The Armour Archive

Anyone have a copy close to hand? I need some info that I remember from that book.

At home...

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:At home...

You don't carry it everywhere with you, my dear Baron?

Ridiculous.

What info do you need? my copy is at hand here, and I've either handled or made close-up studies of a pretty good proportion of the ones in there.


Edit:

Lucian Ro wrote:You don't carry it everywhere with you, my dear Baron?

do you think the accuracy zealots should start carrying several small pamphlets of selected highlights, possibly with a few choice reference images from i.33, Vadi, Thalhoffer, Paulus Hector Mair and Capo Fero, and enthusiastically give them to anyone and everyone...
and start calling ourselves Oakeshott's Witnesses?

If we get to carry swords, I'm in.

Suz, look in that book and find the pages devoted to the one "short sword" that is in the book. It is a crucifom sword that was made with a short blade or a broken sword that was re-ground to a point.

I need stats on that sword.

I carried I.33 with me everywhere I went for a year.

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:Suz, look in that book and find the pages devoted to the one "short sword" that is in the book. It is a crucifom sword that was made with a short blade or a broken sword that was re-ground to a point.

I need stats on that sword.

I'm ashamed to say that I've failed utterly to find the one you're describing in my copy of RMS. I've spent the better part of an hour going thorugh it from front to back... three times now, and its not standing out to me at all.

Sorry to let you down there.
I'll keep looking through to see if its hiding in plain sight, but I just cant find the wee bugger.

Goddamn it!

Will somebody who is a regular poster at MyArmoury ask those guys about this issue? I guess I could do it, but if any of you guys are regulars....

Lucian Ro wrote:

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:At home...

You don't carry it everywhere with you, my dear Baron?

Ridiculous.

I'm seldom without at least a half dozen books in my van, sometimes significantly more...

No, I'm not joking.

Hope I can help, need to know what you need within the next 15 minutes though, so I so you'll see this in time. Otherwise I'm vast asleep..

Roughly which period? Other details?
This is not specific enough. Need more info.

I'm off now, sleep calls. Hope someone else can find what you're looking for.

its going to bug me to **** till I find out which one you did mean...

so, when you do get the data, please do let me know which one it was in RMS you were referring to, 'cos I'll be driven round the bend trying to work out which one you mean otherwise.

(and went through RMS twice more, and cant see any, unless you mean the cruciform childs' sword from the glasgow museums in hte "misc" listings at the back)

BOAC!

66cm blade length, quite short, listed in ROTMS as X.12, is in fact catalogued as A.1987.31 in the Glasgow Museums,
was once considered that it's length was as it was cut down by a few people?


could that be the one you're looking for?

'cos if it is, then, sorry, it was'nt cut. I've seen it up close; somewhere I think I have measurements of its distal taper throughout its blade, and I dont think its been cut down at all, the fuller in the last 10 cm does'nt display any of the markings I would expect for something cut, not least that the engraving is consistent with the end of the fuller and theclean transition to the edge surfaces.
I'd say the engraving in the fuller is a pretty clear indicator it was made that way even if it did'nt handle right as it is...


it was staring me in the face the entire time, oakeshott talks about it being possibly shortened, but I am pretty convinced its not, and so had'nt taken it into account as a possible contender for what you were describing. (heretical as it may be, I'm of the opinion Oakeshott was at times just plain f***ing wrong... )

anyhow, two potographs, sadly not showing the inscription.

The blade is 26" long, not 66cm.

Baron Alcyoneus wrote:The blade is 26" long, not 66cm.

nope, that's definately 66.04 centimetres.


as a note, the sword is currently on display in the St Mungo's museum. If it is that one, do you need detailed photographs and reference on it? I can probably arrange to get to it with advance notice. (and dependant on the poor curator of arms and armour not getting sick of the sight of me )

I never made any statements about why the sword blade was of that length- I just mentioned the two theories in Oakshott's commentary. I am pleased as punch with anyone who thinks it was made as-is.

This was the sword I was talking about.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!

Now, anybody know of even one additional surviving example of this type?

Vitus von Atzinger wrote:
This was the sword I was talking about.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!

Now, anybody know of even one additional surviving example of this type?

"that was made with a short blade or a broken sword that was re-ground to a point."

somehow, I mostly noticed the second part of your description.
yeah. My brain hurts from thinking too much. I is stoopid

ok, what my addled brain cell can recall, I'm assuming you're trying to focus around 1100-1200 for the dating, and in that area I'm almost completely stumped.

There's oakeshott's RMS x.14, which is somehwere in private hands, with an even shorter blade, 23 inches (58.5cm) and a rather splayed cruciform hilt. that one's a 1250-ish date.
Beyond what's in RMS there, I dont really know anything about that one.

I can think of two later ones which are in the public eye, though

British Museum article OA.4673
dated to 13th C. but could potentially be late 12th, given the form.

Length is 770 millimetres overall, with a blade length of 593 millimetres. the blade tip is broken off, but I'd estimate not much more than an inch or two more when it was new. it's also got traces of inscription in the fuller.

note it's very corroded, so I've not handled it to be sure how it feels. I could easily be off on the estimate on the length, and as the pommel's quite big, so it could've been longer, just with a very strange taper.

Weight is 855 grammes

Later still, Wallace Collection #A463 springs to mind. it's 200+ years later (1375-1400, compared to 1100-1150), but its blade length is only 60cm, and with a continuation of its profile, would've probably been about 26 inches (just to keep Alcyoneus happy ) total.

Of course, there's a tonne of katzbalgers and the likes later too.

here's some photos.

are you just looking for short-ish swords, or do they have to be that early?

I could measure the only excavated sword I have - it is definitely short. But later - c. 1400.

Wade

Anything before that date is what I'm interested in, Wade.

1100-1400