I remain unconvinced on the pair, I'm afraid.
the fact they came from the same source, so similar is what puzzles me. This falchion type is from the 1240s through to about 1320, the lipped-point forms of your Type III begin to supercede the cleaver form in popularity from about 1300.
Which would indicate at least 2, possibly 3 if the Rothenburg example is from the same source originally, all remarkably similar. the Rothenburg example I've read on its case is described as
Quote:
"Malchus (Falchion des Tempelritterordens)
Knaufvorderseite mit Kupferdraht eingelegtem Templerkreuz ruckseitig ein stilisiertes H Im oberen Teil der Klinge ein Kupferdraht eingelegtes Kreuz mit stilisiertem Auge an der Spitze
Mitterleuropa um 1300"
Malchus (Falcion of the Templers' order knights)
A copper inlaid Templer Order Cross in front of the pommel, a stilized H at the back side. A copper inlaid cross with a stilized eye on top at the base of the blade.
Middle Europe about 1300
|
So, assuming the same collection, we have a falchion attributed to the knights templar (and "attributed to the knights templar" is a phrase that makes me highly suspicious, much like "attributed to William Wallace"...), an item which has already had its suspicions of provenance questioned by several other individuals, and associated with this one, we have two virtually proportionately identical falchion, with matching crosses, albeit with an inch length difference.
All three of these examples have remained in exceptionally good state of preservation for the last 700 years, as a contained cluster of three items, while the rest of the falchions in europe are in scattered groups. And one of them just happens to be associated with templars, but the other two arent. why would one of a trio be like that? that feels very odd to me.
As a cluster, the three falchions feel like there are too many co-incidences all falling together at the same time. Remarkable similarities in such a small data set as the twenty or so existing falchion predating the year 1500 are going to skew the data significantly, and of these three examples, I cannot help but wonder if those remarkable similarities are a result of them having come out from the same workshop significantly after thier purported date, freshly washed down with a nice bit of patinating acid....
Furthermore, all three examples demonstrate geometry details that I'm cautious of - a noticable false edge ground bevel on their upper edge, proceeding to a deep fuller which runs along the blade without fading out.
My gut instinct reading that sort of shape is to suspect is that examples no. 2 and 3 both follow the fashion of the Rothenburg example in having a pronounced deep spine on the back edge, with little distal taper.
that contradicts the details known of the conyers, cluny, and hamburg falchions, all of which have a very thin distal profile at their widest points; in the case of the conyers, only 1.2mm thick - a feature infact that I've observed on a pretty good number of 13th C swords in general.
I cannot help but feel that those details leave this trio as highly suspect. Those "remarkable similarities" undermine the quality of the rest of the study.
As a craftsman, I rather suspect that accurate replicas of all three of these falchions may well reveal handling deficiencies absent in the conyers, cluny and hamburg examples. As a student of arms, I feel they are too questionable to be given significant emphasis.
(and I really do apologise for the criticism here. it feels like I'm ripping into your work by questioning these sources, and I hope its not coming over as such)