A GERMAN FIGHTING TWO HAND SWORD LATE 16 TH CENTURY

[cornelistromp]

ah I found a digital copy of ROMS it is x.10.

see text under condition, left is acid cleaned and right is polished.

[ulfberth]

Jasper thank you for the description from the book, but can you recognise a sword that has been treated with acid ?
Because I can assure you the sword of Jean Luc has not been treated with acid and any old wax on polished metal that catches dust and moisture over time will get the dull lead look.

kind regards

Ulfberth

[cornelistromp]

yes i can tell if sword parts are treated with acid, actually anybody with reasonable eyesight can do this.

however this acid discussion is not so important in this case.

more important is that a beautiful homogeneous original sword is almost classified as a composite one with later hilt parts, this is done without a proper and solid substantiation.

we have differences of opinion here, but that's fine.

best,
Jasper

[ulfberth]

You are right Jasper, we do have a difference of opinion and that's fine.
And you're right again, there is a lot that people with reasonable eyesight can see, they just have look in the right places, pointing them out can sometimes be helpful.

Kind regards

Ulfberth

[Cerjak]

Maybe I should have posted this pictures before. It is obvious that this hilt has been heavily cleaned, there are still some (black) trace of rust. Furthermore, it is a kind of old wax we find only on the hilt which gives this brown color, providing a different aspect if compared with the shiny blade.
So I have decided to remove this old wax only in one quillon end, so we can better see that the hilt had been seriously attacked by rust too .

[Cerjak]

one more

[ulfberth]

Jean Luc,

thank you for showing me the detail from up close, after being able to see the structure of the metal and the way it is forged I'm sure the guard is early 17th C or even late 16th C.

Kind regards

Ulfberth

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by ulfberth

Jean Luc,

thank you for showing me the detail from up close, after being able to see the structure of the metal and the way it is forged I'm sure the guard is early 17th C or even late 16th C.

Kind regards

Ulfberth

this is 100% the opposite of your statement from post #20 and onwards.

Originally Posted by ulfberth

Im sorry but the guard is just not 16th C, at best 17th or even 18th C and indeed assembled with the fighting blade for further use as a ceremonial or a sword of justice.
If we look at the alloy and metal surface of the cross guard we see it is different than that of the blade, it is also forged in a different manner.
Ulfberth

So from definitely a later applied hilt it's back to maybe the original hilt?

[ulfberth]

Hi Jasper,

Why do you get so defensive if anyone questions you're “knowledge” ?

I can ask you the same kind of questions, like you said the sword was homogeneous and later on you say : the composition of the steel is never matching between blade and hilt.this is the case with virtually all the 16th century swords.so they are never "homogeneous"
Ask yourself this , is this really the goal of this forum ?

I gave my opinion based on the info at hand and I adjusted my opinion after new and more detailed information.
You give me the impression you are not satisfied.
Do I have a say in this?
Are you asking me or telling me?
So, what do I get out of this?”
Are you really expecting me to....do Do what exactly ?

Kind regards



kind regards

Ulfberth

[fernando]

Maybe tossing some light discrepancies over the shoulders and get back to a path of harmony ...

[ulfberth]

Amen !

[cornelistromp]

@Ulfberth

homogeneous in arms means that all components, pommel grip guard and blade, from the very beginning have been together, it has nothing to do with the metal composition.

but let's shake hands because we both, very much, like antique swords.

in Holland we say; zand erover.


kind regards from Amsterdam,
Jasper

[Jim McDougall]

I would just like to say that the object of discussion is to do exactly what has been achieved here. We have the benefit of the knowledge and hands on expertise of both Ulfberth and Jasper, and while opposed at first, bringing in better discernible evidence aligned those opinions .
In my opinion an excellent outcome ( and very happy for Jean Luc)!

Best of all, in following the opposing views as these things unfolded gave me (and I hope others) a valuable lesson in the metallurgical aspects of observing these old swords.

Differences in opinion should not be taken personally, especially here where there are so many variables and many (like me) are actually students in varying degree. I know I never stop learning!!!

Thank you guys! Jean Luc for sharing this, and Ulfberth and Jasper for bringing forth so many factors for consideration

[ulfberth]

Hi Jim,

You bring us wise words, I think no one could have said it any better !

thanks

Ulfberth

[Lee]

Just as a note for the benefit of some of the less experienced members and lurkers who may be following this thread: It is extremely difficult to impossible for even the most experienced connoisseur to make very fine distinctions from photos, even if excellent, especially at internet resolutions. It is hard enough with the actual item in hand. I should think the components of this marvelous sword have been together for some time, though my own level of expertise within this time frame is insufficient to form much of an opinion beyond that.

I have also enjoyed the opportunity of being exposed to the reasoning of participants in this thread that are more experienced than myself in evaluating such an item.

Dangerously generalizing, I have noticed that hilt components often do survive with a different patination than the blade even when there is confidence of the varying elements having started together.

Acid cleaning does give a 'dead' dull grey matte surface rarely pleasing to an observer. The 'cure' sometimes given is re-burnishing with loss of even more material and detail.

I believe that the sword shown at the top of the second page from Oakeshott's ROtMS was in his estate and is now at the Oakeshott Institute.

[batjka]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

@ Jim
Jim thanks you for your Always very valuable commentary, with a good track to potential sword makers of this piece

there are always questions often by collectors including myself how with these swords could be fought, more then often two-handed swords are wrongly dismissed as processional swords.

here is a good demonstration on youtube of how these two hand techniques must have looked like.


http://www.oakeshott.org/Figueiredo_...s_and_Hick.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYNy_drriXs

I believe this sword is homogeneous ( all the parts belonging together) from the third quarter of the 16th century.
I hope the marks will give more clarity at a later stage.
so 3/4 16thC! however with the note that some of the blade decoration can indeed be applied later in the 19th century.
The latin inscription seems to me from the 16thC.

for an Italian sword with similar fuller Latin inscription see pictures
and post #141

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ght=katzbalger

This is a beautiful sword indeed, and I have learned a great deal from you gentlemen. Thank you for showing it and discussing it here.

As far as the use of this type of weapon, I have to disagree with the above-mentioned links. The treatise and the video are meant for a Montante, which was an Iberian phenomenon. The sword in question is a German two-hander and would have been handled quite differently. I believe that the German use would be close to the Lightenauer lineage than to the Spanish/Portuguese style.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by batjka

This is a beautiful sword indeed, and I have learned a great deal from you gentlemen. Thank you for showing it and discussing it here.

As far as the use of this type of weapon, I have to disagree with the above-mentioned links. The treatise and the video are meant for a Montante, which was an Iberian phenomenon. The sword in question is a German two-hander and would have been handled quite differently. I believe that the German use would be close to the Lightenauer lineage than to the Spanish/Portuguese style.

yes you are absolutely right, although there is much overlap, this is absolutely not the right school for this sword.
nevertheless it is useful to give a visual impression of two-handed sword techniques.

According to Thomas Del Mar the sword can be Italian or German, out of interest what makes you think the sword is German?

best,
Jasper

[batjka]

Jasper,

I have no experience judging the exact origins of these swords. It looks Germanic in form, and the title says "German", so I did not think otherwise.

Coming back to how these were used in battle, I found a curious article that might she'd some light on it:

http://www.renaissancewarfare.com/1_...he-Doppel.html

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Cerjak

Thank you jasper I was waiting your imput about the punches ,hoping you could find something about the two-headed eagle & lion mark . So after next step : find a place to hang it to the wall !
For sure you already had this problem: How to hang such big sword ?
I guess that a vertical stand would be the best solution.
Best
Jean-Luc

how to hang a big sword.
this looks very nice;off the wall, out of line , point up and vertical.
minor problem, maybe you should get a few more of these types of swords


best,
Jasper

ps thanks for the pic. Carl!

[Cerjak]

Very nice Jasper but my walls are already full ...

[cornelistromp]

limit the space used by your wife...

best,
Jasper

[fernando]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

limit the space used by your wife...

best,
Jasper

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

limit the space used by your wife...

best,
Jasper

Did you notice that she’s already seating in the ejection seat ?

[ulfberth]

The display on the wooden stand is very nice Jean Luc, it has the advantage as you can change its place.
It is an impressive sword, if you hang it on the wall its indeed best with some other big swords or as a center piece.

Kind regards

Ulfberth

[Cerjak]

from Karsten Klingbeil collection.
Nearly the same size

[cornelistromp]

the company of captain Dirck Jacobsz Rosecrans , Cornelis Ketel 1588
rijskmuseum Amsterdam.

same pommel type.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams All, Eventually the big two handers fell out of favour...I note from Wikepedia SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_school_of_fencing QUOTE"The author Jean Daniel L'Ange writes in his book "Deutliche und gründliche Erklärung der adelichen und ritterlichen freyen Fecht-Kunst" from 1664 (another edition was published in 1708), that "a big sword is very dangerous in our times because it is more hard to carrying around with the clothing than a smaller thrusting sword which could easily be worn".

He also writes, that "it is possible to kill a man who is armed with a gun in a short range, when he stands close to you with the help of the rapier, because of the highly effective thrusting techniques, which will save your live rather than the slower cutting of a bigger sword or a sabre. You may even be able to kill him, before he can take his gun out of its halter, before he can make the first shot".

L'Ange also writes "you can hide your rapier well under your mantle and thus avoid any provocation in public. A long sword may cause problems and excite enemies". But L'Ange also pays tribute toward the Marksbrüder and says "their art is truly a knightly science, it must be preserved for the coming, yet unborn generations!". However, some civilian fencers still practised the German school instead of the rapier-fencing of the noble elite. The last known practitioner was Theodori Verolini in 1679, when he published his book Der Kůnstliche Fechter ("The Artful Fencer"), which based upon Joachim Meyers fechtbuch". UNQUOTE.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Ibrahiim al Balooshi

Salaams All, Eventually the big two handers fell out of favour...I note from Wikepedia QUOTE"The author Jean Daniel L'Ange writes in his book "Deutliche und gründliche Erklärung der adelichen und ritterlichen freyen Fecht-Kunst" from 1664 (another edition was published in 1708), that "a big sword is very dangerous in our times because it is more hard to carrying around with the clothing than a smaller thrusting sword which could easily be worn".

He also writes, that "it is possible to kill a man who is armed with a gun in a short range, when he stands close to you with the help of the rapier, because of the highly effective thrusting techniques, which will save your live rather than the slower cutting of a bigger sword or a sabre. You may even be able to kill him, before he can take his gun out of its halter, before he can make the first shot".

L'Ange also writes "you can hide your rapier well under your mantle and thus avoid any provocation in public. A long sword may cause problems and excite enemies". But L'Ange also pays tribute toward the Marksbrüder and says "their art is truly a knightly science, it must be preserved for the coming, yet unborn generations!". However, some civilian fencers still practised the German school instead of the rapier-fencing of the noble elite. The last known practitioner was Theodori Verolini in 1679, when he published his book Der Kůnstliche Fechter ("The Artful Fencer"), which based upon Joachim Meyers fechtbuch". UNQUOTE.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

interesting, yes I believe the two-hand sword has gone sometime in the second quarter of the 17th century out of fashion

best,
jasper

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

interesting, yes I believe the two-hand sword is gone sometime in the second quarter of the 17th century out of fashion

best,
jasper

Salaams cornelistromp ...You illustrate Stunning artwork showing the weapon
Below; sketches and fighting technique illustration..

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[ulfberth]

Salaams Ibrahiim

Of course all is relative to the situation as place, timing and opponent, warfare or civilian use.
However I do like the following quote:

"never overlay thy selfe with a heavy weapon,
for nimblenesse of bodie, and nimblenesse of weapon are two chief helpes for thy advantage" - Joseph Swetnam,
The Schoole of the Noble and Worthy Science of Defence, 1617

kind regards

Ulfberth