The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword
 

The text is the attached Word doc.!

Photos

The origin of the medieval Falchion, and a Typology
 

The text is the attached Word doc.

Typology

Photos

Falchions Type I

More photos Type I

Falchions Type II

Falchions Type III

From the historic point of view, this is a very good survey covering many important and dated pieces of period artwork - exactly the kind of thing that is appreciated a lot!

The three actually illustrated samples (Baumann, Czerny etc.) at the beginning are at least of dubious quality ...


m

perfect typology and beautiful balanced historic image material.


My compliments!

Salaams Swordfish! Brilliant thread !! Bump !! :shrug:

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Salaams Swordfish! I note that you have a Malchus in one of the pictures with dots down the backblade... Very interesting. :shrug:

Regards Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Absolutely brilliant work Susi!!!!
While your excellent typology and survey of these intriguing medieval swords gives us perfect understanding of these, I was reminded of the first time I heard the term 'malchus' used to describe them in 2009 with Jasper's post which I brought back up.

I wanted to add some information on where this term came from.
Apparantly the term 'malchus' was used by Herbert Seitz (1965) in his "Blankwaffen" in describing these medieval falchions, and I am not certain whether he coined the term or drew from other material. The term refers to the 'sword of St. Peter' , a religious relic held in the Poznan Archdiocesal Museum in Poland, and held to be the weapon used by Simon Peter when he cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest when Jesus was arrested in Gethsemane. The servants name was Malchus, and the sword, though described in 1609 as being a Roman gladius, in form it has the same kind of dramatically widened blade as these medieval falchions.
The Italian storta having the 'clipped tip' resembling the 'Thorpe falchion' falls into the collective 'malchus' group with the falchion term.

It is unclear whether the sword in Poznan is actually of the period suggested by tradition or whether it is a medieval production of the 14th c. as believed by Marian Glosek the authority on Polish swords.

All best regards,
Jim

Excellent! Probably my preferred medieval weapon.
It seems that no. 11b, 12, 12a & 13 are all alike (well, 13 has a point) and I'm very happy to see a surviving example. Apparently a peasant class weapon, being pretty simple to make and lacking a guard nor a pommel. Similar to the Italian Beidana that had been used into later times.

Salaams all~ There is a monumental thread full of detail and drawings etc called Help pls. on 15th-17th C. cutlass & scimitar of 2009 which although it ended rather badly is otherwise very interesting. Well worth serious research. Easy to find by typing in Falchion on search Regards Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Thanks all for the kind compliments!

Dear Jim, I must confess that I never heard of the sword in Poznan. Do you have a photo of it?

Regards
Susi

st Peter's sword in Poznan's cathedral.

another interesting falchion outof the castillon hoard, one from the klingenmuseum in Solingen and one from nurnberg museum.

best,

Nice photos
 

Very interesting photos. Thank you very much. I didn`t knew that the Castillon hoard contained a falchion. The Nurenberg Falchion, is it in the Germanic National Museum? I have not seen it there during my last visit. Or is it in another Museum?

Regards

Thank you so much Ibrahiim for the reference to this thread, with which the description 'ended badly' beautifully and with diplomatic demeanor describes the terminus of that thread. This was indeed a magnificent and informative discussion which was entirely destroyed by the inability of two members (no longer participating) to consider the topics at hand more important than themselves. This was a great discourse revealing outstanding details on the topics and became an unfortunate textbook example of how poor choice of words in rebuttal as well as personally oriented retort led to the loss of what was an important course of discussion, much to the misfortune of all others involved.

The material prior to this was as noted, extremely important and interesting with application to this subject on the falchion and related weapons.

Susi, the compliments I assure you are more than well deserved! :).
I was trying to post a photo which I had found under 'St.Peters sword' in Wikipedia but computer malfunction apparantly took it out. I had found this originally when the original 'malchus sword' topic came up, and discovered this sword and the 'malchus' were one in the same.

Thank you Jasper for adding the illustrations, and as always for your outstanding and knowledgeable contributions which truly add such detail in understanding more on these weapons.

All the best,
Jim

Just wanted to add a note concerning the use of the 'malchus' term, which as I had mentioned earlier I had seen as noted by Jasper, in Herbert Seitz' "Blankwaffen" (1965), but was unclear if it had been in use earlier.
I discovered apparantly it was in use as early as 1885, when described in "Schools and Masters of Fence" by Egerton Castle on p.229, "...malchus was the name often given to a short, broad and straight bladed sword, synonomous with braquemar, in remembrance of Malchus, who had, according to the Gospel, his ear cut off by St.Peter presumably with an instrument of this kind".
The illustration (plate VI, #4) shows a medieval broadsword, short blade which is straight and not with this falchion type blade at all, with the 'crab claw' type hilt with downturned quillons seen on various medieval swords.
It is interesting to see yet another case of terms and classification semantics which repeatedly plague serious arms scholarship in discovering the progression in development of these historic weapons.

@Susi
re: Nurnberg sword
I believe it is the GNM in Nuremberg.

@All
re: castillon
there is a wonderful article published in the catalog of the London A & A fair 2012;
Additional notes on the swords of castillon by Clive Thomas.
herein are the different types of castillon swords classified and described in way a only Clive can do.
This is "a must have" for the sword enthusiasts.
The Falchion of the Royal Armouries in Leeds is also shown here.


best,

Well, what to say...

Swordfish, I'm absolutely fascinated by the documentation and study you've produced here - namely as I've been workingon exactly the same subject matter in myself for the last 6 months, slowly working through studying each of the falchions in detail.

My focus has been slightly different, in that I've also been looking at the single-edged weapons - sword and knife/messer, as I'm rather of the opinion that the two are closely inter-related, and studying one without the other is rather counterproductive, and to a lesser extent, have been taking the time to produce replicas of a number of the blades to get a better understanding of the handling properties.

However, I'm extremely pleased to read your study, and would be extremely interested in discussing the subject with you, if you would care for such.


Meanwhile, a few points I'd add, in no particular order:
your first photographed example, the "Public Museum Germany" - that example is in the Reichsstadtmuseum Rothenburg now, is'nt it?
I understand that it is somewhat suspect - I was informed that it may be a 19th century forgery. Have you managed to find any data on the provenance that one to verify its provenance? I've left it to last as a result of the suspicions about it that I've heard, so have not looked at it in detail. I was, equally, unaware of the two from the same source, since I had'nt looked into that one much, so am particularly interested to know if there is any documentation and study into those.

I'm particularly interested to notice that you have also spotted the similarities with the Langobardian knife/cleaver-hilts with the looped guards. My personal take on this is that the earlier-dated langobardian form influenced the knife-hilted types, as depicted in the illustrations of the maciejowski bible and by Villiard de Honnecourt. I'd be particularly interested in your take on this to see if we have reached the same conclusions. The construction method of the Langobardian hilts, incidentally, is the principal reason that I expanded my study criteria to include all single-edged blades, as I feel the interelation and association of blades makes it impossible to study one in isolation.

Have you had any luck with access to the Conyers Falchion? while curators in Milan, Norwich, the Royal Armouries, Scottish National Museum, Delft and Paris have been of wonderful help, Durham Cathedral have refused outright to assist me in any manner; apparently noone is allowed access to it. (I'll not repeat the somewhat sarcastic comment about that I got from one fine member of the Royal Armouries staff. at least, not in public!).


Are you aware of the existence of the storta/falchion of 13th C date in the Castello Sforzesco, Milan?
If not, I can arrange to get data to you.

I'm interested to notice that you have copied Heribert Seitz' type 1 and type 2 choices, despite the act that the type 1 predates type 2. I'm rather of the opinion that Seitz' typology should be entirely overhauled, rather than simply added to, and I'd be particularly interested in your opinions there.


I expect I'll be adding more to this later on, but, well, its horribly late here... so that'll do for now.

(and, erm, hello to everyone on the forum, looks like I've fonally got round to posting here instead of lurking!)

An additional note before I head off for the night:

your figure 9b, the excavated falchion which was on auction with Hermann-Historica, but did not sell.

I have documentation of this one, and its distal and cross-sectional profiles, and I'm afraid it does not fall into the type III category you propose.
its primary cutting edge is on the other side that you have assumed, nor does it does have a false edge on the clip-point; infact it possibly has a reinforced tip, though its difficult to tell as there is considerable concretion on it at that point.

Apologies if that's thrown a spanner in the works.

Hi JG,
welcome to the forum.
The Hermann Historica Falchion sale63 lot 2308 is sold after the auction

Best,

Welcome to the forum GJ.
We hope you enjoy being around :)

Welcome J.G.

You are right, Falchion #1 is in the Reichsstadtmuseum Rothenburg. It is some years ago that I saw it there. It was behind glass, and I was not able to examine it closely. Therefore I can not be sure that it is genuine.

Falchion #2 was at an auction in Italy. I was present at that auction and have examined it closely. It is surely a genuine medieval Falchion, but the copper inlays looked not good to me, therefore I refused to bid for it.

The photos of Falchion #3 were taken in the collection of one of the renownest experts in medieval arms and armour with over 40 years experience in that subject. There can be no doubt that this Falchion is genuine in all parts.

I have never been at Durham Cathedral, I know the Conyers Falchion only from photos.

I would be lucky if you have photos and measurements from the Falchion at Castello Sforzesco.

#1 and #2 of my typology are identical with the typology of Seitz, with the addition of Type #3. But all three types depend on real existing examples shown in sufficient numbers in art or real items in Museums. Therefore I see no need to overhaul it completely. There are surely examples shown in art, which do not fit exactly the three types, these may form sub-types of one of the three. Depending on the depictions of the Falchions that I have found, type II is depicted in earlier manuscripts than type I (see the Miniature from Paris dated before 1247). Pleas note that my Typology is only valid for Falchions with knightly sword hilts dating c.1240-1480.

I have not seen the Falchion at the Hermann sale in reality, therefore I assumed that the cutting edge is on the short side. If it is on the opposite side, it does not fit neither type III in my typology nor type I or II. This Falchion is again for sale at the next auction.

Best

The Hermann-Historica Falchion is listed as sold on their website sale 63 and is also not included in the new auction cat 64, now online??


Lot Nr. 2308
A Central European falchion
circa 1300
A forged iron single-edged blade, which widens to a double-edged point, and has encrustations stuck to both sides. The base of the blad ... >>more
Condition: III

Limit: 2000 EURO

sold

It is in the print catalogue Lot 2286, but is cancelled in the online catalogue.

oh yes now I see, it is withdrawn, it is probably sold in between the auctions and it could not be removed from the paper catalog anymore because the catalog was already under printing.

ahh. I'm not certain what the status of the Hermann-Historica example was, I was told by Carl Koppeschaar that it failed to sell after the previous auction, but I'm uncertain of any developments since.

---

Regarding examples #1, and particularly # 2 and #3 of the photographic samples, I cant help but feel sceptical for one reason: Similarity of proportion.

(Just to quickly explain, I used to work as a 3d artist, creating digital 3d modelling work, and its given me a particular focus in terms of observing proportion and dimension, and I spot details like that quite easily.)

Those three falchions are far too close in proportional simiarity for comfort to me. Something about #2 and #3 in particular jar my eye, because they are too similar. Comparing the invalides and delft falchions, they're clearly very similar, but only a few seconds viewing will let you see the significant proportional differences between them, the tang shape, the false edge, the curvature to the tip, and the pommels are very different.
that's a difference I'm not feeling when viewing #2 and #3. and my gut instinct is telling me there's something very wrong with them. There are too many co-incidences there for comfort. on its own, I would say one or the other was authentic. Together, no. something's not quite right there with one, or both.
If they were simply proportionally similar in one aspect, I would'nt feel there's a problem with them. but the proportions match, to within pretty close tolerances, in each area, the grip length, the pommel diameters, the false edge bevel, the blade at the tang transition, the cross shape, the cross arms length, the cross arms width... again and again, there's repeated matches there, and that making my mind flag up warnings, something's just not right there.

I'm hope I'm wrong. I hope that a fantastic and fully-documented provenance exists for each one of these, since they have clearly been stored in well-conserved conditions. these have not been dredged from rivers like the cluny, thorpe, or hamburg falchions. I'd love to trace their origins.



if I take the photographs and overlay them, you can probably see the similarities quite clearly - so I've done exactly that. I'm not sure it'll make sense, but then I dont know if I am making any sense with these.

Any further information on that pair you're able to give would be of a great deal of interest.

---

Regarding the Milan example, I'll ensure I can distribute a reference image and some data, and will get back to you on that - I think I'm still unable to send PMs so far.

Edit: Since I'm still on probation in case I'm secretly a med-ads-spamming bot, I cant edit the post I had made yet, so I'll have to add to it...

I'd just like to emphasise that I'm certainly not doubting the work and effort that's gone into your study, and I can only hope my own conclusions whenever I finally finish studying all the examples even begins to come close... I suspect it'll be a waffling, longwinded mess.


I really do worry that I've wandered in here, and might cause upset by having expressed an opinion on the three photographed examples. If that is the case, I sincerely apologise, and hope that the scepticism is read with the sincere respect I hold that you've produced such a study.

I just wish it were easier to get carbon-dating, metalurgical analysis, isotope flouresence, and all those other wonderful technologies that cost far, far too much, or worse involve destructive tests, and with them get absolutely certain answers over so many items which have doubts.


And I would'nt expect any less of a critical eye of anything I wrote - I hope when that day comes, the work is picked at under a magnifying glass!


JGE.

Additional pic, from Felix Fabri journal to the Levant, 1480 (2000 print, though...). The image shows pilgrims pay a token to the guardians of the Holy Sepulcher. Those, by tradition are muslems - to this very day; they appear to have European style flachions, probably to stand as 'ethnic' scimitars. The chief guardian holds a large wooden club, a bow and the set of keys. The pilgrim in the red cape holds a pilgrim's staff, recognized by its length and two balls along its grip.

Good point!
the similarities in proportion of #2 and # 3 are at mildly noteworthy, this is an understatement.
The proportions are quite similar, would the actual dimensions also be that consistent?
I am curious about the provenance of both of them.
certainly more than a few last years, from the existence of 600 years of these swords, must be found :rolleyes:

best,

I'm absolutely in agreement, that the actual dimensions do need to be catalogued carefully, its part of what I've been doing with the existing examples that I've been studying.

The thing that they show clearly is a huge range of dimensions - the cluny falchion is pretty small, the milan and conyers much larger. Thorpe is noticably longer than the Castillon hoard example, and so on.

I've attached an image of some of the ones I've got data on, and one or two which are estimates based photographs (those are marked with an asterisk)
In all cases, the primary cutting edge is that facing downwards.

Each one of these falchions should, when I'm finished, have a full data sheet with distal profiles, and full photography.

(Though I'm actually tempted for my work to also do shaded line drawings, having recently been astounded by the linework in Viollet le Duc's "Dictionnaire raisonné du mobilier français de l'époque carlovingienne à la renaissance" - the clarity of line is, in my opinion, far better in those 140-year old illustrations than the photography in many modern books, and its the sort of standard of presentation I'd like to aspire to. )

Here's the pic:

http://www.elmslie.co.uk/research/Fa...linework02.jpg

The similarities are indeed remakable and are a reason to be cautious. But it is not surprising for me, as I wrote in my article: `All three were of very similar shapes and dimensions, and originated from the same source.´If the source is an old armoury, it would not be surprising.
According to the auction catalogue, the length of #2 is 75,8 cm, the length of # 3 is 73,2 cm. Metallurgical analysis would be helpfull, but was not undertaken.
To find a proofed provenance for medieval arms and armour, occurs very rarely. Even if you have a provenance, what is it worth? In many cases: Nothing!
For example: A gothic full armour in a Fischer sale 2008, lot 293, sold for CHF 130000,- +Premium ( Euro 100.000,- incl.). It was described as from the collection of Max Kuppelmayr, pesumably from the armoury of Törringer zu Jettenbach. Nevertheless the complete armour was a 19th century copy! Many items from the Kuppelmayr collection are not genuine.
Or provenance Hearst collection: Hearst employed a good armourer, who even forged good medieval sallets, which were later sold as genuine.

The only way to avoid to acquire not genuine items is to examine them closely(not only on photos) and to compare them with genuine items. And experience, experience......(which includes that you have once acquired fakes).

Best

I remain unconvinced on the pair, I'm afraid.

the fact they came from the same source, so similar is what puzzles me. This falchion type is from the 1240s through to about 1320, the lipped-point forms of your Type III begin to supercede the cleaver form in popularity from about 1300.

Which would indicate at least 2, possibly 3 if the Rothenburg example is from the same source originally, all remarkably similar. the Rothenburg example I've read on its case is described as


So, assuming the same collection, we have a falchion attributed to the knights templar (and "attributed to the knights templar" is a phrase that makes me highly suspicious, much like "attributed to William Wallace"...), an item which has already had its suspicions of provenance questioned by several other individuals, and associated with this one, we have two virtually proportionately identical falchion, with matching crosses, albeit with an inch length difference.
All three of these examples have remained in exceptionally good state of preservation for the last 700 years, as a contained cluster of three items, while the rest of the falchions in europe are in scattered groups. And one of them just happens to be associated with templars, but the other two arent. why would one of a trio be like that? that feels very odd to me.

As a cluster, the three falchions feel like there are too many co-incidences all falling together at the same time. Remarkable similarities in such a small data set as the twenty or so existing falchion predating the year 1500 are going to skew the data significantly, and of these three examples, I cannot help but wonder if those remarkable similarities are a result of them having come out from the same workshop significantly after thier purported date, freshly washed down with a nice bit of patinating acid....



Furthermore, all three examples demonstrate geometry details that I'm cautious of - a noticable false edge ground bevel on their upper edge, proceeding to a deep fuller which runs along the blade without fading out.
My gut instinct reading that sort of shape is to suspect is that examples no. 2 and 3 both follow the fashion of the Rothenburg example in having a pronounced deep spine on the back edge, with little distal taper.

that contradicts the details known of the conyers, cluny, and hamburg falchions, all of which have a very thin distal profile at their widest points; in the case of the conyers, only 1.2mm thick - a feature infact that I've observed on a pretty good number of 13th C swords in general.

I cannot help but feel that those details leave this trio as highly suspect. Those "remarkable similarities" undermine the quality of the rest of the study.

As a craftsman, I rather suspect that accurate replicas of all three of these falchions may well reveal handling deficiencies absent in the conyers, cluny and hamburg examples. As a student of arms, I feel they are too questionable to be given significant emphasis.


(and I really do apologise for the criticism here. it feels like I'm ripping into your work by questioning these sources, and I hope its not coming over as such)

The description Templars Falchion is pure nonsense! The inlaid cross is a simple cross potent, which can be found on dozens of sword blades and pommels.

Falchions have not been so rare as you believe, see the dozens of depictions in illuminated manuscripts.

Hundreds of medieval European swords in not excavated condition exist in Museums or private collections. Why should there be no Falchions?

The blade of #3 has no fuller and is never too thick, the weight of the whole sword is 1.19 kg, which is relatively light for a sword with such a broad blade.The thickness of the blade of the Conyers Falchion is extremely thin. Nearly every sword blade I know has at least a thickness of ab.3 mm(not measured on corroded ones) at the center of percussion. A back edge is by no means unusual, see the attached photo with a blade without fuller and a back edge.

The fact that three swords originate from the same source does not indicates that these are fakes.

About 20 or more swords from the Alexandria Arsenal are known in western collections, many of them like peas in a pod, Oakeshott said. Are these therefore fakes?

As I have pointed out in my last post, examining a sword on the basis of photos or specific dimensions is useless without having examined it in reality. Not only theory is essential, but experience, experience!

As pointed out before, Falchion #3 is in the collection of an experienced collector of medieval arms and armour (all not excavated,except a few very early ones) who`s advice is asked around the world. If he is not able to discriminate genuine swords from fakes, no one would be able!

Best

Agreed.
I'd have used a phrase significantly more offensive than "nonsense" myself. But then I am scottish.

But that's what the Reichsstadtmuseum Rothenburg one now has attributed to it on the information card beside it...
(edit: And I've love to know where/who the idea that it identified it as such came from. and then slap them round the back of the head!)


I'm under no illusions on the rarity or lack thereof - As part of my own work, I went through almost 3,000 manuscript illuminations, noting how many were applicable to the research: I found a little over 180 of those to contain depictions of falchions, unidentifiable messer forms, or what could potentially be single-edged swords that were of falchion form.

Given that there was a slightly raised incidence of depiction of Goliath bearing a falchion among biblical or devotional illumination was a fairly common motif among those manuscripts, I'd say it was acceptable to say that a conservative estimate of incidence of depiction of the falchion ocurred in at least 1 in 20 manuscript images.

Not common, but certainly not rare.

Why should there be so few falchions in museums and collections today, if that ratio were accurate, is one of the real puzzles which I've been trying to look at and work out what's happened. What in the falchion's nature has made it less likely to survive, not just in terms of finely preserved specimens, but in terms of the archaeological record? Much like the munitions harness, it is horribly under-represented in the archaeological record, and therefore we need to look at working out what the cause for that is.

That's a question that needs to be looked at in a great deal more detail.


Regarding the attached photo, that one has rather puzzled me - after all, for a production date of 1480, it features a falchion of a type that fell out of fashion the better part of 150, maybe even 180 years earlier. its a fascinating depiction.

Regarding #3, I have a dozen examples that spring to mind immediately that are much thinner than 3mm, some corroded, some not, including a pair of examples marked from alexandria (in the care of Dean Castle, the former collectin of Howard De Walden), whose distal profiles were quite astounding to me. So I'd say that is no proof whatsoever one way or the other...

If it is indeed in the hands of a collector who is so experienced, the immediate question is, is this collector infalliable? Has he never made a mistake? I cant help but wonder what the opinion of that collector is on the odds of three samples all coming from one source, and particularly if he has any doubts about not only the one in his collection, but the other two. If you can show me one expert in any field who's never made an error, I'll show you an expert who's not done much work in thier lives. No-one should be afraid of making fools of ourselves by making errors, particularly in a field where such judgements are one of opinion. (and lets face it, by querying these three, I'm more than likely the one making the error! ).

If #3 is absolutely watertight, on the weight of opinion of one individual, then that still leaves #2 and #1 open to debate. Furthermore, what are the opinions of other experts? is one person's opinion utterly infalliable and enough? I've handled enough swords in "records of the medieval sword" and been able to spot mistakes Oakeshott made. I've handled bits in glasgow museums and been able to spot that Tobias Capwell made a mistake in the cataloguing numbers in "The Real Fighting Stuff", for instance...
We all make mistakes by being human.

--

That said, I'm in absolute agreement, that to consider the provenance by photograph alone is entirely insufficient.

But we have little record if its previous owners, its auction history, which collections it has passed through over time. Were #2 and #3 paired together 80-odd years ago by a collector? Were they paired together 90 years ago by an auction house and then sold together? Which auction house? Were they in the armoury of a castle, much as the Churburg harnesses were? did they just appear in the catalogues of a collector? We all know the story of the words of Louis Marcy in Paris, after all, and his workmanship still continues to appear in museums, auctions and collections - and often identified as genuine items.

I dont know the details of origin. I'm fairly sure you dont have them. Who does? Anyone?
Without this data to hand, we cannot even begin to make assumptions on origin of each one in turn. It is solely speculation, with no more academic worth than the Reichsstadtmuseum's 'templer'[sic] attibutation.

We have no metalurgical analysis of blade or cross; nor do I expect we ever will get such a destructive analysis.

we have no x-ray studies of these items, we have no neutron diffraction study of them, we have no carbon-dating of the organic components.

we have virtually no actual evidence to corroborate their likely date.

All we do have are photos that link it to a set of remarkably similar-proportioned items, in a field where finding one is rare enough. and all in excellent condition.
and those co-incidences just seem a little to good to be true.


Regarding the Alexandria swords - or the Castillon swords, for that matter - I do not doubt them, because their provenance is well-recorded. and while many are findamentally simiar, there's enough difference between them to make the clear distinctions. in the alexandria swords, a great many of them can be traced back not just through their inscriptions, but through photographic evidence of their storage in alexandria when they came to the attention of collectors.

on the other hand if an identical alexandria or castillon sword arrived on my doorstep with absolutely no provenance attached to it... I'd be selling it fast, before any troublesome bugger like me starts asking where it came from, and the price dropped! :)

If you want to acquire a not excavated medieval sword wit a provenance tracing back to medieval times, you will grow old before you get one.
Do you have not excavated medieval swords in your collection?
If you have not at least a half dozen, you will never be able to discriminate genuine swords from fakes without scientific tests. Genuine swords are perfect, fakes are never perfect in all aspects.
The collector mentioned above has more than 20 medieval swords in his collection, among them several from the Alexandria Arsenal.
(the photos you mention were taken in the St. Irene Arsenal in Constantinople, not in Alexandria, the swords were captured in 1517 by the Ottomans. But even counterfeit medieval islamic swords stamped with a Tamga are on the market, though far away from beeing perfect).

Best