[Eric Allen]

At least I found it interesting.

Looking through the Cloisters during my recent trip to New York, I stumbled upon the effigy of Jean d'Alluye, and found it quite striking.

From the Cloisters website:
ean d'Alluye was a knight of Philip Augustus and one of the principal nobles of the Loire Valley. His career included a trip to the Holy Land, where he acquired a relic of the True Cross. In 1248 he was buried at La Clarté-Dieu, the abbey near Tours that he had founded in 1239. This effigy, in an attitude of prayer, was turned upside down and used as a bridge over a nearby stream. Around 1900 it was purchased from a Paris dealer by George Grey Barnard, an American whose collection forms the core of The Cloisters.

The carving is a beautiful representation of a mid-13th century knight, wearing the typical armor of a well-equipped knight of the era--a full-length hauberk with intergal coif (here worn off his head) and mittens split down the palms (which hang off his wrists). A "heater" shield sits on his left leg, all to be expected and all quite striking.

His sword, however, is quite odd. Most illustrations of swords from this time have a definate "crusiform" hilt--the standard arrangement we all think of when we think "crusader's sword." However, d'Alluye's sword is quite different:
The pommel is a very decorative three-lobed design
The crossguard is very short. Rather thin and slightly downturned, it barely extends past the blade. It is rather reminiscent of guards from much earlier.

I got several photographs, but unfortunatly, a computer glitch resulted in each and every photograph we took at both the Cloisters and the Met being lost. Fortunatly, the Met website is very nice and has an excellent photograph here
You can zoom in and see an indirect view of the hilt (not as straight-on as some of the ones I took, but since those don't exist anymore, this will have to do).

Another interesting thing: I've read at various places on the web (admittadly, mostly vendor websites) and heard from some people in person (though again, mostly vendors at fairs) that the "historically accurate" way of carrying a sword from much of the Middle Ages is a "double-wrapped" sword belt. The belt which this effigy shows holding the scabbard shows NO indication of being "double-wrapped," but of only being a (wide) belt only going around the body once. I've tried this arrangement (single-wrapping, but still having it "low slung") at the last fair I went in costume in and found it to be just as comfortable and practical as the double-wrapped belt I have.

(and while we're on the subject of cool swords from the Met, check this one out! My pictures of this one are gone too )

[Jonathon Janusz]

On the Jean d'Alluye sword, I may be off in left field, but could it maybe be a dagger with the sword missing from the sculpture?

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Jonathan,
the same thought came to my mind, but then the loop of the belt makes less sense. The way the swordbelt comes down seems to indicate a weight that a dagger would not have, also the lack of a sword would take something away from the mystique of sword and shield on a memorial effigy of a great man, the sculptor would get his knuckles rapped by the surviving family members. Finally the social status of the individual precludes the thought that he would have been poor enough to be using antiquated stuff. I think the most logical conclusion available is that personnal preference and custom orders existed in the middle ages, and good old Jean had no use for quillons and favored an older type of sword reminiscent of what we now call the viking era with decorative lobed counterweights and short or quasi-inexistant quillons.... write him off as not being a dedicated follower of fashion, which may have put him in deep trouble with the ''period police'' ... ( for those who don't know what this last quip refers to, there are organisations that are so wide ranging in their scope that some members end up mixing up all sorts of periods and cultures in their costume and accoutrements, which in turn merits reprobation from those members who try to remain true to one chosen period in their own kit.Some of these get branded 'purists' or 'period police' as they sometimes frown on those with mixed ensembles. I'm not judging one way or the other, just explaining the concept for those who have not come across it before.)
Jean-Carle

[Russ Ellis]

[Sean Flynt]

Difficult to tell from the photo, but it's possible the ends of the cross were broken off, as often happens with such effigies. Then one could either leave the broken bits or simply reshape what's left of them to restore a finished look to the sculpture. Historical accuracy would be of little significance to the re-shaper. The weapon is purely a decorative element to 99.9 percent of people who view the sculpture.

[Patrick Kelly]

My thinking is the same as Seans. The ends of the guard may have been broken off at some point.

As to the double-wrapped belt: this seems to be a bit of a Hollywood affectation with no basis in history. Read more books, watch fewer movies.

[Russ Ellis]

[Patrick Kelly]

[Jean-Carle Hudon]

Sean, I agree that anything is possible, even the breaking off and refinishing hypothesis, but generally the sculpure is all of one block, and doesn't have pieces ''in the air''. The guard, if one existed, would be flat against the rest of the sculpture, making the work more feasible for the sculptor himself, and diminishing the probability of breakage. Also, if you look at the little round knob which would be the refinished broken off quillon, it is wider and thicker than what a quillon would look like. That's one thing about stone sculpture, you just can't solder pieces on, so I think that the effigy is more in the ''what you see is what you get'' category. By the way, any opinions on the tri-lobed pommel? It seems more in keeping with more antiquated sword styles than the cruciform brazil nut or round pommel of the thirteenth. Perhaps there are cruciform guards with three lobed pommels in production somewhere that I don't know of, sure would like to see them as it would make for an interesting new model on the market. Del Tin shows a 12th century model with a four leaf clover pommel, and also another 12th century with short quillons downturned and five lobbed pommel (5130 and 2124 of their offerings), then there is the cocked hat pommel of the 13th (2132), which Cervenka simply calls his gothic, or early gothic, but I have never seen this other tri-lobed configuration on a cruciform hilted 13th century sword so, if there are other known models then what are we waiting for, let it be added to the collection. Neither Albion,A&A, nor A.Trim have anything similar at the present time, so I would propose that the new addition be called simply D'Alluye's transitional...
Jean-Carle

[Geoff Wood]

In Hewitt's 'ancient Armour and weapons in europe' engraving no. 74, stated to be of the effigy of Johan le Botiler from St Bride's church in Glamorganshire, dated around 1300, the gent is holding a sword with a tri lobe pommel and a short downturned cross (which I'd call Jarl -like). Interestingly, there is also a wavy line down the middle of the blade. Whether the latter is meant to represent pattern welding or just a very flamboyant fuller I'm not in a position to say. Maybe they just carried on using good ancestral swords without completely re-hilting them. Sorry, no scanner, and the illustration is too small for my poor camera to show anything worthwhile.
Geoff

[Sean Flynt]

Maybe it's part of an elaborate art-historical conspiracy to conceal a truth that, once revealed, will shatter the very foundations of Western culture!

Or...Goeff has a pretty good lead, too. Whatever. It's all good.

[Russ Ellis]

Just speculation but a Type M pommel could pretty easily get turned into some sort of trilobated thing by an artist... or maybe this particular knight just like taking his classic pommels out for a spin...

[Eric Allen]

Looking at it first-hand, it was much too large to be a dagger, and shows no signs of the quillons being broken off and re-finished (if they were refinished, the sculptor did a heckava good job).

[Sean Belair]

i have one image from the micejoweski bible (forgive my spelling) that shows a lobed pommel another image that contains three swords that are reminiscent of lobed pommels, and a third image that contains two lobed daggers. i tried to attache the first image but apparently i am computer illiterate, so you'll have to take my word for it. the M-Bible also shows allot of sword belts some of which i originally took to be double wrap but the more i stare at them the less i think they are.[/img]

[Geoff Wood]

[Sean Belair]

these are the three pommels i think their prity close to your knights. ill hed up tomarow to check the thing out for myself and try to post the pictures.

[Sean Belair]

the dagger

[Geoff Wood]

[Russ Ellis]

[Eric Allen]

Nah, the "double-wrapped" belts sold at fairs and places like "By the Sword.com" are extra-long belts ment to go around your waist twice (acting as both the belt to keep your clothing in order and the belt to hold your scabbard).

I can't think of a single period source that unambiguously shows such a belt, as any that COULD be could just as easily bee two seperate belts.