myArmoury.com - The Maciejowski "Glaive"

• Info • Register • Log in
• Forum Index • Memberlist • Usergroups • Search • Spotlight Topics • Watched Topics

Forum Index » Historical Arms Talk » The Maciejowski "Glaive"

Posts: 288 Location: Finland

Mon 27 Sep, 2004 4:41 am

Alina Boyden wrote:

Incidentally, I did my own scalar measurements and they turned out alot smaller - about 51 inches overall. Is your arm really really long? I used my 5'9" tall younger brother for scale instead of my own arm.

I'm 6'1"and my forearm is 12 inches wich means the picture is scaled 1:30. But that means I have to guess where the elbow is on the knight. I measured the full arm as well. Then the scale is 1:27. The length of the sword is then about 57,5 inches. All measurements are taken from a print of the picture that is in the original post of this thread.

However the sword is not much shorter than the wielder when you measure it so 51 inches seems rather short to me, considering the grip looks like it could accomodate four hands.

I think it's safe to say though that the size of these weapons are quite variable as with all weapons that have an agricultural background. I remember reading that they found a head from a dane axe that measured 18 inches and the average is about 9-10 inches. The other example of a fauchard in the Mac. bible looks like it is much smaller than this one.

Profile PM

Posts: 383

Mon 27 Sep, 2004 8:46 am

Jean Thibodeau wrote:

Just jumping in here as I am French Canadian and the name Faussar sounded familiar but slightly off: Looking through my collection of books I found a reference to FAUCHARD and "Faux de Guerre" which translated to WAR-SCYTHE.

From: ARMES et ARMURES de Charlemagne à Louis XIV, par Paul Martin Conservateur du Musée historique de Strasbourg,
1967 Office du Livre, Fribourg

Page 235:" Une autre arme, le "fauchard., s'inspirant des principes de construction et de maniement de la faux de guerre, allait en adopter les avantages et en supprimer les inconvénients. La solidité et la trempe de la lame, déjà, la rendait plus appropriée à la guerre. Mais la forme surtout du tranchant sera déterminante pour son usage. Au lieu d'avoir, comme la faux ordinaire, une courbe concave, en avant, le tranchant prend une forme convexe et fuyante vers le dos de la lame.
Cette disposition permettait d'utiliser le fauchard tant pou l'estoc que pour la taille."

The point of the above is that the FAUCHARD is based on the WAR-SCYTHE (Which is an agricultural implement modified and made stouter for use in war.) The FAUCHARD is an improvement on the WAR-SCYTHE by reversing the curve giving it a convex instead of a concave sharpened edge: Making it more suitable than the WAR-SCYTHE as being effective as well in "Estoc" (Thrust) as well as in slashing.

Yes I remember this reference as well. I believe the two terms are interchangeable and I have definitely seen the term Fauchard before. It is probably one of those cases of regional accents and no set spelling rules in medieval manuscripts.

Profile

Posts: 383

Mon 27 Sep, 2004 8:49 am

Kenneth Enroth wrote:

Alina Boyden wrote:

Incidentally, I did my own scalar measurements and they turned out alot smaller - about 51 inches overall. Is your arm really really long? I used my 5'9" tall younger brother for scale instead of my own arm.

I'm 6'1"and my forearm is 12 inches wich means the picture is scaled 1:30. But that means I have to guess where the elbow is on the knight. I measured the full arm as well. Then the scale is 1:27. The length of the sword is then about 57,5 inches. All measurements are taken from a print of the picture that is in the original post of this thread.

However the sword is not much shorter than the wielder when you measure it so 51 inches seems rather short to me, considering the grip looks like it could accomodate four hands.

I think it's safe to say though that the size of these weapons are quite variable as with all weapons that have an agricultural background. I remember reading that they found a head from a dane axe that measured 18 inches and the average is about 9-10 inches. The other example of a fauchard in the Mac. bible looks like it is much smaller than this one.

Yeah I can only assume I messed up on my scale. I think mine was like 1:25 or something of that nature. 57.5 inches definitely seems reasonable to me as far as the length is concerned. I would have alot of fun with something like that.

Profile

Posts: 288 Location: Finland

Mon 27 Sep, 2004 1:41 pm

I wonder what sort of grip construction to use in a replica. From a functional standpoint maybe a messer hilt with slab tang would fit best for this type of sword?

Profile PM

Posts: 5,981 Location: Birmingham, Alabama

Mon 27 Sep, 2004 2:21 pm

Although I haven't seen any evidence for it in the artwork shown here, I think I'd prefer a wood/cord/leather binding. Many of the weapons shown have no pommel or cross, and it would be most unpleasant for that weapon to slip in either direction. Yeah, definitely cord, with substantial risers at top, bottom and middle.

Profile PM Website

Jeanry Chandler

Posts: 62 Location: New Orleans, Louisiana

Mon 27 Sep, 2004 9:25 pm

Did anybody consider that the weapon resembles a Dacian falx or Thracian Romphia? We tend to think of those weapons as having the edge on the inside of the curve but they were actually found sharpened both ways.

Fascinating thread btw.

JR

Profile PM Website

Posts: 383

Mon 27 Sep, 2004 10:59 pm

Jeanry Chandler wrote:

Did anybody consider that the weapon resembles a Dacian falx or Thracian Romphia? We tend to think of those weapons as having the edge on the inside of the curve but they were actually found sharpened both ways.

Fascinating thread btw.

JR

Actually my first thought upon seeing this weapon a few years back was "Rhomphaia!" These sorts of hafted weapons have occurred throughout European history. I'm surprised they don't get more press than they do.

Profile

Posts: 1,576 Location: Bergen, Norway

Tue 28 Sep, 2004 6:21 am

it must be noted that the artist propbably didn't put much effort into drawing the weapons exactly to scale.

Weapons in medevial illustrations work largely along the same lines as in modern movies. You can recognice the MP5's, the Berreta's and the Desert Eagles in the Matrix, but what they do is based on coolness factor, rather than realism. More blood and gore is always a crowdpleaser. Thus, people get chopped in two while wearing chainmail, and people get thrown three meters through the air by 9mm bullets...
Realism is just soooo boring...

Yours
Elling

Profile PM Website MSN

Posts: 508 Location: Beaver Dam, WI

Fri 01 Oct, 2004 1:12 pm

Geoff Wood wrote:

Perhaps it was something as simple as ' a knight chopped a man almost in half with a glaive', but the artist erroneously put the knight on horseback because that's more where he expected him to be (the status thing). As I said, just speculating.
Geoff

I thought the same thing (or perhaps it was just artistic license). Even standing upright in the stirrups, it would be nearly (if not) impossible to generate enough force to cut through a mailled warrior as is seen in this picture. Most of the power is generated from the speed of the horse, which would not be possible in this as it appears that the fallen warrior's horse is running away, which would drastically reduce the force gained from the wielder's horse. This would be especially impossible if the knights were in a melee and the horses either stationary (well, not really) or moving with a very slow forward momentum.

While this type of weapon may have existed, the feat that is ascribed to it in the picture is dubious at best.

Profile PM

Posts: 117 Location: Monticello, WI

Sun 03 Oct, 2004 9:53 am

Bladesmith Rick Barrett has, in my opinion, a beautiful variation of a short glaive, though more 'fantastic' than the Maciejowski glaive. It's worth a look.

http://www.barrettcustomknives.com/fantasy/abyssian.htm

Cheers!

Profile PM

Posts: 508

Tue 07 Feb, 2006 6:41 am

I like the fauchard/faussar idea, and I also think that it is a "proto-falchion".

Profile PM

Posts: 37

Tue 07 Feb, 2006 4:03 pm

Bart Walczak wrote:

Next three are from Romance of Alexander, the last one from an unknown source:

Hi Bart,

the first image is from the Queen Mary's Psalter c. 1300.

Jeff

Profile PM

Mikko Kuusirati

Posts: 1,084 Location: Finland

Mon 07 Jan, 2008 7:24 pm

Sorry for digging up such an old thread, but I recently came across another Maciejowski illustration with that strange "glaive" wielded two-handed on horseback, and thought you guys might want to see it:

[ Linked Image ]

Look at the knight in blue coat and white great helm on the left. Here, too, the weapon is being shown performing quite a remarkable feat of cutting power...

Image found at http://www.medievaltymes.com/courtyard/maciejowski_bible.htm

Profile PM

Posts: 5 Location: Conegliano, Italy

Mon 29 Nov, 2010 1:48 am

I'm sorry for reviving such an old discussion, but I'm intrigued by the argument. In this picture I took at Siena in Italy there is a similar weapon (1406)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9749/18032010098.jpg

Profile PM E-mail

Alex Hoogstraten

Posts: 20 Location: The netherlands

Mon 29 Nov, 2010 2:47 am

Lodovico Zago wrote:

I'm sorry for reviving such an old discussion, but I'm intrigued by the argument. In this picture I took at Siena in Italy there is a similar weapon (1406)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9749/18032010098.jpg

Are you sure it is not an normal polearm? The pole seems to go on behind the boards of the ship and the bearer is holdinging it near the blade because they are fighting in close quarters.

But that is what I see, so I could be wrong
.

Similar topics can be found here

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=927

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18550

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=18704

Profile PM

Posts: 5 Location: Conegliano, Italy

Mon 29 Nov, 2010 3:33 am

Alex Hoogstraten wrote:

Lodovico Zago wrote:

I'm sorry for reviving such an old discussion, but I'm intrigued by the argument. In this picture I took at Siena in Italy there is a similar weapon (1406)

http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9749/18032010098.jpg

Are you sure it is not an normal polearm? The pole seems to go on behind the boards of the ship and the bearer is holdinging it near the blade because they are fighting in close quarters.

But that is what I see, so I could be wrong
.

At first I thought too that it was a polearm! But if you watch closely near the boards of the ship, the thing between the two wood pieces is larger than the handle of the weapon and it is of an another color; I think it's a piece of fabric of the armour.
Also, I think that for cutting the cheekbone of an enemy near in front of me, the usual lenght of a polearm would be one hell of an hindrance.

Profile PM E-mail

Alex Hoogstraten

Posts: 20 Location: The netherlands

Mon 29 Nov, 2010 4:16 am

Lodovico Zago wrote:

At first I thought too that it was a polearm! But if you watch closely near the boards of the ship, the thing between the two wood pieces is larger than the handle of the weapon and it is of an another color; I think it's a piece of fabric of the armour.
Also, I think that for cutting the cheekbone of an enemy near in front of me, the usual lenght of a polearm would be one hell of an hindrance.

This is a a matter of interpetation. You could be right. and that piece between the poles could indeed be the pommel of the weapon.But that makes the handle longer than other weapons of this type. Or it is just a short polearm. I don't think it is meant to be fabric either way.

It also could be as I mentioned before and the illustrater wasn't that accurate when he drew this. As for the use of polearms. In other parts of the illustration there are more polearm bearers holding their weapons in odd positions. This is not strange considering the type of fight.

What I think happed I base on personal experience drawing fightscenes between two or more people. Maybe he wanted to draw a longer pole arm but as he went allong discoverd that it wouldn't add up and shortend the polearm in het drawing.

But this is all speculation. As far as we know It could all have sprong or the artists imagenation. It is just one of the sad things about history that we can never know for sure.

Profile PM

Posts: 5 Location: Conegliano, Italy

Mon 29 Nov, 2010 5:29 am

Alex Hoogstraten wrote:

But this is all speculation. As far as we know It could all have sprong or the artists imagenation. It is just one of the sad things about history that we can never know for sure.

Yep, i sympathize with what you said :)

Profile PM E-mail

Posts: 6

Mon 29 Nov, 2010 6:10 am

Hi :). Long time lurker, first time poster. I was compelled to post today because... well...I found this http://www.bytheswordinc.com/p-3498-functiona...h0029.aspx. It calls it a chopper, but I assume its a repro of the glaive-thing that's the focus of this topic.
I don't know how it performs, but the description says its " functional". Its shorter than what Kenneth and Alina surmised for the mac bible version, but this one is a fantasy sword.

Profile PM

Alex Hoogstraten

Posts: 20 Location: The netherlands

Mon 29 Nov, 2010 1:40 pm

The type of blade is not unknown. They're are known eastern variants.

There is also an older type of weapon used by the Dacians in Roman times. I think it was called the 'Flax'. Maybe it was an inspiration for the latter morgan blades.

I think the name Chopper is a bit odd thou. When I think Chopper I think a. a helicopter. b. Arnold Schwarzenegger and c. A one handed single edged broad knive/ short sword originaly used for cutting brenches or small trees.

Profile PM

Page 3 of 4

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum