[Sean Manning]

Leeds, Royal Armouries IX.949 is a nice type XVa longsword of the late 15th century. The Royal Armouries have some measurements in their catalogue https://royalarmouries.org/collection/object/object-104

Vlogger Alientude has measurements of a Tod's Workshop reproduction of this sword https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNRhxvqdKJ_rtDo9euLirZTsIsNHgpkk8dYvbFOwXwaQdEWa1zJ7MP827BmoEfbkA/photo/AF1QipOKOz2M-VfutX-m2p6vCvXr79CxrYIXxLmJFds4?key=STVXYXJhai1MRTIyaU9HaVV5Q2pYcDRTU1IzREdB He thinks Tod chose ebony for the grip.

A&A calls this their German Branch Sword. Theirs is closer in weight to the Royal Armouries catalogue but has a slightly wider blade. I wonder if reducing the forte from Tod's 7.2 mm thick to 6.5 or 6 mm for efficient production but making the blade 3 mm wider at the base would give about the same total mass. I have heard that the current regime at the Royal Armouries is not friendly to unlicensed reproductions of their objects, so they might not let cutlers come in and measure the swords without signing a NDA any more. I think they use a more available and crack-resistant wood for the grip such as American walnut.

https://www.arms-n-armor.com/collections/longswords/products/german-branch-sword

Both slightly simplify the place where the tang joins the blade for more efficient production on a belt sander, angle grinder, or similar. The original has a six-sided cross section for the first 5 mm or so of the blade.

Does anyone know of other modern interpretations of this sword?

[Mark Millman]

Dear Sean,

The Royal Armouries had Deepeeka make a copy of this sword for sale through the RA's shop. I understand that Tod consulted on it, possibly designing it for Deepeeka to manufacture. Sean Flynt wrote about it on this forum in July 2020. That run eventually sold out (some of the letter-opener version remain available) but Deepeeka has reintroduced it with a scabbard, which the original run didn't have. You can see it on Deepeeka's site and at Kult of Athena (although it's on back-order there). According to Sean and other posters in the old thread, that first batch didn't have heat-treated blades or had bad heat treatments, but Kult of Athena's listing says that the current examples are heat-treated.

There is also what seems to be another Indian version that I've seen on eBay, sold through Snake Eye Tactical. The listing notes some design and construction differences from the original--for example, it says that there's a leather wrap on the grip--and from the photos, the hilt seems less well made than Deepeeka's and the scabbard doesn't seem as nice. It's also noticeably more expensive than Deepeeka's version is at Kult of Athena.

I hope this proves helpful.

Best,

Mark Millman

[Leo Todeschini]

Hi Sean,

I was commissioned as a joint project between the Knight Shop and Royal Armouries to make a reproduction of the sword for production which was made by Deepeeka. I visited the RA and measured, photographed, inspected the sword. Returned home and sculpted the components. I believe I made the only reproduction that had intimate access to the sword.

The RA insist you sign a document saying you will make no commercial use of anything you learn when they allow you to examine a piece. It is a policy that I think is massively detrimental to study of the objects, but that is another story. I took on the work on the basis that I would not undermine my own ability to work on the objects in the future so took the work on and they waived the signing documents thing.

The hexagonal blade at the guard thing is simply a grinding feature you see on swords a bit and helps keep the tang strong, but mostly I think it was makers trying to avoid grinding the flats into the tang and so swerved off at the end of their stroke.

The Snake eye thing is badly proportioned, stole my scabbard design for one I did a few years ago and generally looks pretty rough and there is no way they ever examined the original.

I was not sure what the original wood was and can't remember now, but it was very dark.

I hope that helps.

Tod

[Sean Manning]

I had not thought of the Indian reproductions! Some of those work hard with the information they can find, but they are under harsh cost constraints too. Indian reproductions of ancient objects tend to be overweight, maybe to save time grinding. And some definitely copy other people's copies.

I would bet that some swords like this used exotic woods like ebony, and other local woods like walnut. Then as now it would have depended on what the cutler could get and what the customer was willing to pay.

Some museums and archives hold back rights to images in hopes that sales to the lucrative academic-book industry (almost as a big as a the replica-sword industry!) will make them rich.

[Neil Melville]

The points made above are true and reveal such a deplorable attitude. When I was writing my book on the two-handed sword I wanted to use images of some of the Royal Armouries' swords, but the price they required was ridiculously high, even for using my own photographs. The Wallace Collection responded similarly to my request. So I did not use any images of their swords but instead used images provided free of any charge by some of the large auction houses and some well known dealers. Luckily I did not need to illustrate any specific sword from the RA or WC, unlike the situation above with IX 949.
Neil