Mr. Oakeshott's Sword

[Ed]

I bought this some years ago, as I have been thinning my collection, I have kept it because it really appeals to me in terms of it's appearance and the way it feels in the hand. Take a look.

I wrote to Oakeschiott shortly after I received it and got a very nice letter in reply. He referenced it as follows:

The Archeology of Weapons (1960)
Type XVIII w. side ring ca. 1420-1450
Ill. Plate 20b
pp. 330-331 (Discussion of wear on hilt wrapping)

The Sword in the Age of Chivalry (1964 revised 1981)
Type XVIIIa w. side ring ca. 1400-1425
Ill. Plate 43b
p. 122 (Cross decoration)
p. 132 (Grips)
p. 106 (Pommel)
p. 69 (Blade)

The grip was doeskin when he owned it and he wrote at some length about the patterns of wear on this soft material. Some owner post Oakeschott had the grip recovered with black leather and metal wire. It isn't unattractive but I would have preferred to have it as it was when Oakeschott owned it.

He identified it as a Riding Sword ca. 14th century. It is unclear whether or not it was monkeyed with over the years. Then again, weapons were indeed altered and regripped and rehilted as much as a result of wear and tear as of the impact of current fashion.

In spite of my best efforts, I have been unable to cast any light on the makers marks on the blade.

[ulfberth]

Hello Ed,

the sword type is indeed 15th C , could you send me detailed pictures of the blade and the guard ?

kind regards

Ulfberth

[Ed]

Here are a couple more. I can take it down and get the others that you'd like later.

There was some discussion about the Pommel being a weight originally. I sorta doubt that.

If you have Oakeschott's books that I referenced, his description is quite good.

[ulfberth]

Hi Ed,

The thickness at the beginning of the blade looks a bit unusual for the period, I never seen it before, perhaps other forum members have.
The carvings in the crossguard endings look odd to, perhaps its the picture that is not clear enough, or is the sword covered in varnish ?

kind regards

Ulfberth

[Jim McDougall]

This sword is pretty exciting to me, its inherent character alone of course important, but the fact it was one of Mr. Oakeshott's takes it to another level.
On the blade, from what I can find in the Oakeshott refrences, it seems that the built up or incipient ricasso was relatively rare at blade shoulders . While a degree of frequency in this type (XVIIIa) in the 15th c, by the latter part these were remarkably well known, actually few without it ('Chivalry', p.69).

With the pommel, it is termed 'scent stopper' form (T3) and Oakshott notes (p.106) these seem predominantly English (c 1400-40) with this close ribbed fluting on the fundamentally 'pear' shape. It is stated these were less usual after 1430. Here I would suggest that the pommel seems in accord with the guard as homogenous as the striated quillon terminals, fluted pommel and striations on the guard seem en suite.

An interesting note is that while these pommels in this shape and style seem to be keenly English, but that the swords overall often seems to have other Italian characteristics.

As for the notion concerning the pommel as a weight......this is of course one of the commonly held purposes described in the general dynamics of the sword. However, while that seems logical in degree, in many cases there seem to have been other functions allotted to the pommel.....its decorative and aesthetic appeal notwithstanding. In many cases, the pommel was essentially a reliquary, holding religious relics or amulet oriented items.

Pommels seem to have often been exchanged in refurbishings over years or even detached and in cases they are said to have served as weights used with scales etc. Perhaps that might have lead to emphasis on the weight or counterbalance concept.
It seems that Italian arms had a distinct influence on the English arms of the period, as their armourers were broadly pacesetters for this in these times.
With that I might suggest that perhaps the side ring on the guard could be one of these Italianate features, as this appears on many of their swords of the periods noted.

The markings to me seem to resemble either halberds or some type of polearms, and possibly looking toward the esoterica of those marking, which seem to exceed the general corpus of sword makers marks might be useful. In discussion currently in place on halberds, it is noted markings of small halberds occur on one example.
Armourers seem to have been more of a brokerage of various types of arms which often included armor and in some cases even firearms.

[Ed]

It was not unusual for blades to be hilted or rehilted in countries far from their manufacture. I sold a two handed court sword whose blade was German and whose hilt was Italian but whose wrapping was Saxon. I'll post it at some point.

A mismatch between hilt and mountings isn't troublesome to me particularly. This sword looks to me as though it had not been taken apart but that could simply be a conceit on my part. I think that it probably is likely that it has undergone 2 or more incarnations.

It reminds me of a Turag bladed English pattern hilted sword that I posted here some time ago, remember that one Jim?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ed

It was not unusual for blades to be hilted or rehilted in countries far from their manufacture. I sold a two handed court sword whose blade was German and whose hilt was Italian but whose wrapping was Saxon. I'll post it at some point.

A mismatch between hilt and mountings isn't troublesome to me particularly. This sword looks to me as though it had not been taken apart but that could simply be a conceit on my part. I think that it probably is likely that it has undergone 2 or more incarnations.

It reminds me of a Turag bladed English pattern hilted sword that I posted here some time ago, remember that one Jim?

The old memory aint what it used to be Ed!! but it does seem there is something like that in the cobwebs.

As you say, components could easily be assembled from widely divergent sources in the often long working lives of these swords. That is not to mention the efforts of industrious antiquarians and artisans of the 'Historismus' times and their 'creations'.
I would be inclined to think this one aside from its new grips is otherwise homogenous. The grips and turks heads, wrapped wire etc. of course seem much, much later.
I am by far no authority in this field, but from what I could find in the 'crash course' in Oakeshott, the components seem to be together from period.

Thanks Ed for sharing this!!! BTW, its great having you posting again!

[Ed]

This one.

About which YOU said

Ed,
This is what appears to be a British officers sword hilt of the familiar four slot guard form, Revolutionary War period (see examples in "Swords & Blades of the American Revolution" Neumann). This particular hilt resembles the elusive M1788 heavy cavalry officers hilt, which remains only loosely identified as such, while the M1788 sabre for light cavalry is well known.
Since British military swords had not yet reached regulation in this period, there was often a considerable degree of license in adaptations of only relatively standard forms.

This would be a magnificent example except that from the photos seen of this sword elsewhere it is mounted with a completely incongruent Sudanese kaskara blade of the 19th century.
Still a beautiful example of these British hilts!
Best regards,
Jim

You know, I have read that Burton, in claiming that captured Crusader sword blades were still being used in the mid-east, mistook the sort of blade on this hilt for crusader weaponry.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Ed, quite a trip down memory lane! Was this back in 2008 or before?
While I cant see the blade very well, in recent years I have learned that there were European blades with these three central fullers on broadsword blades. There does seem to have been numbers of these blades produced in Solingen and exported to African and Red Sea ports, where these found their way into trade routes.

It does remain curious that a broadsword blade was mounted in one of these British cavalry hilts. I had one of these four slot hilts of this type I got from Flayderman back in the 70s which had a spherical pommel and a huge 40" backsword blade. Another I had from Denner had the curled bars in the hilt and a heavy sabre blade.
Whether these were 'remounts' or one off officers swords is anybodys guess.

Burton did use quotes from some of the 19th century adventure narrators such as Barth and Clapperton & Denham, who noted that the African swords had blades usually from Solingen, and "...preserves the knightly form of crusading days" ("Book of the Sword", p.162).
I think Burton et al, were aware of the blades being 'of the type', but not necessarily of that vintage.

We do know that we have found blades in Tuareg context which indeed were of medieval period, though these are quite rarely found in modern times.

Oakeshott, I think in his "Records of the Medieval Sword" (?) notes that there are numerous cases where souvenier kaskaras had their blades taken and remounted in spurious hilts to appear medieval.

I hadn't realized that we discussed this riding sword back in 2000!!!!
It was very nostalgic to see those names so long gone again.

[ulfberth]

Hello Ed and Jim,

I agree with Jim and have no doubt that the pommel and the crossguard belong together, they are from the same hand, same style and carvings.
The carvings of the pommel even come back in the quillion block, it seems the sword was cleaned thoroughly at on or more points in time and now has a brownish layer on it , probably old oil or varnish.
The first part of the blade keeps me busy , I have not been able to find another example like this. Here is a sword of similar typology and it has the more common type of blade were it enters the quillion block, please feel free to comment.

kind regards

Ulfberth

[Lee]

That very short ricasso on a hollow ground blade is also seen on XVIII.4 in Oakeshott's Records (p. 175); the same blade also has a very coppery inlaid punched mark. Mr. Oakeshott dated it to 1460-1470 and attributed it as Flemish. I will work on getting some photos of those details.

P.S. Welcome back Ed!

[Ed]

Some measurements

Weight: 2lbs 7oz
Length o/a: 3ft 4in
Width of cross: 8in

I hadn't looked closely at this sword in some time. It is remarkable how well it sits in the hand. Sort of how a Luger pistol naturally "points". Also the blade edge is quite sharp. It seems that this object was keep in very good conditions.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Ed

Some measurements

Weight: 2lbs 7oz
Length o/a: 3ft 4in
Width of cross: 8in

I hadn't looked closely at this sword in some time. It is remarkable how well it sits in the hand. Sort of how a Luger pistol naturally "points". Also the blade edge is quite sharp. It seems that this object was keep in very good conditions.

Thanks.

[cornelistromp]

who am I to doubt the given date by Oakeshott, nevertheless I think this sword can be dated 100 years later.

1500-1550

reasons for the supposition are:

-The Hilt is Norman Type 11 1520-1600 and pommel is Norman type 16 common between 1470 and 1585.

- Guillonfinals in the shape of the pommel are characteristic for the 16th century and is hardly found in the 15th century. see Picture drawing

- The u shaped base of the side ring with outwards bulging Ends, ending in mythical animal heads is very characteristic for the first half of the 16thC. see Picture sword 1525.
for 16thc mythical hilt creatures see fe http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ght=katzbalger

- Short ricasso's as this one can be found around 1500. see 16thC estoc

best,

[Reventlov]

It is always nice to see new photos of a sword you have only known from Oakeshott's grainy little photos before.

The most interesting feature to me is the side-ring. Leaving aside the debate about dating this particular sword (though I tend to agree with cornelistromp above), I thought I would try to trace Oakeshott's references regarding the early occurrence of this type of hilt. I have not found Oakeshott's argument very convincing, but if others have further insight or more examples I would be very interested to see it!

Starting with the references mentioned in Archaeology of Weapons, we have:

1) A miniature in the Alba Bible, shown in full below as it appears in a B/W facsimile. Oakeshott's illustration is quite accurate - seems to be the best single potential evidence in art.

2) A confusing reference to the source of Oakeshott's second illustrated example... described as being from a "Bohemian bible" in the text, from a Gottingen copy of the Bellifortis circa 1405 in the caption, and then as a "Bohemian manuscript (1420)" in Sword in the Age of Chivalry. Best guess is that he is referring to Codex 64 in Gottingen, which includes the early Bellifortis and the 'Feuerwerkbuch von 1420'. Miniatures of this manuscript seem to be rarely reproduced unfortunately... To me, Oakeshott's illustration greatly resembles the rain guards which appear in other editions of the Bellifortis - compare with an artist's impression based on another Gottingen copy, Codex 63, also dated 1405. (Perhaps this is Oakeshott's source?)

http://www.handschriftencensus.de/19122

3) "Angular side-guards" shown in the Romance of Alexander, Bodleian ms. 264. Is he referring to the two-handed falchion-like weapons with rectangular, vertical knuckle bows? Doesn't seem like a particularly relevant comparison, but perhaps I missed a horizontal guard in one of the many miniatures...

4) Reference to an earlier figure, from a "Romance of Lancelot du Lac". I can't tell what is supposedly shown in this small illustration, and haven't managed to match this scene with a specific manuscript. What is shown in literally hundreds of contemporary miniatures (and in many Arthurian romances specifically) are swords with curved hilts and large ecussons. The hilts are sometimes illustrated with additional shading or line details... which could lead to a mistaken impression of a separate side-guard? XVIII.5 in Records seems to be one of the few survivors with this type of hilt.

5) An example from the Cantigas of Alfonso the Wise, which Oakeshott admits is borderline. Not fully digitized, but have spotted two possibilities that may show a "portion of its cross covers part of the back of its wielder's hand", as described. Could be simply illustrating the same/similar type of hilt discussed in point (4).

6) "There are literary references, too... from the fourteenth century".

7) In Sword in the Age of Chivalry, Oakeshott covers some of the same ground, but adds one additional physical example - the sword numbered G.30 in Madrid. Oakeshott dates it c. 1450, but I don't see why it coudn't equally likely be say c. 1500, like cornelistromp's second example with a similar curved side-ring. (The sword is traditionally attributed to the Gran Capitan, Gonzalo de Cordoba, though I don't know if there is any real basis for this).

[Reventlov]

Additional images for point (4) above.

[Lee]

Photo showing the very short 'ricasso' and copper inlaid mark on XVIII.4 in Oakeshott's Records (p. 175):

[cornelistromp]

the earliest certain representation of a side ring on the quillons in art are on an engraving of Daniel Hopfer, maybe a type of grosses messer, believed to be Konrad von der Rosen. 1515
(norman, The devopment of the hilt)

My hypothesis is that the side ring is a development of the 8-shaped Katzbalger type of hilt. straight quillons were bent in eight-shaped ring quards; later this ring is closed and straight guillons are added.
I suppose this all hapened in the first quarter of the 16thC.
unfortunately I don't have any example of a 15thc sword with a side ring.

fe see a sword in the painting of St Paul by Pier Francesco Sacchi 1523, it is clear to see that the side rings are still open.

[Reventlov]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

the earliest certain representation of a side ring on the quillons in art are on an engraving of Daniel Hopfer, maybe a type of grosses messer, believed to be Konrad von der Rosen. 1515

fe see a sword in the painting of St Paul by Pier Francesco Sacchi 1523, it is clear to see that the side rings are still open.

Very interesting, both of these artworks are new to me... thanks for sharing!

[Reventlov]

I remembered another possible appearance of a side ring in a drawing by Hans Holbein, c. 1521. Here the ring seems to appear on a different type of hilt from the other examples so far - I've included a photo of a hilt from Hermann Historica which I think is similar to what is shown.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...he_Younger.jpg

Also here is a somewhat mysterious sword with a side-ring in the Hermitage. The museum dates it to 1400-50, but it's not clear what that is based on... a pommel could have been helpful for dating, but I'd still be inclined to a somewhat later dating. No information on provenance on the website, but it probably came to the museum via the Tsarskoye Selo Arsenal in 1919.

http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/wps/p...661316/?lng=en

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

I had puzzled over side rings and found this useful video which explains it very well Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfQmVQIgwa4 and below I add for interest...others.

Develop your own swordmine...at https://www.pinterest.com/search/pins/?q=ring%20hilt%20swords&rs=typed&0=ring|typed&1=hi lt|typed&2=swords|typed

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

That's not a Hilt... This is a Hilt!!!

[kronckew]

side rings? THIS is a ring: recent munitions grade german side sword based in a late 16c design. (i gotta clean off that black stuff)

no fancy schmancy frills and superfluous extra rings on the palm side. finger ring for mingering per the video. note longer 'upper guard branch and curved lower branch to further protect your hand.

[Jim McDougall]

Yikes!!!
This is getting to the "....now THIS is a knife" !!! syndrome
-Croc Dundee

Excellent entries, discussion and fantastic images. Interesting to see how these side rings developed along with fighting techniques, and how more complex hilts evolved (i.e, rapiers and baskets).

Great hilt there Ibrahiim!! and again thank you for the art and images.

Jasper, thank you for the insight into development of these rings, and I concur as well.

[Ed]

If in early post medieval Europe, a certain thing or object was common enough to become "popularized" in manuscripts, for how many years had these objects in question been circulating?

The point is that appearance in a manuscript (or in art generally) is nothing more than a terminus ante quem and might well be associated with something that had been in existence for many years prior.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Ed

If in early post medieval Europe, a certain thing or object was common enough to become "popularized" in manuscripts, for how many years had these objects in question been circulating?

The point is that appearance in a manuscript (or in art generally) is nothing more than a terminus ante quem and might well be associated with something that had been in existence for many years prior.

Meaning that, the swords depicted by Vasco Gonçalo (circa 1450) in the panels of São Vicente de Fora, being consistent enough to represent real swords, could be examples of models already used in earlier times ?


.

[cornelistromp]

Generally speaking, in paintings and etchings from +- 1450 onwards (or so) there is no time difference between the displayed weapons and what was worn at the time of painting.
especially in commissioned orders from individuals, they wanted to be depicted to the latest fashion and with most modern weapons.
if I take the night watch of Rembrandt, every town guard had to pay an amount and the most wealthy guards who paid the most are clearly illustrated in the light on the foreground.with their weapons and beautiful clothes clearly in focus.
(there is one guy on the night watch, who did not want to pay the agreed amount, he is depicted behind a outstretched arm and therefore unrecognizable.)

if I see the landsknecht etchings of Hopfer, Graf, CB, Schoen, Beham, Amman and others, the swords shown, are all from the time of the etching.



when in the 16th century Romans were painted they were often depicted with 16th century weapons. I suspect that old weapons just were not known
by the artist. So he painted weapons from his time, the arms he knew.

@ Fernando the swords in the panels of São Vicente de Fora are mid 15thC, and with the finger guards, the 'pas d'ane, very progressive for the time.
the knights keep their sword visibly pride in their hand as a symbol of beauty, status, dedication and ecclesiastical power and perhaps modernity .

Compare this with how the Dutch guards of the white flag are showing their ultramodern small swords in 1648, painting by JA Rotius

[fernando]

Duly noted, Jasper.
Great painting.

[Ed]

Sort of. What it means is that something that is depicted must, necessarily, have been around for a while. Might be a year, might be a decade. Appearance in art can only tell you that the thing existed prior to the date of the art.

Of course, if a person appears all decked out in his finery in a portrait you can reasonably assume that what you see is a reasonably accurate representation of that person and his possessions at that time. But that is a trivial observation. What it tells you is that the technology to create the weave of the cloth that he is wearing must have been developed before that date. It tells you that the form of a weapon was around for some period of time prior to the depiction of it in the piece. It tells you nothing about when those things were first developed, only that they were there then. And it certainly does not provide a definitive date of a form of an object, only that that form was in existence when the art was created. That is why you often see the phrase "Before such and such a date" in museum identification cards.

That is what I mean by terminus ante quem:

"Terminus post quem ("limit after which", often abbreviated to TPQ[1]) and terminus ante quem ("limit before which") specify the known limits of dating for events. A terminus post quem is the earliest time the event may have happened, and a terminus ante quem is the latest. An event may well have both a terminus post quem and a terminus ante quem, in which case the limits of the possible range of dates are known at both ends, but many events have just one or the other. Similarly, terminus ad quem ("limit to which") is the latest possible date of a non-punctual event (period, era, etc.), while terminus a quo ("limit from which") is the earliest."

[Reventlov]

for comparison with Oakeshott's sword... a very similar pommel appears on an estoc in the Royal Armouries. A.V.B. Norman apparently suggested the pommel is associated.

Their new online collection could use a little fine-tuning... the estoc is probably number IX.54, but the unidentified photo is found only on the page for number IX.993.

https://collections.royalarmouries.o...ect-31726.html
https://collections.royalarmouries.o...bject-108.html