Flamberg Two-hand Swords, late 16th-Early-17th Century

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by Swordfish

No serious collector should have such swords in his collection.

Hmm. That's odd, because every museum with a large arms and armor collection has them on display.

[Matchlock]

I know, Dmitry.


I guess that's partially due to the old inventory descriptions of these swords which, even as late as the early 17th century, were listed as fighting swords (Schlachtschwerter) - which of course they were no longer - when ordered for processional purposes, e.g. for the Graz armory in the 1620's.
Since at least the 1560's, they did not play any role as 'Landsknecht' swords any more, and they looked different from the actual Landsknecht two-handers of the first half of the 16th c. as well.
Another reason might be their sheer size and sometimes 'flamed' blades that accounted for their becoming preferred display objects as the average inexperienced visitor will intuitively start speculating about them being 'handled' in fight. That may also account for the fact that in the characteristic traditional 18th-20th century museum array, they were used for an armored 15th-16th c. knight to lean on them, in many ridiculous cases the armor being scantly as tall as the sword ...
The photo attached below, which I took in the armory of Schloss Braunfels, shows a moderate arrangement; at least the big sword between the two suits of armor can be dated to ca. 1580, and the 'Maximilian' knight is not displayed leaning on it.

Sometimes traditional terms die out hard, especially in a field as traditional as weaponry. It's funny but the very same problem occurred to me only today when responding to Jean-Marc's post and putting right the actual meaning of the - internationally widely misapplied - term 'arquebus'.
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15432


When I remember it correctly it was Guy Wilson of the Royal Armouries, then London, who, in an article of the 80's, confined the historical term (h)arquebus to late 15th/early 16th c. light portable guns on the basis of Henry VIII's inventories.


Best,
Michael

[Greybeard]

Hello Michael, first of all sorry for my ignorance. I'm a collector of the Indonesian kerises which are very often wavy. While I know that the kerises were forged just this way -- wavy --, I have not the faintest idea as to how the Flambergs were made. Did they start as straight swords with the waves subsequently filed in? Regards, Heinz

[Matchlock]

Interesting question; thank you, Heinz,

The genuine flamberg swords that I have had the chance to closely inspect all showed clear signs that the 'flames' were added by holding the blades against a rotating stone wheel (Schleifstein). Filing them would have been too costly, even for the period. We know from period weapon orders that each little detail had to be paid separately by the armories.

Best,
Michael

[Greybeard]

Thank you, Michael. This answers an old question of mine when looking at Flambergs in museums and comparing them with my kerises (although these two types of edged weapons cannot be compared in any way, of course). Best regards, Heinz

[Dmitry]

These swords are very expressive, in my opinion. Very large, wavy blades, huge hilts add to the mythology of the knights (even though they had nothing to do with the knights]. That's the main reason the museums love them, I think.
Given a chance and an inexpensive price, I'd gladly buy one. Or two. I guess I'm not a serious collector.

They display beautifully.

[Matchlock]

The two items you posted are 19th to 20th century copies!

m