Small Fang sword

[Marc M.]

One of my most recent acquisitions, a small Fang sword, 43 cm. Smaller than a “standard” sword which is around 50 a 60cm. The blade has a rib in the middle and is 3mm thick against the hilt. At 5cm from the hilt that rib has a weak spot , cracked and is only 2mm thick there. Like the other two Fang swords, a rather thin blade. A tribal repair to one of the protrusions. One of the large swords also has a weak place in the blade and clearly visible where it was once bent and straightened back. Fang swords look very functional but the thin blade seems a bit fragile to me. In battle very likely the blade folds, I have always thought they were useful weapons but because of these thin blades are more status/prestige objects. More info is always welcome.
Regards
Marc

[Pertinax]

Hi Marc!

Congratulations on your new acquisition, a very beautiful and interesting sword. Unfortunately, I don't have any Fang swords yet, but I'll be following the discussion with interest.

Respectfully,
Yuri

[Changdao]

Beautiful swords.

Can I ask how thick is it near the tip? And those measurements for the bigger ones?

I would not discount their use in combat. Keep in mind that the Fang lived in an environment with no armour, and by the time these swords we are actually collecting were made and carried shields were a thing of the past (originally they used square or rectangular elephant hide shields). If their swords were slightly thicker when they had to face shields more commonly, we don't know. Besides, according to Tessmann the warfare practiced by the Fang was low scale and sporadic, based on feuding and ambushes, and small but explosive bursts of violence.

With this in mind, a thin sharp sword excellent for slicing flesh would be useful in this context. And this type of very thin cutting sword is found elsewhere: European medieval falchions of the XIII century were likewise very thin and sharp. The Thorpe falchion is 2.5 mm at its thickest and around 1-1.2 mm near the tip. Another falchion (108,9 cm in total length) starts at 7 mm, tapers to 4 mm, then 3 mm, and it is 1.1 mm for the last 20 cm. The Conyers falchion starts at 6 mm thick, but tapers quite rapidly and it is 1.2 mm in the widest part of the blade. Various Chinese niuweidao also follow that pattern.

[Sajen]

I also think that Fang swords had been very functional in times where they were used. I have sold a very nice one not too long ago which has shown signs of use, see picture.

[Marc M.]

Originally Posted by Changdao

Beautiful swords.

Can I ask how thick is it near the tip? And those measurements for the bigger ones?

I would not discount their use in combat. Keep in mind that the Fang lived in an environment with no armour, and by the time these swords we are actually collecting were made and carried shields were a thing of the past (originally they used square or rectangular elephant hide shields). If their swords were slightly thicker when they had to face shields more commonly, we don't know. Besides, according to Tessmann the warfare practiced by the Fang was low scale and sporadic, based on feuding and ambushes, and small but explosive bursts of violence.

With this in mind, a thin sharp sword excellent for slicing flesh would be useful in this context. And this type of very thin cutting sword is found elsewhere: European medieval falchions of the XIII century were likewise very thin and sharp. The Thorpe falchion is 2.5 mm at its thickest and around 1-1.2 mm near the tip. Another falchion (108,9 cm in total length) starts at 7 mm, tapers to 4 mm, then 3 mm, and it is 1.1 mm for the last 20 cm. The Conyers falchion starts at 6 mm thick, but tapers quite rapidly and it is 1.2 mm in the widest part of the blade. Various Chinese niuweidao also follow that pattern.

From top to bottom, sword 1: against the handle 5mm, in the middle 2mm and at the tip 1.2mm. Sword 2: 3.3mm, 2.4mm and 0.7mm. Sword 3: 3.9mm, 2.2mm and1.6mm.
Agreed that the average Central African warrior had no body protection beyond the shield and some exceptions observed. Shields became useless after the introduction of the firearm by the colonials. Disagreements between different parties were still fought with the traditional weapons in Africa.As colonization progressed, more punitive expeditions were set up to suppress the rebellious tribes. Needless to say, the African was on the losing side. The traditional weapons turned into status symbols and were often still useful but evolved into the weaker form than they once were. An evolution spread over several decades makes it not easy to place these weapons in time, as many have a patina from intense use.
Regards
Marc

[Marc M.]

Originally Posted by Sajen

I also think that Fang swords had been very functional in times where they were used. I have sold a very nice one not too long ago which has shown signs of use, see picture.

Hi Detlef
I doubted about your sword, the damage to the blade was not a problem but the one on the handle was just too big for me. Otherwise fine sword.
Regards
Marc

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Marc M.

I doubted about your sword, the damage to the blade was not a problem but the one on the handle was just too big for me. Otherwise fine sword.

I've sold it well, no worries! I was the best fang sword I ever had!

Regards,
Detlef

[Marc M.]

According to my source, collector/dealer, the swords are late 19th, early 20th century. Of the 60 fang swords that passed through his hands, half were with thin blades.
Regards
Marc