This is a guest blog post contributed by Eric Wisbith. Eric has a BA in History (with a minor in Military History) from Slippery Rock University. He has recreated 18th century sabers and other edged weapons to better understand the combat application of those weapons in a American tactical environment. He is a veteran of the United States Marine Corps with service in Iraq.
While we wait for J. Hutton Pulitzer to rummage through his local flea market and present us with another “100% confirmed” Roman artifact to prove is a modern toy or a tool or whatever, I’ve been asked by the host to weigh in on understanding the origins of the possible first generation of the Fake Hercules Swords, the Type F. By now, we collectively, as well as recognized experts, have conclusively proven the “swords” are not actual Roman artifacts. Although we have determined what it isn’t, we are still curious about what it was before it became a kitschy trinket sold in the street stalls of Italy, because there is a curious major change in design between the Type F and all the others-the inclusion of what appear to be truncated fullers on the blade of the probable earliest models of the FHS family. Eliminating objects as possible candidates for the “Mother Of All Fake Hercules Swords” (MOAFHS), allows us to focus our efforts in ever narrower types of objects and time frames, with the result of eventually refuting definitively the Pulitzer narrative by identifying the genesis of the Nova Scotia sword.
Because the Type F exhibits some elements of actual sword design (though, tellingly, not Roman sword design) many people have concluded the MOAFHS was possibly a real sword at some point. However, a more specialist eye cast on the features leads me to the conclusion that at no point was the MOAFHS a real sword, thereby eliminating a whole category of objects we need to look at. Knowledge of historical European sword design elements, their function, the history of European swordmaking and craftsmanship, personal experience in examining and minutely handling 18th, 19th, and 20th century swords, and experimental archaeology in reconstructing swords of the period with fire, anvil and hammer all played a role in this assessment, that the designer of the MOAFHS wanted to visually create a swordlike appearance, but did not understand actual sword sword design or function, as you will see.
First, you need to know your terminology, as I’m going to toss out a lot of technical terms-a basic guide to sword nomenclature can be found here.
Now let’s look at the California sword and begin.
Because the Type F exhibits some elements of actual sword design (though, tellingly, not Roman sword design) many people have concluded the MOAFHS was possibly a real sword at some point. However, a more specialist eye cast on the features leads me to the conclusion that at no point was the MOAFHS a real sword, thereby eliminating a whole category of objects we need to look at. Knowledge of historical European sword design elements, their function, the history of European swordmaking and craftsmanship, personal experience in examining and minutely handling 18th, 19th, and 20th century swords, and experimental archaeology in reconstructing swords of the period with fire, anvil and hammer all played a role in this assessment, that the designer of the MOAFHS wanted to visually create a swordlike appearance, but did not understand actual sword sword design or function, as you will see.
First, you need to know your terminology, as I’m going to toss out a lot of technical terms-a basic guide to sword nomenclature can be found here.
Now let’s look at the California sword and begin.
The California sword.
We have a straight, double fullered (stopped), two edged blade with a prominent midrib, no ricasso, cast as an integral unit with the anthropomorphic hilt in a bronze/brass alloy. What does this tell us? First, it is not Roman. Roman blades were iron and mild steel, with no fullers, forged, not cast, separately from a non anthropomorphic hilt in bone or wood, and then constructed, as here, or here, or seen here:
Illustration from Saliola and Caprini- “Pugio-Gladius Brevius Est-History and Technology of the Roman Battle Dagger”, pg. 47 (English edition).
OK, so it’s not Roman, but is it a real sword blade from some later sword? Its got fullers, right? No, it isn’t. Fullers, ricasso, single or double cutting edges, cross section, all these elements, while also decorative, are primarily functional elements of blade design, that inform a practiced eye on the purpose a sword was made for, (war or display), the type of sword it could conceivably come from, and the potential geographic location and time frame it was made in, and even by whom, an actual swordsmith or not. In short, sword blade elements, singly and in combination, are diagnostic.
Let's start with the fullers, then. What is a fuller for? Simply, to lighten a sword while preserving structural strength, to balance a sword by moving its center of gravity, and to be decorative. Short swords designed for thrusting do not require them, which is why the Roman gladius doesn’t have them. Longer swords designed to inflict damage by cutting do, as seen in Germanic swords (the spatha, Frankish, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, etc.), but those swords have single fullers, so no matches there. Medieval swords follow those same basic elements, since they are refinements on a cultural European consensus on what swords look like and do. Double fullers do not appear until the 17th century. Double fullers, in addition, are incredibly difficult to make-look up hand forging, pattern welding and tempering a sword and shaping a single fuller, and you will understand why that design element remained static for centuries, and why smiths were considered practically magicians. This is particularly fascinating.
Double fullers don’t really show up in European blades until the end of the 17th century, and only in very small numbers of high end broadswords created by superior craftsmen in the “capitals” of the European swordmaking craft, Toledo, Spain and Solingen, Germany. Sword technology and skill were rapidly moving into new forms-the state of the art was becoming increasingly complex. Owning these weapons was like owning a high end sports car or designer clothes or a famous work of art -- the smith even signed his work. They were expensive as hell status symbols showcasing the wealth and status of the owner, just as swords throughout the ages have, as this late 17th century basket hilted broadsword with a Solingen blade shows-but also a completely functional deadly weapon quite capable of killing.
Let's start with the fullers, then. What is a fuller for? Simply, to lighten a sword while preserving structural strength, to balance a sword by moving its center of gravity, and to be decorative. Short swords designed for thrusting do not require them, which is why the Roman gladius doesn’t have them. Longer swords designed to inflict damage by cutting do, as seen in Germanic swords (the spatha, Frankish, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Norse, etc.), but those swords have single fullers, so no matches there. Medieval swords follow those same basic elements, since they are refinements on a cultural European consensus on what swords look like and do. Double fullers do not appear until the 17th century. Double fullers, in addition, are incredibly difficult to make-look up hand forging, pattern welding and tempering a sword and shaping a single fuller, and you will understand why that design element remained static for centuries, and why smiths were considered practically magicians. This is particularly fascinating.
Double fullers don’t really show up in European blades until the end of the 17th century, and only in very small numbers of high end broadswords created by superior craftsmen in the “capitals” of the European swordmaking craft, Toledo, Spain and Solingen, Germany. Sword technology and skill were rapidly moving into new forms-the state of the art was becoming increasingly complex. Owning these weapons was like owning a high end sports car or designer clothes or a famous work of art -- the smith even signed his work. They were expensive as hell status symbols showcasing the wealth and status of the owner, just as swords throughout the ages have, as this late 17th century basket hilted broadsword with a Solingen blade shows-but also a completely functional deadly weapon quite capable of killing.
Double fullers show up almost exclusively on broadswords, because it's a BROADSWORD that has room for them.
Notice, however, the fullers don’t look like our Type F. They are much shallower, narrow, and they gradually terminate in leaf shaped points before they reach the guard. (like all good swords, this bad boy has a ricasso) This means that if our creator had used a sword like this to build from, he would have had to strip it, and cut an entirely new tang, eliminating the ricasso, in order to bring the fullers into contact with the guard, and that's just not really likely.These are functional and decorative, because the smith, as taught by his master in an unbroken line going back centuries, an expert of his craft traditions, knows you only have to remove a small amount of metal to create a huge effect in the way a sword handles while keeping its strength-its subtle, whereas our Type F fullers are huge, crude, and if put on a real steel blade, would have weakened the performance of the sword beyond practical use. The majority of the weight of the sword would be on the edges, not the centerline, unbalancing the weapon, making it unwieldy and unstable. This can be seen clearly in the cross section of the blade of the California sword:
”Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?!”
This sword shows no characteristics of fullers in actual European swords, or of forging, nor of symmetry- even an uncalibrated eye can see the midrib is lopsided,and the left side blade edge noticeably smaller than the right. It’s just sloppy craftsmanship, indicative of being cast, not forged, by a person unfamiliar with fabricating a real sword, displaying only superficial visual elements, exactly what one would expect to see in a non functional cheap tourist trinket, unless our swordsmith was blind, drunk and utterly incompetent, that is.
The lack of a ricasso, or potentially only a vestigial one-(it's difficult in the cast to tell what is blade and what is hilt components) again is a “100%, smoking gun” sign that we are not dealing with a real sword. Here is Andy’s scan of the California sword:
The lack of a ricasso, or potentially only a vestigial one-(it's difficult in the cast to tell what is blade and what is hilt components) again is a “100%, smoking gun” sign that we are not dealing with a real sword. Here is Andy’s scan of the California sword:
”Ricasso? Hercules don’t need no ricasso!”
A ricasso is the unsharpened section of the blade near the hilt and usually within the guards in front of the quillons. One purpose of the ricasso was to allow a user to curl a finger over a quillon, allowing for better point control. Often times, longer swords would have an extended ricasso, allowing the gripping of an entire hand onto the blade past the cross guard for more leverage. (see below) It also thickens the metal that transitions into the tang, adding structural strength, a bit more longitudinal rigidity, and prevents damage to the scabbard throat. Essentially, a ricasso is an almost standard feature on all European swords from the Renaissance on, and a lack of one combined with the presence of double fullers means this isn’t a real blade, now, then, or ever.
18th century Scottish claymore hilt, showing double fullers and ricasso. The hearts say “I’m sensitive, but I can decapitate you.”
Are there any exceptions to this rule? Yes, some sabers are double fullered and lack a ricasso, but sabers are not swords, technically. (a saber is curved and single edged, and the fullers are typically above the centerline with a triangular cross section, while a sword is straight, double edged, and has a symmetrical cross section, with fullers along the centerline) so a saber isn’t our blade. Sabers, incidentally, are not native European military material culture, being introduced in the 17th century as heavy mounted troops abandoned lance and plate armor for pistols and cutting weapons in a new type of light cavalry, the Hungarian-Polish style hussar. Saber is derived from the Hungarian verb szab- "to cut."
European hussar saber, early 19th century-a superficially close match to the California Type F, but the cross section and blade width are not a match. This has a single edged cross section, broadly triangular, not the double edged of our Type F. Sabers are narrower than the width of our 4 cm Type F blades, averaging about 2.7 centimeters consistently for the entire 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. Note that the midrib begins to flare as it transitions into the tang. A double fullered specimen of this type is also relatively uncommon, thus eliminating its possibility as a potential “mother blade”
A more typical double fuller arrangement on a 1690 English saber
As we transition from the second half of the 19th century into the early 20th, the likely period for our MOAFHS to be created, a few things are happening that influence its design and cement the likelihood of it being ab origine a piece of tourist ware, not a real sword. First, swords are becoming smaller, more delicate, more symbol than weapon. Firepower had finally rendered swords useless on a battlefield, after 2,000 years. Blades are no longer double fullered, at least in a meaningful way, because flat blades are now fashionable and display decoration better. Width is down to 2 cm or less. They are now called “dress” swords. Look at this German officer with his little toy sword, a world away from the combat blade of just a century before.
Sabers are maintaining some utility but also increasingly a vestigial remnant of a bygone era. Military edged weapons are industrialized, mass produced, not handcrafted. Swordsmiths are increasingly marginalized into producing Romantic Victorian era decorative pieces-pseudo weapons, with increasingly elaborate and useless decorative motifs, including anthropomorphic hilts, classical figures and blades that couldn’t cut fruit. These are not swords, they are objets d’art. With the disappearance of real swords from everyday life, people forgot what real swords were supposed to look like. The late 19th and early 20th also witnessed a simultaneous explosion of interest in the classical world and archaeology as a science takes a few baby steps away from treasure hunting and tomb raiding (of which Andy is more qualified to write about)-resulting in a market around the tourist trail of Roman sites for upper middle class Europeans, with a nodding acquaintance of classics but none of actual artifacts or just a desire for a cheap souvenir. Emperor Napoleon III commissions digs at Alesia, The Roman Museum at Mainz begins to assemble collections, the British Empire looks to the Roman one as a model, and Italy cashes in with tourism. The FHS fills a niche in downmarket tourist ware, created by a person who had never held a real sword in his life, and manufactured by some Italian blacksmith or metalworker who was slamming out metal in his backyard, in a 19th century analogue to these metal workers in India today, who for all we know are casting Design Toscano swords.
Sabers are maintaining some utility but also increasingly a vestigial remnant of a bygone era. Military edged weapons are industrialized, mass produced, not handcrafted. Swordsmiths are increasingly marginalized into producing Romantic Victorian era decorative pieces-pseudo weapons, with increasingly elaborate and useless decorative motifs, including anthropomorphic hilts, classical figures and blades that couldn’t cut fruit. These are not swords, they are objets d’art. With the disappearance of real swords from everyday life, people forgot what real swords were supposed to look like. The late 19th and early 20th also witnessed a simultaneous explosion of interest in the classical world and archaeology as a science takes a few baby steps away from treasure hunting and tomb raiding (of which Andy is more qualified to write about)-resulting in a market around the tourist trail of Roman sites for upper middle class Europeans, with a nodding acquaintance of classics but none of actual artifacts or just a desire for a cheap souvenir. Emperor Napoleon III commissions digs at Alesia, The Roman Museum at Mainz begins to assemble collections, the British Empire looks to the Roman one as a model, and Italy cashes in with tourism. The FHS fills a niche in downmarket tourist ware, created by a person who had never held a real sword in his life, and manufactured by some Italian blacksmith or metalworker who was slamming out metal in his backyard, in a 19th century analogue to these metal workers in India today, who for all we know are casting Design Toscano swords.
The FHS line, in the end, looks just like what it is: cheap junk. The casting is poor, certainly not up to the standard of the high end figurative dagger/sword market of the time, Hercules even in his best iteration in the Type F is sloppy, not graceful or artistic, the blade just as bad-lopsided, clunky, ponderous and awkward. Hercules himself is posing in a non typical way, as if they repurposed an Atlas from a telemon and slapped a lion skin on him. Maybe the sword was a Frankenstein mashup of a decorative elements and an imagined blade bashed together out of scrap iron in some Naples slum for the tourist trade, or another theory forthcoming, but I can say with conviction, never was the MOAFHS a real blade, nor was the hilt a real sword grip, and together, it screams to me of a poorly conceived and executed artistic evocation of sword design, not a crude recasting of a real weapon's steel blade and hilt in brass. It mashes together a midrib (actually seen on early Roman blades) with double fullers seen on much later weapons, but omits a ricasso, all incorporated into a "blade" that mimics the width of a Roman gladius. To put it bluntly, it's’ a bastard hybrid, too crude, too badly designed, too useless to have originated in a real military blade. A full blade like that would handle like garbage-unbalanced, too heavy, structurally weak. The design elements, while visually evocative of real swords, are combined in ways no real swords do. None of it fits right. It just looks all wrong. What amazes me the most about this hunk of crap is that Pulitzer actually thought it would fool anyone with a functional frontal lobe, literacy and an internet connection.
RSS Feed
