a far more rounded and thick point than a sharpened XVa would have. Both swords penetrated the box well, but not surprisingly, the tip of the Sempach has virtually no wobble upon entry, whereas the more flexible blade of the Bastard wobbled more when penetrating.

The description of the Sempach on Albion's webpage sums up very well how the weapon feels:

"This was a period when armor was at its heaviest and most massive, thus swords had to be made that were both robust and powerful. The thrust might have been the most effective attack when using a sword against a heavily armored foe and so the point is always strong on these weapons."

There certainly is a robustness to this sword that is belied by its appearance, and the tip is very strong on the Sempach and very well suited to the thrust, even though the point is less acute than a Type XVa blade like the bastard. Overall, I'm very happy with my Sempach, and I would recommend it to anyone who likes long swords.

[Craig Peters]

A footnote to my review: It must be stressed that the Sempach feeling less aerodynamic and a bit heavier applies specifically to the comparison with the Squire Line Bastard Sword. It would be a mistake, however, to think that this sword is not agile in handling at cutting. The difference in how these two blades is subtle, and to be honest, the difference between them in terms of how they feel when striking is neglible. That having been said, the review is still useful, because it allowed me to comment upon how the two blades felt in comparison to one another, rather than just saying that the Sempach feels "agile" and "good" when striking.

[Peter Johnsson]

Hello Craig!

Thank you for your comments. I always like reading customer resctions to these designs.

Just one comment: what you describe as an aerodynamic diference between the two swords is, I think rather an effect of different blade length and mostly different mass distribution. The effect of mass distribution and inertia is of paramount importance in sword design. This is the major aspect you work with to achieve different characteristics in handling.

The Squire Line Bastard is a little shorter in the blade and as a much different distributio of mass in the blade. The point is slimmer and the base has much more mass in proportion. The Sempach has more mass in the point compared to its base. As this effect pepends on distance, a small difference in length will make for a big differnce in handling.
The added mass and length in the sempach will help in reach and sturdiness when thrusting, but will also, just like you saaid; add power in the cut. In cutting, speed is more important than mass, but mass does also play a role especially in structural integrity. when it comes to withstanding harsh targets, I should think the Sempach is better equipped than the shorter XVa.

Again, thanks for your thoughtfull comments!

[Craig Peters]

[Bob Burns]

My favorite weapon or sword of all is definitely the longsword or bastard sword, and this Sempach is a real beauty for sure, there is nothing not to like about this sword. I have the Arms & Armor German Bastard Sword, English Longsword and the Durer Bastard Sword is being shipped to me today and the Sempach would look beautiful sitting amongst them!

Bob

[Shane Smith]

My fiance owns a sempach. It is a very good handler and the lines are visually very striking. I like the sword very much but would favor more blade length in most all Albion models(39"ish would be nice). The Sempach is a fine sword in my opinion as a practitioner. I think it more useful in the Italian tradition myself. I like more mass out front for setting aside cuts in the Ringeck/German tradition.

[Chad Arnow]

Craig,
I'm glad you like your Sempach. I love mine. I agree that it's under-rated, especially given how popular the sword form must have been judging by the number of surviving examples.

I was surprised, though, that you used the term oval for the blade (though you did call it hexagonal as well). For me, "oval" implies round-ness. "Hexagonal" implies planes and angles.

For instance, if hear a blade has an oval cross-section, I typically think lenticular (top left):



Hexagonal (top right) seems to be something else entirely, but we could be using the terms differently.

The Sempach surprised me in cutting. Against pool noodles, it kept up with the Regent, slaughtering them easily. Against pumpkins, though, its cross-section made it much less effective as a cutter. It would get half-way through a big pumpkin and stop, where the Regent and Baron went right through. I think the feelings about edge sharpness could come from the cross-section's severe angle between the flats and edge.

[Chad Arnow]

[Shane Smith]

MY desire for longer bladed swords is not ahistorical by any means although the context in which my statement was made is not as I intended. I like long blades in particular and have personally handled many original period longbladed warswords. I would love for Albion to choose one of those to replicate along with the short and stubbies(comparatively) that they currently make as a rule. Our ancestors defintiely saw the use of long-bladed longswords along with the shorter blades you mention.Then as now, men were individuals with differing needs.Make more sense now? Such a sword is VERY historically consistant for one that is seeking to reconstruct German greatsword techniques as seen in many period texts. Glasgow Museums has two very nice swords of the type I am wanting Albion so desperately to turn out(hint, hint )

[Bob Burns]

I have a question here, as we are discussing historical blade lengths and authenticity, I would like to enter into this the practicality issue pertaining to the fact that in the medieval era the average height as I understand it to be was a few inches shorter than is the average height of man in our present day. So, hypothetically if the average height in say 1450 Europe was 5' 7" and in present day say 5' 9". In relation to this factor, would it not then be more authentic in practicality to have a sword a bit longer than in the medieval era? Wouldn't the blades have been longer in 1450 if the average height was the same as it is today?

Curious as to what other members think on this issue.

Bob

[Chad Arnow]

[Roger Hooper]

Aesthetically, I prefer the pommel and guard on the other XVII, the Landgraf. However, I've heard that the Sempach's pommel is much friendlier to the left hand than is the Landgraf's

[Craig Peters]

[Chad Arnow]

[Chad Arnow]

[Bob Burns]

An excellent idea Chad, I will start a new thread on this topic regarding the differences of sized people between now and then, on the average.


Thanks,

Bob

[Craig Peters]

[Bill Grandy]

As a personal preference, I really agree with Craig that a sword like the Sempach handles fantastically for the Liechtenauer school, moreso IMO than a larger great sword. It's fast and agile, it'll thrust nicely into the gaps of armour, and you can half-sword well due to the less acute edge without sacrificing too much of it's ability to cut. That said, I think a great sword can work fine for Liechtenauer's teachings of the longsword, and indeed so can pretty much any longsword. The more I study this stuff, the more I realize how universal these techniques are to a multitude of weapons. So, in my view, I don't think that the Sempach works any better for Fiore than it does for Liechtenauer. As always, your mileage will vary.

Though, Shane, I do I like the longer weapons myself.

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

IIRC there are larger type XVII swords, for example this one, http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2670

Can we assume that blades were often "tailored" to the size and preferences of the customer? I can imagine that this happened quite often (given that the sword was not part of a bunch of massproduced swords for a campaign).
"Ok, I'm taller than my buddies can you make me a larger version of that sword, maybe with such a crossguard blabla"

Concerning the aforementioned greatswords: I think Albion has announced three of them so far: the Danish one with the long "Ahlspiess blade" and two Landsknecht-style swords (the Tyrolean and another one, forgot the name) with broader blades, but without the complex hilts and the parrying hooks on the ricasso.
If my life depened on it I would choose the Danish one. Nasty, nasty, nasty blade

[Peter Johnsson]

Size of longsword blades:
Yes there is variation!
We find longswords both shorter and longer than those currently in production at Albion.

I do not think blades were directly cusom made as commonly as may be uspposed. Blades were normally made in unches on order from cutlers.
Few swords were made as one off items, although that would of coruse have happened from time to time. I think the normal would be for a customer to go to a culter and see what the cutler could offer in the way of diferent blades and pick a hiltstyle that suited his tastes, needs and wallet.

Perhaps the most common for a man at arms was to use a sword that was part of a group delivery to some armoury?