Two Very Fine Landsknecht Swords, Southern Germany, ca. 1490 and 1525

[Carl M]

Hi Matchlock,

In all honestly, I think you guys got a blessing in disguise when you didn't get that second two-hander. I was at the auction (I bought a few pieces, notably the bilbo a transitional rapier and some smallswords), I held every piece there several times and I must say that something was very wrong with that two-hander. The crossguard was said to be later, but the sword itself was waaaaaaaaay too heavy to be functional. It felt like it weighed 15 lbs with poor balance to boot. Functional, large 2 handers are usually in the 6 lb range and well balanced.

All of the dealers that I was there with concurred. It was definitely a composite as stated. The blade looked like it could be original (but you never know). The guard was definitely Victorian and the pommel didn't look right. Looking at the pommel in thos pics shows that the tang was just bent over the pommel in an amateur fashion, not peened. I have never seen that done before. Definitely not worth $12,500. Personally, I wouldn't have paid $800 for it.

Even if it is German and 16th century, there is nothing confirming it to be a landsknecht sword. This sword does not look to be a typical Landsknecht pattern.

[Jim McDougall]

Extremely well placed notes Carl, and I am inclined to share your opinions on the nature of the refurbished mounts, which as noted in the auction description are of the Victorian period. It is fairly a matter of preference to individual collectors on how much they are willing to accept as far as items that are composite in order to acquire certain authentic components, in most cases of course the blades in swords.

While the hilt does appear to emulate the earlier styles in degree, these Victorian items were clearly made for impressive display rather than functionality. It seems to me that it has been noted that in the industry of reproducing medieval arms and armour in these times, there were instances of authentic early components being put with these then newly fashioned ones in such cases. One of the most renowned producers of these was the atelier of Ernst Schmitt in Munich, and I believe that there were a number of his weapons among the holdings in the Higgins Museum. It would seem however that this apparantly amateur peening would steer away from the work of this particular maker. Regardless, it seems that the weapon was apparantly among venerable company in the Higgins Museum prior to its deaccess in 1951, and has its own established provence distinguished by having been in an esteemed collection.

In any case, the blade on this one was to me of great interest, as I noted in my earlier post, and carries some intriguing markings that may potentially have some much deeper historic connections, as also noted. I believe these were the source of the interest shown by Michael and his friend, and extremely unfortunate that this situation developed with the auction.

Michael, thank you so much for posting the excellent illustration of the early Augsburg marking! With this I can see exactly what you mean in the comparison. I have been trying to discover whether the letter 'A' as seen in these examples in majascule script, and in this curious style with the flattened v shape crossbar and the elongated serif at the top , can be found in other paleographic examples of medieval Germany. It does not of course correspond to the various examples of Fraktur or other 'Gothic' script, and I am wondering if it might be something found in religious psalters or Gospels of the time.

According to Stockel (ref: "One Hundred Great Guns" , Merrill Lindsay, 1967, p.220), "...Augsburg control marks are the earliest known marks used on guns" with a bronze gun c.1480, noting there are marks found on crossbows as well. Also, that "...Augsburg had for a long time been a center for the manufacture of armour and had used identifying marks".

Since from early times such majuscule scripts were used in scriptoriums centuries earlier, and it is well known that Bishops and Abbots were often in effect controllers of weaponry and ordnance materials, might it be presumed that such style lettering would be adopted in marking weapons even in these later times? It sounds like if this is the case with the old Augsburg proof mark, then your suggestion is right on target.

It would be great if we could find this letter in this configuration among letters in these medieval scripts to corroborate, or perhaps the letter became stylized independantly to become the specific marking rather than a copy of the actual type letter itself.

Also, I wonder of the mark can be found on armour and crossbows as well?

All the best,
Jim

[Matchlock]

Hi Carl M,

Even though you had the advantage of actually handling the sword I wonder how many doubtlessly genuine 500 year old two hand swords you have had the chance to handle. We have the privilege not only to do this regularly in museums, but in Ottmar's collection as well. And this invaluable practical experience, including 30 years of intense study of original surfaces, has enabled us to tell wrong from right and Victorian pieces from Renaissance.

Aboe, I mentioned the fact that originally there was a small brass plate riveted on top of the pommel which, together with the tang rivet, is now missing. Nobody repairing such a piece, be it in the 19th century or later, would just hammer the tang bluntly bent but would care to rivet it. The only possible explanation for that crudely bent tang is a working repair done on the battelfield in a hurry and probably with a stone - when all that mattered was that the pommel was fixed and the sword could be employed! That fact that nobody had cared to embellish that work is the ultimate proof that this piece is completely original and in virtually untouched condition for almost 50 years!

The decscription of both swords in the cataloge to have been mounted in the 19th c. actually amused us as it sure dumped the prices. They really are all original!


And: the early 16th c. Landsknecht two hand swords were huge and heavy indeed! I attach an illustration by Sebald Beham, Nürnberg, ca. 1530. They should in no case be compared with the late 16th c. two hand swords that were never used for combat but just as bearing swords (Vortrageschwerter).

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Hi Jim,

Thank you for such a thoughtful and profound reply, as of course always!

Yes, I have seen the Augsburg A, together with a smith's mark, on the barrel of a ca. 1580 wheellock sporting gun, the stock profusely inlaid with engraved staghorn, and I guess I also remember seeing that A struck on 500 year old helmets and breasts.

Interestingly enough, the common Gothic majuscule A as used in 15th c. books greatly differed from the Augsburg shape. I attach two samples from a ca. 1420 Prague illuminated manuscript. This, in my experience, is not unusual though letters struck into stone, wood or iron do not look the same as calligraphic letters as they are composite by various tool strikes.

Best,
Michael

[Swordfish]

Hi all,

that the pommel of the twohander was hammered onto the tang
during combat is a nice theory, but very unlikely. Does any
Landsknecht has the time during fighting, to search the pommel
fallen on the ground, an hammer it onto the tang?
And why is the tang ab. 1 cm too long for the hilt?
Does the Landsknecht has shortened the grip before he put on the
pommel? All during combat? All very unlikely!
All looks as if the hilt was associated later.

That the letter A on the first sword is the mark of Augsburg is
also very unlikely. Why Augsburg and not Aachen or any other
town starting with A?
Most sword blades of the 12th, 13th and 14th have inlaid
symbols , the meanig is unknown today.
I attach photos of a sword dating c. 1200 with a letter A.

Best wishes
Susi

[Jim McDougall]

Michael, thank you so much for the kind words, and for the illustrations of the haquebut c.1600 with one of these majuscule 'A''s.

In going through "Waffenkunde" (W.Boeheim, 1890, p.678) an marking which is very much like the shape of this A with the crossbar atop and no center bar is shown as unidentified, but attributed to Augsburg 15th century. Thus, it seems that the character may have been known without the central rib as well and in Augsburg.

In Boeheim, other examples of these type A letters are seen with other initials and types of crossbar and serif, some attributed to 16th century makers or armourers such as Durer, Aldegrever and Glockendon all from various cities.

It seems that even among the Toledo and Madrid smiths a number of them of the 16th century used the letter A enclosed in cartouche of varying shapes, but often square, with one using the identical style A with V shape crossbar (listed in "Arms and Armour", A. Demmin, 1877, p.567). This one is shown to Alonzo de Caba, armourer. Another with extended bar top cap and drooping serifs at ends, straight center bar to Alonzo de Buena, of same period. There are a number of other A types with varying flourish, serif or structure.
While these obviously indicate the initial of the armourer, it was interesting to see the similarity in majascule style A to these German examples, suggesting the well known traffic in arms and armour commerce between these countries.

Returning to the more arcane, with the mysterious Westphalia tribunals previously mentioned, they had several little known coded alphabets, in which the diagonal lines with top bar and dropped serifs at the ends in the basic shape of the A sans crossbar......in one alphabet the letter 'L' is signified and in another the letter 'Y'. (Demmin, p.582).

So it would seem perhaps that while the letter A could signify Augsburg in the case of the stamp on the haquebut and other items, these stylized majascule letters with varying embellishments also may have been more widely used with different meanings in other parlances. There are many markings which reflect makers marks, with others being monograms of rulers of minor principalities, then of course the guild marks of various centers of arms production.

These are the mysteries that make the study of these blade markings so facinating!





All the best,
Jim

[cornelistromp]

Hi Gentlemen,

very nice discussion, I hope I don't put some oil on the fire with my opinion.
the sword is a composed sword but probably this has been done in the 16th century.
The blade is much older, probably late 14th early 15th century and marked with the Tau cross or St Antons cross. The Guard is very atypical , but like Oakeshott claims; that you never have seen it means nothing unless you have seen them all, anyway it looks 16th century to me, the patin corresponds with the pommel and it has the same mythical creature heads as some of the landsknecht katzbalgers have at their guards.
The bent tang however this could have been done recently or maybe not so recent who can tell ? Grip can be a replacement or authentic and 1cm shortened.

Best,

[Carl M]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Carl M,

Even though you had the advantage of actually handling the sword I wonder how many doubtlessly genuine 500 year old two hand swords you have had the chance to handle. We have the privilege not only to do this regularly in museums, but in Ottmar's collection as well. And this invaluable practical experience, including 30 years of intense study of original surfaces, has enabled us to tell wrong from right and Victorian pieces from Renaissance.

Aboe, I mentioned the fact that originally there was a small brass plate riveted on top of the pommel which, together with the tang rivet, is now missing. Nobody repairing such a piece, be it in the 19th century or later, would just hammer the tang bluntly bent but would care to rivet it. The only possible explanation for that crudely bent tang is a working repair done on the battelfield in a hurry and probably with a stone - when all that mattered was that the pommel was fixed and the sword could be employed! That fact that nobody had cared to embellish that work is the ultimate proof that this piece is completely original and in virtually untouched condition for almost 50 years!

The decscription of both swords in the cataloge to have been mounted in the 19th c. actually amused us as it sure dumped the prices. They really are all original!


And: the early 16th c. Landsknecht two hand swords were huge and heavy indeed! I attach an illustration by Sebald Beham, Nürnberg, ca. 1530. They should in no case be compared with the late 16th c. two hand swords that were never used for combat but just as bearing swords (Vortrageschwerter).

Best,
Michael

Hi Michael,

I hope you did not take offense at my post. I was not suggesting that you and your friend did not know what you were doing. I was hoping to make you feel better about not getting the sword.

As for my experience, I have held numerous originals in the years I have been collecting. I have had the had the privelege of being in the vaults in the Royal Armouries at Leeds and the Higgins museum in Massachussetts as well as numerous shows and auctions.

I have to respectfully disagree about the sword being untouched and the bent tang over the pommel being a battlefield repair. While such a story is wonderful to picture, there is no evidence of it here. Saying that "nobody" repairing a piece in the 19th c. or later would ever hammer the tang crudely like that just isn't true. I have seen all sorts of crude, amateur repairs over the years, including home-made pommels; wrong, composite pommels, spraypainted guards; destroyed, over polished, mirror bright pieces; and even bent and poorly smashed peens. I am sure your friend, Ottmar and yourself have seen such repairs on pieces in the past as well. I have never seen that guard typology on a genuine two hander. I have seen the double ring crossguard, but nothing like this. There just seems to be too much steel. I know that there were unique items made historically, but the guard on this one seems historically anacronistic. I have no doubt that the blade is genuine, but after handling it, I have to say that whomever put it together to restore it got the weight ratios of the mounts wrong. There was no way one could fight with this thing.

In my opinion, the more likely scenario for the bent tang/peen is perhaps someone took it apart 80 years ago and cut some small, rotted portion of the handle away, leaving too much tang and simply bent the tang over the pommel. Either that, or they hammered the pommel on, smashing some of the wooden handle, which exposed too much tang. Who knows?

As for the early 16th century swords being "heavy," well, heavy is a relative term. As I mentioned, I would put most early 16th century two handers in the 6-7 lb range, and well balanced. I do not have the exact weight of this particular one, but it certainly felt heavier than that, and the balance was astoundingly poor - more evidence that the restorer who made the mounts got the weight ratios and dimensions wrong. This is just my opinion, but it is backed up by evidence and expert opinion from the Higgins Armory Museum, and the Parke-Bernet Galleries who sold it in 1951. I am sure, had those two institutions thought the sword were all original, that Auctions Imperial would have listed it as so, and not as a composite with 19th century restored mounts.

Still a beautiful, piece though! No doubt!