Mr. Oakeshott's Sword

ulfberth · 5th July 2016, 08:55 AM

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 · 5th July 2016, 01:32 PM

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 · 5th July 2016, 05:07 PM

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 · 7th July 2016, 08:26 PM

Quote:

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 · 8th July 2016, 09:19 AM

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 · 8th July 2016, 01:04 PM

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 · 8th July 2016, 01:04 PM

Additional images for point (4) above.

Lee · 8th July 2016, 02:06 PM

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

5th July 2016, 08:55 AM	#1
ulfberth Member Join Date: Jul 2014 Posts: 435	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 Attached Images Last edited by ulfberth; 5th July 2016 at 09:21 AM.

8th July 2016, 09:19 AM	#5
cornelistromp Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,063	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, Attached Images Last edited by cornelistromp; 8th July 2016 at 12:37 PM.

8th July 2016, 01:04 PM	#6
Reventlov Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 140	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). Attached Images Last edited by Reventlov; 8th July 2016 at 02:39 PM.

8th July 2016, 01:04 PM	#7
Reventlov Member Join Date: Mar 2016 Posts: 140	Additional images for point (4) above. Attached Images

8th July 2016, 02:06 PM	#8
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 949	XVIII.4 in Oakeshott's Records (p. 175) Photo showing the very short 'ricasso' and copper inlaid mark on XVIII.4 in Oakeshott's Records (p. 175): Attached Images

5th July 2016, 01:32 PM	#2
Lee EAAF Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Upstate New York, USA Posts: 949	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!

5th July 2016, 05:07 PM	#3
Ed Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 279	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.