Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilUK
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.
|
Or, perhaps, evidence for a terrifying army of sword wielding Gigantopithecus? More evidence is needed to rule out (or confirm!) this alternate hypothesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilUK
I have not seen this sword (although I know of it) but to judge from photos it would date to the early 15th century.
|
Their estimate is 1400-1600 so that kind of fits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilUK
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
|
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?