Large zweihänder at the Amsterdam Rijksmuseum
 

The Rijkmuseum in Amsterdam has on display this enormous zweihänder, which made all the other two handed swords there (and frankly most of the polearms) seem rather puny by comparison.

If anyone here is familiar with this sword or others like it, I was wondering about the museum's claim that a sword like this might have been used as a fighting sword. This seems rather dubious to me; not only is the blade maybe some 8cm broad at the base (from memory and rough estimation; comparing proportions in the picture and assuming the 46cm given is the distance between the now bent quillon tips, gives me about 8.4cm), but it also looked to be roughly 1cm wide at the base (though it was very hard to gauge), and tapering only gradually, from what I could make out in the low lighting. Given that the whole thing is 207.5cm long and has only shallow fullers, that would be one hell of a heavy metal bar to have to swing around.

But then, I've never held a zweihänder or studied them in detail. Would you say the museum's claim is feasible, or is it more likely that it was a ceremonial sword?

EDIT: Added a second picture that shows the puny normal zweihänders next to the big one. Neither picture does it justice.

Those quillons look remarkably even for the claim that they have been bent after manufacture. Any sword with quillons bent back towards the user like that is unwieldable regardless of weight so I can't help wondering if it's a nineteenth century reproduction.

Robert

yes there are more of those massive swords dating to the 16th or 15thC

fe the sword of Grutte Pier. Collection Fries Museum Inv. Nr. H 185-C
alloverlength 213cm weight 6.6 KG

and two swords in the Tower of London; IX.1024 & 1025

and another one in Istanbul.

best,

As Jasper says there are a number of these massive two-handers still in existence. The one in Istanbul is the largest known to me at 270cm; one in Dresden is 266cm and another in Edinburgh, carried before Mary, Queen of Scots, is 256cm. They are far too heavy and unwieldy to manage with any dexterity and were meant to be carried in parades or on similar occasions to convey the power and prestige of the relevant lord or prince. I have not seen this sword (although I know of it) but to judge from photos it would date to the early 15th century. The crossguard is too neat to have been casually bent - I think that the hilt has been disassembled at some time and replaced upside down. If the slot in the cross could be examined that would help to decide one way or the other. For more information see my book on the History of the Two-handed Sword.
Best, Neil

Ah, that explains it !

Or, perhaps, evidence for a terrifying army of sword wielding Gigantopithecus? More evidence is needed to rule out (or confirm!) this alternate hypothesis.

Their estimate is 1400-1600 so that kind of fits.

My initial reaction was that they put it on upside down, until I saw the text. However the ends of the cross are offset from one another by around 2.8cm (assuming 8cm for the width of the blade at the guard; see image; it looks a bit crooked but I think that's an optical illusion due to perspective; I tried to make sure that the center line of the sword is aligned with the image boundaries). Also if you zoom in on the picture on the rijksmuseum site you can see that it is cracked.

Interesting also that a lot of them have roughly similar octagonal pommels and some also seem to have the same style of crossguard (though not all). Are they thought to have been made as a group?