The Falchion or Malchus, the rarest medieval sword

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by Swordfish

I have not seen the Falchion at the Hermann sale in reality, therefore I assumed that the cutting edge is on the short side. If it is on the opposite side, it does not fit neither type III in my typology nor type I or II. This Falchion is again for sale at the next auction.
Best

The Hermann-Historica Falchion is listed as sold on their website sale 63 and is also not included in the new auction cat 64, now online??


Lot Nr. 2308
A Central European falchion
circa 1300
A forged iron single-edged blade, which widens to a double-edged point, and has encrustations stuck to both sides. The base of the blad ... >>more
Condition: III

Limit: 2000 EURO

sold

[Swordfish]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

The Hermann-Historica Falchion is listed as sold on their website sale 63 and is also not included in the new auction cat 64, now online??


Lot Nr. 2308
A Central European falchion
circa 1300
A forged iron single-edged blade, which widens to a double-edged point, and has encrustations stuck to both sides. The base of the blad ... >>more
Condition: III

Limit: 2000 EURO

sold

It is in the print catalogue Lot 2286, but is cancelled in the online catalogue.

[cornelistromp]

oh yes now I see, it is withdrawn, it is probably sold in between the auctions and it could not be removed from the paper catalog anymore because the catalog was already under printing.

[J.G.Elmslie]

Edit: Since I'm still on probation in case I'm secretly a med-ads-spamming bot, I cant edit the post I had made yet, so I'll have to add to it...

I'd just like to emphasise that I'm certainly not doubting the work and effort that's gone into your study, and I can only hope my own conclusions whenever I finally finish studying all the examples even begins to come close... I suspect it'll be a waffling, longwinded mess.


I really do worry that I've wandered in here, and might cause upset by having expressed an opinion on the three photographed examples. If that is the case, I sincerely apologise, and hope that the scepticism is read with the sincere respect I hold that you've produced such a study.

I just wish it were easier to get carbon-dating, metalurgical analysis, isotope flouresence, and all those other wonderful technologies that cost far, far too much, or worse involve destructive tests, and with them get absolutely certain answers over so many items which have doubts.


And I would'nt expect any less of a critical eye of anything I wrote - I hope when that day comes, the work is picked at under a magnifying glass!


JGE.

[broadaxe]

Additional pic, from Felix Fabri journal to the Levant, 1480 (2000 print, though...). The image shows pilgrims pay a token to the guardians of the Holy Sepulcher. Those, by tradition are muslems - to this very day; they appear to have European style flachions, probably to stand as 'ethnic' scimitars. The chief guardian holds a large wooden club, a bow and the set of keys. The pilgrim in the red cape holds a pilgrim's staff, recognized by its length and two balls along its grip.

[stephen wood]

...wasn't Malchus the servant of the High Priest whose ear was cut off by St Peter and restored by Christ?

[J.G.Elmslie]

Originally Posted by stephen wood

...wasn't Malchus the servant of the High Priest whose ear was cut off by St Peter and restored by Christ?

correct. Particularly among the german states, the style of short curved messer/falchion became associated with that action and took the name.

sort of like a Bowie knife is named after the person it was associated with.
Named after the well-known british musician....(sorry. I'm joking there. could'nt resist.)

[wardlaw]

J.G. Elmslie - it's the cultural element that fascinates me; the socio-cultural symbolism of the falchion and messer (it's appearance in art and literature) suggest to me that it had a particular resonance within western European society. I'm trying to get a paper written up that I gave at the International Medieval Congress a couple of years back on the subject, but other projects and commitments keeping getting in the way

The use of 'Malchus' as a term for a falchion in Germany was mentioned earlier in this thread, with some consideration of its origins and earliest usage. I don;t think, however, that a firm conclusion was reached on how early this term was used?

(It's Dr actually, in so far as it matters ) Wardlaw - or Rob Jones - either suits.

[J.G.Elmslie]

ahh. I'm not certain what the status of the Hermann-Historica example was, I was told by Carl Koppeschaar that it failed to sell after the previous auction, but I'm uncertain of any developments since.

---

Regarding examples #1, and particularly # 2 and #3 of the photographic samples, I cant help but feel sceptical for one reason: Similarity of proportion.

(Just to quickly explain, I used to work as a 3d artist, creating digital 3d modelling work, and its given me a particular focus in terms of observing proportion and dimension, and I spot details like that quite easily.)

Those three falchions are far too close in proportional simiarity for comfort to me. Something about #2 and #3 in particular jar my eye, because they are too similar. Comparing the invalides and delft falchions, they're clearly very similar, but only a few seconds viewing will let you see the significant proportional differences between them, the tang shape, the false edge, the curvature to the tip, and the pommels are very different.
that's a difference I'm not feeling when viewing #2 and #3. and my gut instinct is telling me there's something very wrong with them. There are too many co-incidences there for comfort. on its own, I would say one or the other was authentic. Together, no. something's not quite right there with one, or both.
If they were simply proportionally similar in one aspect, I would'nt feel there's a problem with them. but the proportions match, to within pretty close tolerances, in each area, the grip length, the pommel diameters, the false edge bevel, the blade at the tang transition, the cross shape, the cross arms length, the cross arms width... again and again, there's repeated matches there, and that making my mind flag up warnings, something's just not right there.

I'm hope I'm wrong. I hope that a fantastic and fully-documented provenance exists for each one of these, since they have clearly been stored in well-conserved conditions. these have not been dredged from rivers like the cluny, thorpe, or hamburg falchions. I'd love to trace their origins.



if I take the photographs and overlay them, you can probably see the similarities quite clearly - so I've done exactly that. I'm not sure it'll make sense, but then I dont know if I am making any sense with these.

Any further information on that pair you're able to give would be of a great deal of interest.

---

Regarding the Milan example, I'll ensure I can distribute a reference image and some data, and will get back to you on that - I think I'm still unable to send PMs so far.

[cornelistromp]

Originally Posted by J.G.Elmslie

ahh. I'm not certain what the status of the Hermann-Historica example was, I was told by Carl Koppeschaar that it failed to sell after the previous auction, but I'm uncertain of any developments since.

---

Regarding examples #1, and particularly # 2 and #3 of the photographic samples, I cant help but feel sceptical for one reason: Similarity of proportion.

(Just to quickly explain, I used to work as a 3d artist, creating digital 3d modelling work, and its given me a particular focus in terms of observing proportion and dimension, and I spot details like that quite easily.)

Those three falchions are far too close in proportional simiarity for comfort to me. Something about #2 and #3 in particular jar my eye, because they are too similar. Comparing the invalides and delft falchions, they're clearly very similar, but only a few seconds viewing will let you see the significant proportional differences between them, the tang shape, the false edge, the curvature to the tip, and the pommels are very different.
that's a difference I'm not feeling when viewing #2 and #3. and my gut instinct is telling me there's something very wrong with them. There are too many co-incidences there for comfort. on its own, I would say one or the other was authentic. Together, no. something's not quite right there with one, or both.
If they were simply proportionally similar in one aspect, I would'nt feel there's a problem with them. but the proportions match, to within pretty close tolerances, in each area, the grip length, the pommel diameters, the false edge bevel, the blade at the tang transition, the cross shape, the cross arms length, the cross arms width... again and again, there's repeated matches there, and that making my mind flag up warnings, something's just not right there.

I'm hope I'm wrong. I hope that a fantastic and fully-documented provenance exists for each one of these, since they have clearly been stored in well-conserved conditions. these have not been dredged from rivers like the cluny, thorpe, or hamburg falchions. I'd love to trace their origins.



if I take the photographs and overlay them, you can probably see the similarities quite clearly - so I've done exactly that. I'm not sure it'll make sense, but then I dont know if I am making any sense with these.

Any further information on that pair you're able to give would be of a great deal of interest.

---

Regarding the Milan example, I'll ensure I can distribute a reference image and some data, and will get back to you on that - I think I'm still unable to send PMs so far.

Good point!
the similarities in proportion of #2 and # 3 are at mildly noteworthy, this is an understatement.
The proportions are quite similar, would the actual dimensions also be that consistent?
I am curious about the provenance of both of them.
certainly more than a few last years, from the existence of 600 years of these swords, must be found

best,

[J.G.Elmslie]

I'm absolutely in agreement, that the actual dimensions do need to be catalogued carefully, its part of what I've been doing with the existing examples that I've been studying.

The thing that they show clearly is a huge range of dimensions - the cluny falchion is pretty small, the milan and conyers much larger. Thorpe is noticably longer than the Castillon hoard example, and so on.

I've attached an image of some of the ones I've got data on, and one or two which are estimates based photographs (those are marked with an asterisk)
In all cases, the primary cutting edge is that facing downwards.

Each one of these falchions should, when I'm finished, have a full data sheet with distal profiles, and full photography.

(Though I'm actually tempted for my work to also do shaded line drawings, having recently been astounded by the linework in Viollet le Duc's "Dictionnaire raisonné du mobilier français de l'époque carlovingienne à la renaissance" - the clarity of line is, in my opinion, far better in those 140-year old illustrations than the photography in many modern books, and its the sort of standard of presentation I'd like to aspire to. )

Here's the pic:

[Swordfish]

The similarities are indeed remakable and are a reason to be cautious. But it is not surprising for me, as I wrote in my article: `All three were of very similar shapes and dimensions, and originated from the same source.´If the source is an old armoury, it would not be surprising.
According to the auction catalogue, the length of #2 is 75,8 cm, the length of # 3 is 73,2 cm. Metallurgical analysis would be helpfull, but was not undertaken.
To find a proofed provenance for medieval arms and armour, occurs very rarely. Even if you have a provenance, what is it worth? In many cases: Nothing!
For example: A gothic full armour in a Fischer sale 2008, lot 293, sold for CHF 130000,- +Premium ( Euro 100.000,- incl.). It was described as from the collection of Max Kuppelmayr, pesumably from the armoury of Törringer zu Jettenbach. Nevertheless the complete armour was a 19th century copy! Many items from the Kuppelmayr collection are not genuine.
Or provenance Hearst collection: Hearst employed a good armourer, who even forged good medieval sallets, which were later sold as genuine.

The only way to avoid to acquire not genuine items is to examine them closely(not only on photos) and to compare them with genuine items. And experience, experience......(which includes that you have once acquired fakes).

Best

[J.G.Elmslie]

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

"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)

[Swordfish]

The description Templars Falchion is pure nonsense! The inlaid cross is a simple cross potent, which can be found on dozens of sword blades and pommels.

Falchions have not been so rare as you believe, see the dozens of depictions in illuminated manuscripts.

Hundreds of medieval European swords in not excavated condition exist in Museums or private collections. Why should there be no Falchions?

The blade of #3 has no fuller and is never too thick, the weight of the whole sword is 1.19 kg, which is relatively light for a sword with such a broad blade.The thickness of the blade of the Conyers Falchion is extremely thin. Nearly every sword blade I know has at least a thickness of ab.3 mm(not measured on corroded ones) at the center of percussion. A back edge is by no means unusual, see the attached photo with a blade without fuller and a back edge.

The fact that three swords originate from the same source does not indicates that these are fakes.

About 20 or more swords from the Alexandria Arsenal are known in western collections, many of them like peas in a pod, Oakeshott said. Are these therefore fakes?

As I have pointed out in my last post, examining a sword on the basis of photos or specific dimensions is useless without having examined it in reality. Not only theory is essential, but experience, experience!

As pointed out before, Falchion #3 is in the collection of an experienced collector of medieval arms and armour (all not excavated,except a few very early ones) who`s advice is asked around the world. If he is not able to discriminate genuine swords from fakes, no one would be able!

Best