bbc/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-28271904 News of a sword of exceptional interest coming up for auction. The good news is that it will be on display at Christies in South Kensington (n London) for a couple of weeks before the auction. It is undoubtedly a beautiful piece and potentially hints an astonishing story but there are a number of errors in this report that will annoy those of you who know something of these matters. Firstly they are calling it a broadsword. This is not a term that a serious collector would use about a medieval sword. The term ‘broadsword’ post-dates the medieval period. During the medieval period all swords were either broad or estocs. Consequently they were referred to as either swords or estocs – there was no need to use the added epithet of broad. It was only when the rapier arrives on the scene in the sixteenth century that there is a need to describe some swords as ‘broad’ in contradistinction to the narrow bladed rapier. This trend continued into the 19th century with military broadswords being distinguished from narrow-bladed smallswords etc. ‘Broadsword’ , as a descriptor of a medieval sword type, is today mostly used by theatrical folk who know no better. The article then goes on to state that ‘this was not a ‘war sword’. The implication from the author is that this was not a sword suitable for use in war. Clearly nothing could be further from the truth. He probably asked ‘was this a war sword?’ – meaning was it used in battle – and received the technical reply that it was not because , as many followers of this page will know, a war sword is a ‘type’ of medieval sword that is larger than the standard arming sword (which this is). Arming swords were nonetheless ubiquitous on the battlefield. We are further told that, “Three weeks before the disastrous Battle of Hastings, Harold, the last Anglo-Saxon king of England, defeated the Viking army of the Norwegian King Hardrada at Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire. The sword then fell into the hands of the De Bohun family.” Really? The first Humphrey de Bohun fought for Duke William and the Normans at Hastings and was most definitely not at Stamford Bridge three weeks earlier before he had landed. The expert at Christies presumambly told the surmised story that the blade may have been a trophy from Stamford Bridge (taken by one of the Anglo-Saxon victors), and then taken to Hastings, where it subsequently became a trophy for De Bohun. Obviously the style of hilt confirms that whilst the blade may be older (and has had its original profile changed) the sword has been remounted in a later style of hilt. That the sword MAY have been at Bannockburn is based on the circumstantial, though plausible, evidence that the pommel bears the De Bohun Arms. Sir Humphrey De Bohun famously fell to the axe of Robert the Bruce at the beginning of the battle.
Posted on: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 03:39:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015