Gents , what's the opinion of these historically- a famers weapon/self defence implement or more machete type tool?

Also any thoughts on Lutels example for accuracy and build quality?

http://www.lutel-handicraft.com/?p=productsMo...tusk-11016

Thanks for the reply Mike, very interesting. Since posting I have learnt these represent a bit of a grey area. There are some references to similar blades maybe in use by peasants, comparisons to flax knives etc. Also another more extensive debate on whether steel dussacks existed outside of training/competition, and what should be called a dussack anyway. All covered on these forums previously by the looks, I should have done a search.

On another tangent I'd be interested in knowing what you swords users think of the martial characteristics of this blade form.

Similar to a hanger, good for slashing/chopping, straight enough for the thrust still?

Would that handle/tang setup make any difference to balance and grips?

Dear Michael,
Indeed these weapons seem to be, from a historical point of view, problematic. These "Czech dussacks" (as they´re generally known) are quite popular among re-enactors (esp. for 16th, and early part of 17th century), but that´s hardly supported by historical sources. As far as I know, only few examples were really found, and you can´t really see them in period artwork (if you exclude those obviously training tools you could find in Meyer, etc.)
As for handling characteristics, when I was using it (in my earlier, less-informed re-enactor times:)), I used it for some messer or dussack techniques. That means both cutting and thrusting. The only difference is that it does not provide a good hand protection, so you cannot really do safely techniques when you´re blocking the opponent´s blade with a flat of your forte.

I've seen many discussions on Czech forums about these tusacks and it seems that they may have evolved from training weapons. They were used by townsfolk and other classes that could not afford a sword. I've heard that the oldest tusack of this type ever found in CZ is dated to 1st half of the 16th century. Unfortunately, i can't back those words up.

What i can tell with certainty is that the fighting style is much different from the sword school. It focuses on hurting opponent's forearm and slashing his face. Very nasty.

Thanks for the informative replies gents . So with a somewhat gap in the evidence where did the theories most likely come from for these?- word of mouth/tradition from the regions , 19th century antiquarians, 20th century re-enactors?

Just thinking also about whether one of these 'deserved' to evolve from a non-training background, the peasants machete/sword theory seems to make sense as they would be an easy blacksmithing option. Does an inexpensive one piece short sabre blade with d-guard have merit basically?

[quote="Mike Ruhala"]

Radovan Geist wrote:

Michael Brudon wrote: Thanks for the informative replies gents . So with a somewhat gap in the evidence where did the theories most likely come from for these?- word of mouth/tradition from the regions , 19th century antiquarians, 20th century re-enactors? Which myths? If you mean the scutching knife theory AFAIK that's a 21st century obfuscation traceable to Paul McDonald but perpetuated by many due to flawed conceptions of what Meyer's fencing treatises represented.

Who said myths?

Dunno! My mind must have conflated "theories" and "mouth," was a bit distracted making chili. :)

Hi Mike, you are right about blocking with flat. What I meant was letting your opponent´s blade slide (after the parry) down the flat to the nagel, having it blocked there, and working from there. Sorry for not making myself clearer.

Ah, okay. Without a nagel you do have to be more careful about keeping your edge turned against your opponent's weapon at all times, it works but I like having the nagel/side ring/etc too.

Similar thread from the past, lots of info.
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=137243