There is a “lovely little sword” (Oakeshott p. 67) in Westminster Abbey which is associated with the funeral achievements of Henry V. I recently acquired a modern copy of this sword from Arms and Armor of Minneapolis, MN (http://arms-n-armor.com/sword075.html) as part of my collection of reproduction weapons which match the forms our school studies, and offer this review of the sword. Note that this is the flat-ground sword, not the hollow-ground version shown on the same page.
Physical Characteristics:
Weight: 2.7 lbs. (hollow ground version: 2.3 lbs.)
Length, overall: 33.5”
Length, blade: 27.5”
Length, grip: 3.75”
Width at cross: 2.25”
Width at PoP: 1.25”
Point of Balance: 2.5” from cross
Point of Percussion: ~17” from cross
Oakeshott Typology:
Blade: Type XVIII
A broad blade (2”–2½” at the hilt) of four-sided “flattened diamond” section; the edges taper in graceful curves to a sharp point. The grip is of moderate length (3¾”–4”) ...
In XV, the edges run quite straight to the acute point, giving a very narrow appearance to the lower part of the blade. In XVIII, the edges run in curves, and the lower part of the blade looks broader. The type is, in fact, admirably adapted for a cut-and-thrust style of fighting, and seems to be a logical development of Type XVI. The strong midrib gives great rigidity, yet toward the point at the centre of percussion there is plenty of width to each edge. The section varies, the four faces may be quite flat, but more usually they are gently hollowed; in later examples the sharp upstanding rib rising from a flat blade is found (fig. 105). Some XVIII's which have been much used and often sharpened are impossible to distinguish from XV's... (Oakeshott pp. 67-69).
Pommel: Type J1
This is an elaborated form of the classic wheel pommel. Its best exemplar is a sword of Type XVIII preserved in the library of the Abbey of Westminster, a most beautiful weapon which is associated with the name of King Henry V (fig. 75). This is no mere funerary object, but a magnificent fighting sword (bearing upon its still sharp edges much indication of use) which comes to life in one's hand. The pommel is very massive, but its weight is kept down because only the central thick disc is of solid iron; the raised rims are beaten out of thin iron and brazed on to the main part of the pommel (id. pp. 103-104).
Cross: Style 9
Akin to 7 in that it is ribbon-like in section, but the resemblance ends there. The ends are always rolled over, in section it is either flat on top and V-shaped underneath or of flat diamond section, and the ecusson grows naturally to a cusp from the slight taper of the arms (id. pp. 117).
Handling Characteristics:
Oakeshott said of Henry V’s sword: “This is no mere funerary object, but a magnificent fighting sword (bearing upon its still sharp edges much indication of use) which comes to life in one's hand” (id. p. 103).
The thing you notice first when taking up this reproduction by Arms and Armor is the nimble quickness it exhibits. The blade is extremely well balanced, making the sword feel lighter than it actually is. The proximity of the Point of Balance (“PoB”) to the cross makes the sword very fast and reactive in the hand, with less “blade presence” than swords having the PoB farther from the cross. In spite of this, the overall heft of the sword gives it a feeling of authority in use—it is no mere willow wand, and it cuts with quick authority.
Oakeshott said Type XVIII swords were “admirably adapted for a cut-and-thrust style of fighting” (id. p. 67), and this modern recreation demonstrates that admirably. The nimbleness mentioned above, combined with the relative shortness of the blade (bringing the point closer to the hand), the stiffness of the diamond-shaped blade, and the wickedly acute shape of the point combine to create a superb thrusting sword. It balances so well in one’s hand that point control is effortless. At the same time, the Type XVIII design brings more of the “meat” of the blade forward than in swords designed primarily for thrusting, such as the Type XV’s they otherwise so closely resemble. This makes for a highly efficient cutting weapon. While it is a mistake to think of sword typologies as developing in some linear fashion along a path from one purpose to another, Oakeshott himself called this a development of the Type XVI (id. p. 68), which was, in turn, a development of the Type XV intended to improve cutting ability while still thrusting well.
Another factor to consider is the effect the shape of the blade has on thrusting attacks. Some people look at early swords with very broad points and mistakenly assume they aren’t intended for thrusting, but, in reality, this is incorrect, they are simply intended for thrusting against entirely unarmored targets. Having a wider point means the thrust does more damage, but the shape of the points on later swords need to balance that objective against the need (or potential need) to thrust into small gapes in armor, or even into mail links.
We can understand this question of point shape by looking at arrows. Arrows do not have any percussive effect—they kill entirely by cutting action in the target, with almost none of the hydrostatic shock upon which bullets rely. Thus, hunting points tend to be extremely broad to maximize the amount of cutting damage the arrow does, while war points tend to be extremely narrow so they can pass between plates (arrows, like swords, can almost never penetrate plate, popular ignorance notwithstanding) or punch through links of mail. That way armor offers a second kind of defense beyond merely helping to stop most attacks: It forces your opponent to use a weapon which does less damage when it does penetrate.
Sword thrusts are exactly like arrow strikes in terms of damage. The wider the point, the more damage a thrust will do; the narrower the point, the better the weapon is against armored opponents. Type XV swords were developed during the Age of the Transition when armor was becoming more complete and protective. The initial approach to better armor was to use large “Swords of War” of the Type XIII sort, but these swords proved unsatisfactory, and the Type XV was the result. With their extremely narrow points, they were superb at thrusting between plates and breaking links of mail underneath.
Unfortunately, dedicated thrusting swords such as the Type XV’s are not quite as efficient for cutting when fighting unarmored opponents. This led to the development of the Type XVI, with blades which transitioned more gradually to the point, leaving more “meat” further forward on the blade for better cutting while still retaining an excellent narrow point. The Type XVIII is a further development of the Type XVI, where the fuller near the cross is eliminated to make the sword even more stiff for thrusting. It is usually a mistake to imagine a linear development of sword types, but in this case Oakeshott makes this particular line of development clear (id. p. 68).
In a sense, the Type XVIII is a compromise design. It is neither as perfectly suited for thrusting as the Type XV, nor as well suited to cutting as is the Type X; rather, it combines the two designs for a more balanced ideal, a true cut and thrust sword optimized for both cutting and thrusting in armor or out of it. Arms and Armor has captured that balanced ideal very well in this reproduction, making a sword which, as Oakeshott said of the original, “comes to life in one’s hand.”
Fit and Finish:
Arms and Armor is well known for their craftsmanship and for being among the best of the production sword manufacturers, and their Henry V sword supports that reputation. The sword is extremely well made. The shapes are consistent and even, with no “off” or crooked lines. The decorative lines filed onto the cross are neat and well executed, and they align aesthetically with the edges of the blade. The cross and pommel are fit to the blade extremely well, with correct alignment and no significant gaps. The blade, cross, grip, and pommel are absolutely solid and rigid, with no wobble or movement at all, even when tapped against solid object. The polish is generally clean and smooth, taken to a satin finish which is excellent for this kind of reproduction. The inside of the pommel cutout is not polished, but it is fairly clean with only a little roughness (and is intended to be filled with some token or symbol anyway).
The grip is covered in leather which is stitched heavily along one side. The leather fits the hilt reasonably well, with only a slight bunching against the cross, and the fit is very tight and firm. The grip is the only place where the Arms and Armor sword falls slightly short in comparison with other high-end manufacturers. The seam is extremely thick and obtrusive, making it slightly uncomfortable to hold the seam side against one’s palm because of the bulk. The smooth wrap is also less aesthetically appealing than the string-wrapped technique often present on other high-end replicas (although that technique is not universal on real swords, by any means). It should be emphasized that this is a minor point, and represents a personal preference as much as an objective criticism.
Compromises:
While the Henry V sword is an extremely good sword which captures the essence of the originally very well (and far, far better than most other reproductions), it is not a perfect copy. Arms and Armor made several decisions with regard to the manufacture of this replica in order to make the sword more readily affordable. We will consider the three most obvious ones here.
First, the original sword’s pommel is not a solid casting. The raised lip on the original is hammered out of thin sheet iron and then brazed into place in order to reduce the overall weight while still presenting a large, solid wheel (id. p. 103). The Arms and Armor pommel is cast from one piece of steel, a process far less expensive than hammering out a hollow fitting and then brazing it into place, a process Oakeshott says was used in others of the type in period (id.), and so hardly worthy of criticism.
Second, on the original, the tang is riveted directly to the pommel, whereas on the reproduction there is a peening block between the pommel proper and the end of the tang. It is not clear why Arms and Armor chose to do this, unless it is to reduce hammer marks (or the effort of polishing them away) on the pommel from the peening process. Regardless, this difference is utterly inconsequential, and, in fact, the modern result is, if anything, more aesthetically pleasing.
The third difference, the blade grinding, is much more problematic, although ultimately justifiable. Of the Type XVIII blade design, Oakeshott wrote “the four faces may be quite flat, but more usually they are gently hollowed” (id. p. 68), and the hollow grind is pronounced on the original blade in Westminster Abbey. Arms and Armor offers their Henry V reproduction both with and without the hollow-ground blade, but the example being reviewed here is not hollow ground.
The hollow-ground version weighs 2.3 pounds, compared with 2.7 pounds for this version, a significant difference. However, the hollow-ground blade costs approximately $600.00 more, making flat-ground version far more affordable. Moreover, the handling of the flat-ground version is superb as it is and does not suffer enough to make this approach unacceptable, especially given that Oakeshott pointed out that not all Type XVIII’s were hollow ground. Indeed, one might ask whether the heavier solid pommel of the reproduction might not make the flat ground version handle more like the original by giving it a better balance than the hollow-ground reproduction with the same pommel has.
This decision to offer the sword with a flat-ground blade is not a failure of quality or scholarship, but rather a conscious choice intended to offer a more affordable reproduction, and it is perfectly reasonable. If this sword were as clunky or unbalanced as most other efforts at reproducing Henry V’s sword are this choice might be questionable, but given how this blade feels in the hand, Arms and Armor deserves no criticism for this choice.
Conclusion:
The Henry V reproduction by Arms and Armor is a superb recreation of a true fighting sword which perfectly typifies the qualities of the original. It is quick and nimble with excellent balance, has superb fit and finish, and is quite reasonably priced. It is reasonably accurate in terms of design, and where it differs from the original it does so not from error but from a conscious effort to make a less expensive but still eminently functional sword. This reproduction is superb, and should be considered by anyone interested in arming swords of the Fifteenth Century.
Here is a video adjunct to this review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpsa83Xv85s
Reference cited:
Oakeshott, E. The Sword in the Age of Chivalry. Arms and Armour Press, 1981.
