Posts: 1,903 Location: Toronto
Sat 18 Feb, 2017 5:16 pm
Craig Peters wrote: |
Oakeshott indicates that a Type XI has a slender blade, "generally [emphasis mine] long in proportion to the hilt, with a very narrow fuller running to within a few inches of the point," (Records, p. 53). Notice that Oakeshott is not precise on the blade to hilt ratio, so this alone cannot be used to rule out a Type XI. I think there's a stronger argument to be made about the fullers not matching the description. That having been said, the narrowness of the fullers seems to be the crucial characteristic of an XI blade, and Oakeshott undoubtedly had not seen many of the swords in Aleksić’s book, which do not always perfectly coincide with Oakeshott's typology. So long as the fullers are truly as narrow as they appear, I think XI is an appropriate designation. |
They appear to be tending toward XIa blades (higher width to length ratio). The one on the right also could be XIIIb...shorter fuller...hard to say with a degraded tip. Or just an XIa with short fuller.
Posts: 66 Location: Kansas city
Sat 18 Feb, 2017 6:04 pm
Yes that's what I was thinking, the one on the right has quite a short fuller. And they do fit with the rest. ;)
Posts: 166 Location: France
Thu 23 Feb, 2017 2:02 am
Does someone have some more informations on the Hamburg and Delft swords that Mark posted earlier in this thread? I'm currently looking for datas on very long-bladed type XI...
Looking at the forum I found a few specs for the Søborg, Esrum and Mauritius swords, but I guess there are some more 90/95 to 100cm bladed swords here. And of course I would not refuse some more datas like PoB or mass for these... :D
Posts: 2,167
Fri 24 Feb, 2017 4:32 am
On what basis is the sword in your image, Mark, dated to circa 1300 by its holding institution? My impression was that long inscriptions were say from the second half of the 12th century into the first portion of the 13th. The hilt furnishings look like something I would expect from the 13th century, but there isn't anything to suggest a late 13th c date in my view.
Posts: 166 Location: France
Fri 24 Feb, 2017 4:49 am
Mark Lewis wrote: |
Guillaume Vauthier wrote: | Does someone have some more informations on the Hamburg and Delft swords that Mark posted earlier in this thread? I'm currently looking for datas on very long-bladed type XI... |
Are you investigating their geometry, or creating your own designs? :) |
I'm investigating at the moment, but I must admit I'll probably ask someone to make me a similar sword of my own design in the future... some designs have very appealing particularities, I love the very short grip of the Saint-Omer sword, and the beautiful inlays of the Esrum sword, for example. But I would like to know more about their physical properties, like weight and balance, even if the average PoB seems to be at about 1/6th of the blade length and the weight around 1,2kg.
Thank you indeed for these extra datas, it helps! And this last sword seems enormous!
And about the Hamburg sword, was it found in Hamburg, or it is kept in a Hamburg Museum? Have you the information?
In addition, here is another type XI sword with a G pommel that was exposed for the Cluny Museum exposition on swords (the same that the one where some of the Saint-Omer pics were made). But I don't have any informations on it:
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Posts: 1,903 Location: Toronto
Fri 24 Feb, 2017 4:58 am
Mark Lewis wrote: |
I think the very longest I have found might be this one, from Seewen in Switzerland. L: 117.4, BL: 101, BW: 5.5, CL: 16.3, PH: 5.5, PW: 5.3. |
Now that's a sword. You got my attention with that one. I've been looking for a big one with an I pommel.
And I agree it looks more 1200 than 1300.
Posts: 166 Location: France
Fri 24 Feb, 2017 9:13 am
Mark Lewis wrote: |
Actually, that is the Hamburg sword! On loan for that exhibit... some of the measurements I posted are from the catalogue. The Gicelin inscription is legible in the third photo. I understand it was found in the River Elbe, I assume near Hamburg... it is in the museum there. |
What a funny coincidence! So, according to the stats, the blade must be about 96,5 to 97cm. That's a pretty big boy too. And you're right, the last pic is quite good, the inlays are very legible... thanks for all the infos :D
Posts: 118 Location: Reno, NV
Fri 24 Feb, 2017 4:36 pm
There's the Fornham sword at Moyse's Hall Museum in Bury St Edmunds which has been linked to the battle of that name in 1173. Inscription reads "SES BENEDIC TAS" and "+ I NOMINE DOMIN."
https://narrellemharris.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/img_0704.jpg
http://www.stedmundsburychronicle.co.uk/moyses/fornhamsword.jpg
Posts: 4,393 Location: Northern California
Fri 24 Feb, 2017 5:00 pm
Here is the only XIa photo that I have seen
Attachment: 13.39 KB
Posts: 1,903 Location: Toronto
Fri 24 Feb, 2017 7:38 pm
Roger Hooper wrote: |
Here is the only XIa photo that I have seen |
Roger, there are a couple more of standard XIa proportions (shorter and broader than XI) shown here: http://myArmoury.com/feature_spotxi.html
However there are some huge swords that Oakeshott also called XIa. The best example, the Pontirolo sword, is described in 'Sword in Hand' pages 80-81 and shown here: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=124...=pontirolo
This single hand sword has a blade 40.5" x 2.75", with a narrow fuller. So it seems Oakeshott distinguished XIa from XI by width (or perhaps more likely width-length ratio), not by length alone. The River Fyris sword reproduced by Peter Johnsson may be another example, although the tip is also missing.
The Eastern European sword shown above looked to me to be intermediate between classic XI and XIa.
Posts: 166 Location: France
Sat 25 Feb, 2017 5:08 am
The size is quite average, but the sword is said to be 1,74kg. That seems pretty heavy for a sword like this !
Posts: 1,903 Location: Toronto
Sun 26 Feb, 2017 11:37 am
Guillaume Vauthier wrote: |
The size is quite average, but the sword is said to be 1,74kg. That seems pretty heavy for a sword like this ! |
Not really, when you consider the width. Even a 35" long blade with width of over 2.5" and normal thickness carries a lot of mass. That's bigger than Albion Tritonia, which is nearly 3.5 lbs. If this is average, you guys must have some big swords!
At any rate, my point was that Oakeshott's XIa is not restricted to small swords.
And I think we are getting off topic.
Posts: 2,167
Sun 26 Feb, 2017 9:49 pm
I wonder if the sword in the Romanian museum is genuine. The condition is extraordinarily good for a sword of this time period, which doesn't mean much necessarily although it is unusual enough to consider if there are other oddities about the sword. Secondly, the pommel looks funny to me. It doesn’t really match other Type B or Type B1 pommels I have seen. Thirdly, my impression from the appearance of the cross is that it is a Gaddhjalt, yet this seems an unusual pairing with a Type XI.a blade. In my experience, Gaddhjalt crosses are more common to swords with the narrower Type Xa or Type XI blades. Then we come to the weight. Although as Doug observed this weight may be appropriate for an especially broad blade, 1.74 kg is well outside the great majority of single handed swords. This itself is cause for pause. Finally, the notes from the museum’s webpage indicate that the grip still has wood wrapped in leather which itself is highly unusual; it is less so if this sword dates to the end of the 14th century as the museum claims, but everything about the blade and hilt furnishing suggests to me that it belongs to the 12th to early 13th century when nearly no hilt furnishings survive. Additionally, there are certain “purveyors of antique medieval swords” who have sold several “antique swords” that have similar grips, both with complete grips and those that are partly missing. All told, there are enough oddities about this sword that leave me suspicious.
Posts: 1,903 Location: Toronto
Mon 27 Feb, 2017 9:28 am
If
Oakeshott's measurements are correct (which now seems questionable), I agree that 5lbs just seems too much for a long one hand sword (unless it was built for a warrior of huge stature). There's a good reason why the long XIs are narrow. I have a narrow XI with a 37.5" blade at 3lbs that handles pretty well. I have other swords (XIIIb) with shorter, wider blades at 3.5lbs that I can just barely handle. At 6' I would presumably be considered big in Medieval times, but my bone structure would not handle a heavier, longer sword.
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