[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Hello Ibrahiim

I think I post on the train of thought that a simple phrase the most likely translation we will find.

I agree with Lee on his impression that the sword is not unlikely to be of a later century. While Oakeshott lists this sword as a type X, it is truly as easily placed in a type XVI category, or even a tweener of a XIV, or XVII for that matter. I believe it is in Oakeshott's later book (Age of Chivalry) he starts to question his own earlier categorizing and dating. I'll be honest, I own only his first title and Records, on which all now seem to attribute "truth" to this particular sword. I look at this sword and see it easily 14th if not even 15th century work.

My own focus of swords is a mere few decades of early modern swords, and further narrowed to eagle pommel swords of the US market. As many times as types and origins of those have been pigeonholed, not just trends but reuse of favored styles often need reassessment.

As to prettier and emblazoned swords belonging to the rich and famous, of course. A peasant grade sword in England during the XIVth century could be had for a few weeks wages if a freeman. Also by that time, barrels of blades imported, manifested and registered and taxed in the port of London. So many arms and armour imported into England that there was concern and laws made restricting trade by the XVth century. In that regard, I see no great mystery that a sword found in an English river (inscribed or not) mirrors swords found on the continent.

Cheers

GC

Yes I agree it could be of a later century as detailed in my previous post in particular regarding the W detail...in paragraph 1 and 2 and I also line up with the possibility of it being linked to swords found on the continent in paragraph 3... noted in my previous post taken mainly from the website http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2015/08/can...ear-old-sword/