This baffling sword features on this websites page describing type XII swords with the text stating:

"XII.1 From the Zweizerisches National Museum, Zurich
By the shape of its 30" long blade, this sword is undoubtedly a Type XII. However, the hilt is definitely of Viking form. Oakeshott states that there is no value in using the type as a means of establishing a date. It must be assumed that this is indeed a late Viking sword. Perhaps it is the earliest example of the type?"

This one example seems to condradict the otherwise consistent evidence that this type of blade originated in the high middle ages in response to a rise in demand for blades to have increased thrusting capability.

I think it's perfectly plausible that various blade designers would independently come up with this method of gaining a more effective thrust without sacrificing cutting performance. Increase the blade's taper to produce a more serviceable point then compensate for the reduced mass at the tip by shortening the fuller which will also add rigidity in the thrust.

That being said it's bizzare that there is seemingly such a large gap in time between when this sword seems to be from and when this blades reappear and come into vogue.

I have noticed that there's actually a lot of arms and armor that persisted well past their commonly recognized era of greatest popularity. For example 14th c. artwork shows a lot of what appear to be Xa's or XI's among the expected XVI's. Similarly I've found examples of 11th c.-style haubergeons as late as the 14th c. and Dane Axes into the 17th c. It wouldn't surprise me at all if XII's had their origins rather early but didn't reach the height of their popularity till much later and then persisted with a greatly diminished market share a long time after their heyday.

Another explanation for this sword is that a cutler from the Viking age tried a design that was somewhat atypical of blades of the period. There might have been a small batch or even several small batches of these swords made, of which one specimen, XII.1, has survived. Other smiths did not come up with it because the broader Viking points were more than sufficient, especially since so many of their opponents would have had no armour. If this is so, should we credit the Vikings as inventing the Type XII? Or is it more accurate to say that this blade type might have been a Viking experiment rather than the emergence of a fully-developed form?

I also suspect Oakeshott’s Typology, being based mostly upon visual distinctions in sword blades, is less precise and useful than say Alfred Geibig’s typology for classifying Viking era swords. I would be curious to see how Geibig would classify XII.1.

I'm using "Viking age" as a synecdoche for the time period, and "Viking" as a synecdoche for Scandinavians at the time. Relax.

What if that sword isn't pointy at all, but just resharpened and repaired so many times it got this shape? It would still have unusually short fuller...

Interesting possibility, but this is a well documented sword. I think someone would have noticed if the blade had been tampered with.

Take a closer look: http://myArmoury.com/feature_spotxii.html

There doesn't appear to be any alterations to the blade, at lease from what one can see in the picture. Not only is the fuller short, it narrows rapidly like the blade - that is not typical of a type X. And why would a later medieval craftsman go to all this trouble to modify a blade and then leave an archaic hilt that nobody would like? Its much easier to change a pommel and guard.

No, I think this is original.

And whether or not it is, there are are several other well documented cases of even more acutely pointed swords from the Viking Era (and well before that, e.g. Roman cavalry spatha). So the question remains, why did this design take so long to catch on?

I do not know enough about blade geometry to answer this question. I assume that you are alluding to the fact that there are blades from this time period that are similarly narrow to XII.1, with the only difference being that these other blades will have fullers extending nearly to the point, while XII.1's fuller terminates earlier. It would be helpful, though, to have exact measurements as photos can be unreliable indicators of size. For instance, XI.3 from Records of the Medieval Sword (given on myArmoury.com as XI.1) is considerably more massive than one might realize from looking at photos alone.

That having been said, there is a good chance that there are other Viking-era blades of similar slenderness to XII.1 where the only difference (besides the point) is where the fuller terminates. Hopefully, someone with better knowledge of blade geometry can chime in.

Looking at the article on Geibig's typology, the shortness of the blade on XII.1 at 30 inches or so suggests that it could not be classified as being later than a Geibig Type 4. Further, the width of the cross would suggest it probably dates to the time period of Geibig Type 3 or 4 swords. Geibig Type 2 blades and their variants sometimes have a tea-cozy pommel like XII.1, but seem to usually have a narrower, more classically "Viking"-style cross. Although XII.1's blade does not seem to fit into Geibig's typology, the drastic tapering of the fuller is closer to a Geibig Type 4 than a Geibig Type 3.Given all of these details, I would guess that XII.1 was an experimental blade made roughly during the time period corresponding with Geibig Type 4 swords, giving it a dating of between the mid 10th to mid 11th century.

Edit: The width of the blade looks more consistent with a Type 3 than a Type 4, so perhaps it was made a time of overlap between the two types, around the mid to late 10th century? This is all just speculation, so who knows for certain.

In my experience when cutting with sharp swords, broader blades can cut more deeply, typically, than one that is narrower. It might be a difference of a few inches or even less depending upon the cutting medium, but that difference could be crucial in a life-and-death encounter. A curved edge, as you may already know, will also hew deeply, even with less mass, than a lenticular blade, hence the existence of Geibig Type 14 blades, like the Albion Berserkr Viking Sword. So narrowing a point should improve thrusting, but at the cost of maximized efficacy with a cut.

Please keep in mind that my view is informed by my experience cutting with various Albions against different media. I have cut with only a moderate proportion of all the cutting blades in existence (even less when we realize the immense variations in blades of the same Oakeshott types). My experience consists of cutting with the Vinland, the Senlac, the Templar, the Knight, the Tritonia, and Soldat along with the Steward, Duke and Crecy if we count long swords (and excluding the later thrusting-oriented swords I have cut with). However, someone with superior knowledge of blade cross-sections and physics may well be able to provide inadequacies with my argument or exceptions to it.

Here is another example from Norway, of classic 10th or early 11th century form (Petersen's type S, with missing pommel cap) with a noticeably short fuller. I think there is no reason to suspect this sword of having been altered, re-profiled, re-hilted, etc.

Very little is truly unique - whether these blades are an experiment that came before its time, or the preference of one or a few eccentric smiths, or a subtype that existed for centuries before gaining popularity, there will surely be more examples to be found. It reminds me in a way of a similar pattern with double-fullered blades, that likewise occur sporadically on Viking age and early medieval swords, until a (minor) spike in popularity particularly in Eastern Europe, and in late Medieval blade forms.

[ Linked Image ]

Mark, this is very interesting sword. Do you have any more pictures or info?
Btw, we have to keep in mind that all these swords are late viking age swords when new types appear... Geibig type 4 is also quite tapered design of blade, but still with long fuller. Early type XI blades also start to appear in this period... The fittings on that Oakeshott type XII could be as late as early 11th century.