The tomb effigy of a French crusader from the thirteenth century preserves a surprising secret: a carved copy of a Chinese sword which belonged to the knight. The question of how a Chinese sword ended up on the tomb has fascinated scholars for decades. It is a story that speaks to the influence of global travel, crusading warfare, trade and plunder, inviting us to reconsider the Middle Ages as more globally connected than often imagined.
By Thomas Smith
In New York, a magnificent limestone effigy of a thirteenth-century knight, currently rests in The Cloisters Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. This is a medieval knight out of place, transposed from his original resting place in France after the destruction of the Revolution and preserved across the globe, in a place far from home. The posthumous relocation of the tomb monument in 1925 speaks to the explosion in global travel, trade, and collecting at that time; but these were also forces the knight knew well when he was alive in the thirteenth century. For the d’Aluye tomb effigy hides a secret of a medieval traveller, crusader, and collector whose stride spanned continents and cultures.
At first glance, the impressive stone tomb slab shows a typical European knight of the period 1240–1270. He is recumbent with hands clasped across his chest in prayer. His head rests on a pillow, his feet on a small lion, as was typical in contemporary tomb architecture. His haircut was fashionable for the time: mid-length locks flow down the side of a youthful face; his fringe is cut short in a style not unlike that of Matt Damon’s character in The Last Duel (whose mullet was designed to signal a man of action who wanted to keep hair away from his eyes in battle).
The tomb effigy of a knight of the d’Aluye family / The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Cloisters Collection, 1925.
Our knight wears mail from head to toe. The hood (coif) is down, draping over his shoulders. The mail suit is covered in a fabric surcoat drawn tight at the waist by a narrow belt, causing it to drape elegantly around the right leg. A large triangular heater shield is propped against his left leg. Spurs are attached over the mail, signifying his ownership of a warhorse. A wide leather sword-belt hangs below the warrior’s waist, with the strap dangling down. So far, so normal, then – exactly what we would expect to find in a depiction of a western knight from this period.
The dress and equipment of the d’Aluye knight / The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Cloisters Collection, 1925.
What is attached to the sword-belt, though, is very special. The typical European sword that we would expect to find on such a tomb has a broad blade, a straight cross-guard, and a disk or oval pommel. But the d’Aluye knight has a short, downward-sloping cross-guard with upturned ends known as finials. Rather than the usual round pommel, this weapon has a scalloped trefoil terminal – that is, three rounded lobes similar in shape to a fleur-de-lis. Even the wrapping on the grip is different from the western norm. Instead of the usual simple reinforcing binding, the d’Aluye sword has thick straps woven in an intricate double-looping pattern. There is something very different about the style of this sword, then, which seems out of place with the rest of the knight’s equipment.
The sword on the d’Aluye tomb; note, in particular, the style of the pommel, wrapping, and cross-guard / The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, The Cloisters Collection, 1925.
The sword is clearly not western and poses the question of where the knight acquired it. We know that the effigy represents a knight of the crusading d’Aluye family. Three generations of their men made the journey to the Holy Land to fight in the crusades. The tomb slab was constructed between 1248 and 1267, which narrows the subject down to two of the three generations, though scholars remain uncertain about whether the knight in question is Jean II d’Aluye or his son Hugues VI. A textual record notes that both were buried at the Cistercian abbey of La Clarté-Dieu in the Loire Valley in this period with monuments depicting the deceased knights in mail with swords and shields. In 1241, Jean set out on crusade to the Holy Land, bringing back with him a piece of the True Cross. In 1248, his son, Hugues, subsequently joined the Seventh Crusade to Egypt, led by King Louis IX of France.
In joining the crusades, they were following in the footsteps of their forefather, Hugues V, who had also set out for the East in 1180 to seek penance for his crimes against a local priory (the artistic style of the tomb places it firmly in the middle years of the thirteenth century and means that it is too late to be the tomb of the original crusader, Hugues V). This was a family with a long-established heritage of crusading in the Near East and with what we might today term ‘transnational’ reach. The d’Aluye family was moving in circles of nobility which were accustomed to close contact with other cultures. This family history explains the origins of the d’Aluye sword: it must have come, in some way, from the crusades.
It would be a reasonable – albeit incorrect – first assumption to guess that the object might have come from the Islamic world, but its design does not match those of Islamic swords. Instead, artistic and archaeological analyses match the d’Aluye weapon to swords from medieval China, which were characterised by the same trefoil pommels and short downward-sloping cross-guards. The identification of the object as a Chinese sword invites us to consider how the d’Aluye crusader acquired it. The activities of Jean II and Hugues VI place them on and around the battlefields and markets of the Near East, where long-range trade routes from East and West intersected.
The sword must have made its way along the Silk Road from China to the Middle East, perhaps travelling from East to West as a sidearm carried by a Mongol soldier on campaign, or else as luxury trade good. Once it entered the Middle Eastern market, three possibilities could explain how the d’Aluye crusader took possession of it. The first explanation is that he purchased it on the Middle Eastern market. The second is that he was gifted it while in the region. The third explanation is that he plundered it from a battlefield as a war trophy. Unfortunately, there are no documents to prove exactly how and where it was acquired, but all three possibilities present a fascinating picture of European knights navigating cultures and networks of global trade where luxury goods from far away were highly valued.
That the d’Aluye knight chose to be depicted in death wearing his Chinese sword tells us a considerable amount about his interests. On his tomb, the carving of the sword functioned as a status symbol. It communicated to all who saw it that this was a man who was a traveller, a pilgrim, and a warrior with international reach. It was a physical reminder of the completion of his crusading vow and of the contribution of his family to holy war.
And it also gives us a more intimate insight into the knight’s life. The sword must have been one of his most treasured possessions; certainly, it was given a prominent place on his tomb. We might imagine this French knight riding around his homeland with this exotic weapon on his sword-belt or displaying it in a special place at home. Did he ever use the sword in battle, or was it purely for decoration and display? What did others think of this special weapon? Did he enjoy showing it to acquaintances while regaling them with stories of his crusading deeds? And what happened to the sword when he died? It may have been passed down to his descendants, whence it disappeared.
We will never know what happened to d’Aluye’s Chinese sword. But the copy in stone offers us a tantalising glimpse at the ways in which crusading warfare, long-range trade, and impulses of collection and display overlapped in the thirteenth century. The world of the Middle Ages was more globally connected than is often imagined.
Dr Thomas Smith is Keeper of the Scholars and Head of Oxbridge at Rugby School, where he teaches history, and an Honorary Research Associate at Royal Holloway, University of London. His next book is ‘The Fifth Crusade: A History of the Epic Campaign to Conquer Egypt’ (Yale, forthcoming 2026).
The tomb effigy of a French crusader from the thirteenth century preserves a surprising secret: a carved copy of a Chinese sword which belonged to the knight. The question of how a Chinese sword ended up on the tomb has fascinated scholars for decades. It is a story that speaks to the influence of global travel, crusading warfare, trade and plunder, inviting us to reconsider the Middle Ages as more globally connected than often imagined.
By Thomas Smith
In New York, a magnificent limestone effigy of a thirteenth-century knight, currently rests in The Cloisters Collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art. This is a medieval knight out of place, transposed from his original resting place in France after the destruction of the Revolution and preserved across the globe, in a place far from home. The posthumous relocation of the tomb monument in 1925 speaks to the explosion in global travel, trade, and collecting at that time; but these were also forces the knight knew well when he was alive in the thirteenth century. For the d’Aluye tomb effigy hides a secret of a medieval traveller, crusader, and collector whose stride spanned continents and cultures.
At first glance, the impressive stone tomb slab shows a typical European knight of the period 1240–1270. He is recumbent with hands clasped across his chest in prayer. His head rests on a pillow, his feet on a small lion, as was typical in contemporary tomb architecture. His haircut was fashionable for the time: mid-length locks flow down the side of a youthful face; his fringe is cut short in a style not unlike that of Matt Damon’s character in The Last Duel (whose mullet was designed to signal a man of action who wanted to keep hair away from his eyes in battle).
Our knight wears mail from head to toe. The hood (coif) is down, draping over his shoulders. The mail suit is covered in a fabric surcoat drawn tight at the waist by a narrow belt, causing it to drape elegantly around the right leg. A large triangular heater shield is propped against his left leg. Spurs are attached over the mail, signifying his ownership of a warhorse. A wide leather sword-belt hangs below the warrior’s waist, with the strap dangling down. So far, so normal, then – exactly what we would expect to find in a depiction of a western knight from this period.
What is attached to the sword-belt, though, is very special. The typical European sword that we would expect to find on such a tomb has a broad blade, a straight cross-guard, and a disk or oval pommel. But the d’Aluye knight has a short, downward-sloping cross-guard with upturned ends known as finials. Rather than the usual round pommel, this weapon has a scalloped trefoil terminal – that is, three rounded lobes similar in shape to a fleur-de-lis. Even the wrapping on the grip is different from the western norm. Instead of the usual simple reinforcing binding, the d’Aluye sword has thick straps woven in an intricate double-looping pattern. There is something very different about the style of this sword, then, which seems out of place with the rest of the knight’s equipment.
The sword is clearly not western and poses the question of where the knight acquired it. We know that the effigy represents a knight of the crusading d’Aluye family. Three generations of their men made the journey to the Holy Land to fight in the crusades. The tomb slab was constructed between 1248 and 1267, which narrows the subject down to two of the three generations, though scholars remain uncertain about whether the knight in question is Jean II d’Aluye or his son Hugues VI. A textual record notes that both were buried at the Cistercian abbey of La Clarté-Dieu in the Loire Valley in this period with monuments depicting the deceased knights in mail with swords and shields. In 1241, Jean set out on crusade to the Holy Land, bringing back with him a piece of the True Cross. In 1248, his son, Hugues, subsequently joined the Seventh Crusade to Egypt, led by King Louis IX of France.
In joining the crusades, they were following in the footsteps of their forefather, Hugues V, who had also set out for the East in 1180 to seek penance for his crimes against a local priory (the artistic style of the tomb places it firmly in the middle years of the thirteenth century and means that it is too late to be the tomb of the original crusader, Hugues V). This was a family with a long-established heritage of crusading in the Near East and with what we might today term ‘transnational’ reach. The d’Aluye family was moving in circles of nobility which were accustomed to close contact with other cultures. This family history explains the origins of the d’Aluye sword: it must have come, in some way, from the crusades.
It would be a reasonable – albeit incorrect – first assumption to guess that the object might have come from the Islamic world, but its design does not match those of Islamic swords. Instead, artistic and archaeological analyses match the d’Aluye weapon to swords from medieval China, which were characterised by the same trefoil pommels and short downward-sloping cross-guards. The identification of the object as a Chinese sword invites us to consider how the d’Aluye crusader acquired it. The activities of Jean II and Hugues VI place them on and around the battlefields and markets of the Near East, where long-range trade routes from East and West intersected.
The sword must have made its way along the Silk Road from China to the Middle East, perhaps travelling from East to West as a sidearm carried by a Mongol soldier on campaign, or else as luxury trade good. Once it entered the Middle Eastern market, three possibilities could explain how the d’Aluye crusader took possession of it. The first explanation is that he purchased it on the Middle Eastern market. The second is that he was gifted it while in the region. The third explanation is that he plundered it from a battlefield as a war trophy. Unfortunately, there are no documents to prove exactly how and where it was acquired, but all three possibilities present a fascinating picture of European knights navigating cultures and networks of global trade where luxury goods from far away were highly valued.
That the d’Aluye knight chose to be depicted in death wearing his Chinese sword tells us a considerable amount about his interests. On his tomb, the carving of the sword functioned as a status symbol. It communicated to all who saw it that this was a man who was a traveller, a pilgrim, and a warrior with international reach. It was a physical reminder of the completion of his crusading vow and of the contribution of his family to holy war.
And it also gives us a more intimate insight into the knight’s life. The sword must have been one of his most treasured possessions; certainly, it was given a prominent place on his tomb. We might imagine this French knight riding around his homeland with this exotic weapon on his sword-belt or displaying it in a special place at home. Did he ever use the sword in battle, or was it purely for decoration and display? What did others think of this special weapon? Did he enjoy showing it to acquaintances while regaling them with stories of his crusading deeds? And what happened to the sword when he died? It may have been passed down to his descendants, whence it disappeared.
We will never know what happened to d’Aluye’s Chinese sword. But the copy in stone offers us a tantalising glimpse at the ways in which crusading warfare, long-range trade, and impulses of collection and display overlapped in the thirteenth century. The world of the Middle Ages was more globally connected than is often imagined.
Dr Thomas Smith is Keeper of the Scholars and Head of Oxbridge at Rugby School, where he teaches history, and an Honorary Research Associate at Royal Holloway, University of London. His next book is ‘The Fifth Crusade: A History of the Epic Campaign to Conquer Egypt’ (Yale, forthcoming 2026).
Further Reading:
The Met, ‘A Knight of the d’Aluye Family’: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/470599
Barbara Drake Boehm, ‘A Knight of the d’Aluye Family’, in Jerusalem, 1000–1400: Every People under Heaven, ed. Barbara Drake Boehm and Melanie Holcomb (The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York/Yale University Press, 2016), no. 108, p. 211: https://www.metmuseum.org/met-publications/jerusalem-1000-1400-every-people-under-heaven
Helmut Nickel, ‘A Crusader’s Sword: Concerning the Effigy of Jean d’Alluye’, Metropolitan Museum of Art Journal, 26 (1991), 123-8: https://www.metmuseum.org/met-publications/a-crusaders-sword-the-metropolitan-museum-journal-v-26-1991
Top Image: Photo by Qabluna / Flickr
Subscribe to Medievalverse
Related Posts