A 17th century cutlass

M ELEY · 31st March 2019, 01:05 AM

Here's coins with Emperor Leopold I. Note his large hawkish nose and similar mustache. I think we have our proof!

kronckew · 31st March 2019, 07:40 AM

Has the Hapsburg Lip I see....

M ELEY · 31st March 2019, 08:38 AM

LOL, Wayne!

I didn't want to point that out but, yep, he has the lip. Surprised they didn't downplay this in his caricature.

Jim McDougall · 31st March 2019, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

LOL, Wayne!

I didn't want to point that out but, yep, he has the lip. Surprised they didn't downplay this in his caricature.

This is what is so totally exciting about investigating weapons, history literally coming to life as told by the weapon itself. You guys are true 'arms whisperers'!!! Brilliant!

Midelburgo thank you again for catching the Leopold thing.....the pivotal catch.

corrado26 · 31st March 2019, 05:15 PM

Sorry, but I cannot believe that the image on the blade should be the portrait of the Habsburg emperor Leopold I.
In this case the image should show as all the silver coins of his time with his portrait do, his massive Habsburg underlip. And if this should really be a portrait of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire it lacks the heraldic Habsburg coat of arms and the heraldic eagle on the other side of the blade. Leopold has not been the last with a moustache, there are other war lords of the Thirty Years War with this feature as for instance Johann Adolph von Schwarzenberg whose physiognomy resembles very much the image on the blade as well. Ok, there is missing the wreath of laurels at the coin with the portrait of v.Schwarzenberg, but this might have no importance.
corrado26

Jim McDougall · 31st March 2019, 09:01 PM

Interesting perspective Udo, but for me its pretty much about the laurel wreath which is what brought the attention to this figure on the blade in the first place.
True there are surely other possibilities of characters for the wreathed figure but the Leopold suggestion is most compelling and aligns with the particular Germanic features on the sword in entirety (the thumb ring and pommel and branch elements).
I still feel confident that the placement of this sword in the latter 17th is correct, and the Thirty Years war (1618-48) would be a bit early.

M ELEY · 1st April 2019, 03:10 PM

I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on this piece. I understand that there are slight differences in the portraits of the monarchs, but I would always have described the marking as "attributed to..." or "believed to be..." Jim has acutely accessed the date and country of origin (Germany), so at the very least we know that Midelburgo was on the right track in identifying the fact that the portraiture is one of the Holy Roman Emperors of this time period. I don't think the eagle crest is necessary to prove or disprove this. That it is definitely Leopold might remain a contention, but it does fit the timeline of his rule (1670's-1705). If Udo is right and the monarch is from an earlier date, it would be more of a memorial to their past rule. In either case, I am just happy that it wasn't just a generic imprint of no one in particular for decorative purposes alone.

31st March 2019, 01:05 AM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,082	Proof? Here's coins with Emperor Leopold I. Note his large hawkish nose and similar mustache. I think we have our proof! Attached Images

31st March 2019, 05:15 PM	#5
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,185	Sorry, but I cannot believe that the image on the blade should be the portrait of the Habsburg emperor Leopold I. In this case the image should show as all the silver coins of his time with his portrait do, his massive Habsburg underlip. And if this should really be a portrait of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire it lacks the heraldic Habsburg coat of arms and the heraldic eagle on the other side of the blade. Leopold has not been the last with a moustache, there are other war lords of the Thirty Years War with this feature as for instance Johann Adolph von Schwarzenberg whose physiognomy resembles very much the image on the blade as well. Ok, there is missing the wreath of laurels at the coin with the portrait of v.Schwarzenberg, but this might have no importance. corrado26 Attached Images

31st March 2019, 07:40 AM	#2
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,155	Has the Hapsburg Lip I see....

31st March 2019, 08:38 AM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,082	LOL, Wayne! I didn't want to point that out but, yep, he has the lip. Surprised they didn't downplay this in his caricature.

31st March 2019, 09:01 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,809	Interesting perspective Udo, but for me its pretty much about the laurel wreath which is what brought the attention to this figure on the blade in the first place. True there are surely other possibilities of characters for the wreathed figure but the Leopold suggestion is most compelling and aligns with the particular Germanic features on the sword in entirety (the thumb ring and pommel and branch elements). I still feel confident that the placement of this sword in the latter 17th is correct, and the Thirty Years war (1618-48) would be a bit early.

1st April 2019, 03:10 PM	#7
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,082	I'd like to thank everyone who took the time to comment on this piece. I understand that there are slight differences in the portraits of the monarchs, but I would always have described the marking as "attributed to..." or "believed to be..." Jim has acutely accessed the date and country of origin (Germany), so at the very least we know that Midelburgo was on the right track in identifying the fact that the portraiture is one of the Holy Roman Emperors of this time period. I don't think the eagle crest is necessary to prove or disprove this. That it is definitely Leopold might remain a contention, but it does fit the timeline of his rule (1670's-1705). If Udo is right and the monarch is from an earlier date, it would be more of a memorial to their past rule. In either case, I am just happy that it wasn't just a generic imprint of no one in particular for decorative purposes alone.