[Luka Borscak]

Hey people! So, I'm planning a new sword, custom made according to my wishes, and I would like to hear what you think about my ideas and I thought it might be fun to see which design will be the most popular. All designs are big one handed swords of early middle-ages according to the newest trend here.

First design is a big type X with double fullers, about 36" blade, wide, around 2.5", dramatic distal taper and relatively acute tip for a X (but not overly), fittings would be type 1 crossguard (gaddhjalt) and probably a big type A brazil nut pommel (16v.I according to Geibig). Dramatic distal taper and double fullers are for reducing weight and improving balance since the blade is quite huge. I hope the weight to be no more than 3.5lb. That much I can handle well if the weight distribution is good.

Second design is a long and slender type XI, very long blade (at least 37, 38 inches, maybe even more) but relatively narrow (around 1.6"), very narrow fuller, and again pretty radical distal taper, fittings would be either type 1 or 3 and pommel either a simple disc pommel (type G) or a type B brazil nut. This one would probably be more crusader themed so there would probably be crosses engraved in blade and maybe brass crosses inlayed in pommel. Probably a brass inlayed inscription. This one should be no more than 3lb.

Third design is more simple and would be an option if I end up lacking enough funds for fancy stuff like double fullers, inscriptions or the effort to make very long or wide blades with very good mass distribution for the good balance.
This one would be simple Xa with 35.5" long and 2" wide blade, single fuller, gaddhjalt cross and type A brazil nut pommel. This one would be relatively normally sized so I would expect the weight to be under 3 lb and although relatively plain it should be pleasant for handling and cutting.

Results of this poll may not effect my decision but I am still interested in results and I hope it might be fun to hear your comments on designs, I will be happy to think about your ideas on how to improve my designs.

[Tim Lison]

There is no way to answer "All of the above"! They all sound cool. I like the double fullered one best since we don't se too much of that around here.

[Bartek Strojek]

Where there really many double fullered X's out there?

Regardless of it, I will probably go with first option anyway, since it sounds definitely promising...

[Jeremy V. Krause]

I like the second option but with ONLY inlay NOT inscriptions and PLEASE OH PLEASE no etching. There is little to no evidence of non-inlayed inscribed blade or pommel designs during these periods. My preference would be to lean towards a silver or brass inlay instead of bronze as these metals again are more common- especially silver.

Iron-inlay would simply be too expensive.

A type B pommel would also be attractive on such a sword.

[Luka Borscak]

[Paul Hansen]

All options sound good to me... But it depends on what you want and what you already have.

Personally, I already have a light, agile and relatively short type X, so for collecting purposes, I'd really like a "cavalry" type XI.

What sword do you have in your avatar?

[J.D. Crawford]

Hello Luka,

I voted for option 1 - multiple fullers are cool. I also have a multi-fuller design on deck, waiting for a future commission, but if and when that happens it won't be like the one you have planned.

Good luck with your choice and the outcome,

-JD

[Luka Borscak]

THe sword in my avatar is Del Tin St. Maurice 2130, a bit customized. Good sword, but I would like a longer blade, a sword could be lighter with that blade length or it could be longer with that same blade. It's my only 11th -13th century singlehander for now, so all of these designs would fill that part of my collection nicely. All of them would be a cavalry length blades, but I'm just not sure which blade type would be the best one to make as a custom. I may be leaning towards double fullered X blade because it's a rare thing in a production world and an XI could be made by grinding my Del Tin 2142 blade for a more distal and maybe some profile taper near the tip and the fuller could be lengthened.

[Paul Hansen]

A big, double fullered type X still sounds like a sword for dismounted use to me. And there is a good reason why they are not overly represented in the production market: they are not overly represented in the archaeological record either.

Nevertheless, I have to admit that they are cool and that I want one as well...

But from hearing your description, the type XI sounds like what you are looking for.

[Luka Borscak]

I agree, for the type of intended use, XI would be best. But I'm not sure big X would be bad too. It would be similar to a XIII, but with longer fullers, I don't know why it wouldn't function well for a mounted use.

[Jeremy V. Krause]

[Luka Borscak]

I agree, especially since most people wealthy enough to have swords at that time would be wealthy enough to fight mounted. And infantry tactics required a spear as a main weapon anyway.

[Paul Hansen]

[Jeremy V. Krause]

[Luka Borscak]

If go back to the spathas, they were first used as a cavalry weapons... But however was the evolution of a X going on, by 11th century it would probably be mostly used by knights, usually mounted.

Btw, this brings up a question. What IS a minimal blade length practical for a mounted use? Average viking age type X sword has a 31" blade, and average Xa that would probably be used in a more knightly, mounted way was on average about 33". Are these 2 inches a deference great enough to differentiate between an infantry and cavalry blade?

[Jeremy V. Krause]

[Jeremy V. Krause]

Oh, and regarding the choices. How many TRUE type XIs do you see being made? I PERSONALLY feel that the fuller on the Albion Oakeshott (type XI) is a bit too wide compared to historic examples- at least to the well known ones. I should point out, though, that my arms and armor library is more limited to the big titles so I may not be the best sourse of information on this.

The community is full of broad type Xs. How about some love for more narrow blades!?! They're so awsome and noble looking!! A flat bottomed fuller may look especially striking on such a sword. I'd have to see if these type os fullers were seen in this type. . . .

[J.D. Crawford]

[Craig Peters]

I too voted on a Type XI sword with a disk or Brazil nut Type B pommel. I would say though that you should avoid going with crosses on both the blade and the pommel, because this seems to have been an extremely uncommon pairing. I cannot say that this pairing did not exist altogether, because I only have Records of the Medieval Sword with me at the moment, which is hardly the entirety of antique swords in existence. Nevertheless, a cross on both the pommel and the blade is not found on any Type X, Xa, or XI blades in Records. I, personally, would avoid it.

It seems to me also that crosses on pommels are nearly always found during the 13th century onwards, rather than earlier. I could be mistaken about this, and if anyone knows of a substantial number of swords with crosses on the pommel that can firmly be dated to an earlier period, by all means mention it. But, barring evidence to the contrary, I would suggest that a cross should probably go on the pommel only of a later crusading era sword. Since the types that you have mentioned, Type X, Type Xa with Gaddhjalt crosses, or a large Type XI seem to be more representational of pre-1200, I would forgo a cross on the pommel altogether.

[Jeremy V. Krause]

I'd say I agree about the lack of crosses on pommels pre- 13th. c. I've never seen a cross of any kind on a type A or B pommel period.

Regarding crosses on blades, they usually are found before and after some series of letters (often incomprehensible to us). Other crosses are seen along with straight lines (often 3) or simple shapes.

I believe that a plain pommel, whether disc or brazil nut/tea cozy would be the safest bet. Oh, and I'm beginning to live vicariously through this design process!