Flamberg Two-hand Swords, late 16th-Early-17th Century

Matchlock · 18th April 2012, 07:13 PM

I know, Dmitry.

I guess that's partially due to the old inventory descriptions of these swords which, even as late as the early 17th century, were listed as fighting swords (Schlachtschwerter) - which of course they were no longer - when ordered for processional purposes, e.g. for the Graz armory in the 1620's.
Since at least the 1560's, they did not play any role as 'Landsknecht' swords any more, and they looked different from the actual Landsknecht two-handers of the first half of the 16th c. as well.
Another reason might be their sheer size and sometimes 'flamed' blades that accounted for their becoming preferred display objects as the average inexperienced visitor will intuitively start speculating about them being 'handled' in fight. That may also account for the fact that in the characteristic traditional 18th-20th century museum array, they were used for an armored 15th-16th c. knight to lean on them, in many ridiculous cases the armor being scantly as tall as the sword ...

The photo attached below, which I took in the armory of Schloss Braunfels, shows a moderate arrangement; at least the big sword between the two suits of armor can be dated to ca. 1580, and the 'Maximilian' knight is not displayed leaning on it.

Sometimes traditional terms die out hard, especially in a field as traditional as weaponry. It's funny but the very same problem occurred to me only today when responding to Jean-Marc's post and putting right the actual meaning of the - internationally widely misapplied - term 'arquebus'.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15432

When I remember it correctly it was Guy Wilson of the Royal Armouries, then London, who, in an article of the 80's, confined the historical term (h)arquebus to late 15th/early 16th c. light portable guns on the basis of Henry VIII's inventories.

Best,
Michael

18th April 2012, 07:13 PM	#5
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	I know, Dmitry. I guess that's partially due to the old inventory descriptions of these swords which, even as late as the early 17th century, were listed as fighting swords (Schlachtschwerter) - which of course they were no longer - when ordered for processional purposes, e.g. for the Graz armory in the 1620's. Since at least the 1560's, they did not play any role as 'Landsknecht' swords any more, and they looked different from the actual Landsknecht two-handers of the first half of the 16th c. as well. Another reason might be their sheer size and sometimes 'flamed' blades that accounted for their becoming preferred display objects as the average inexperienced visitor will intuitively start speculating about them being 'handled' in fight. That may also account for the fact that in the characteristic traditional 18th-20th century museum array, they were used for an armored 15th-16th c. knight to lean on them, in many ridiculous cases the armor being scantly as tall as the sword ... The photo attached below, which I took in the armory of Schloss Braunfels, shows a moderate arrangement; at least the big sword between the two suits of armor can be dated to ca. 1580, and the 'Maximilian' knight is not displayed leaning on it. Sometimes traditional terms die out hard, especially in a field as traditional as weaponry. It's funny but the very same problem occurred to me only today when responding to Jean-Marc's post and putting right the actual meaning of the - internationally widely misapplied - term 'arquebus'. http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=15432 When I remember it correctly it was Guy Wilson of the Royal Armouries, then London, who, in an article of the 80's, confined the historical term (h)arquebus to late 15th/early 16th c. light portable guns on the basis of Henry VIII's inventories. Best, Michael Attached Images Last edited by Matchlock; 18th April 2012 at 09:27 PM.