I'm open to the idea that a peen block can make a sword a little easier to take down and re-assemble because that's self-evident but here's the thing... we know older blades were used on newer hilts but I've not seen the opposite. A Sword's blade can potentially wear out very quickly with combat use while the hilt remains perfectly serviceable but we don't have many examples of old hilts mounted with new blades which is what you'd expect if the peen block was there to serve a sacrificial role so the pommel could be preserved. Instead what we see is the styling of hilts getting updated at least as often as every few decades. Come to think of it where do we get the term "peen block" from anyway? It sounds modern and I've not seen it used in any historical source I can recall.

As for why a "peen block" may have been used instead of always making a functionally shaped pommel I'd argue that all pommels are functionally shaped. Smash somebody in the face with a simple type G disk pommel and it's going to have the desired effect. Some people seem to have preferred a little spike on their pommel, others didn't. Since we know sword components were mass produced it was probably simply more economic to add a peen block to the sword of somebody who wanted a spike on his pommel than to stock two versions of essentially the same pommel.

Hi Mike,

I have been guilty of breaking the first rule of internet forum discussions: never neglect to mention a favourite aspect of the topic at hand, even if it is not the main focus of the discussion at hand.
In this case the caving in of skulls and smashing of faces with the rivet button (or simply button. It was really very sloppy of me to call it rivet block, but it is an apt name. Even if I cannot quote any sources for this name, I have a strong feeling I am not the first one to name it thusly)
:-)

Of course the tingomabob at the top of the pommel is perfectly suited to deal extra damage. I have myself rejoiced in describing this important tactical feature many times in the past!

However, it still remains a thing that is sometimes added or not added to the overall shape of the sword. During some periods it is more or less completely absent, during other periods it is nearly always part of the sword even if it is a separate litre nut that is added, almost as if on an afterthought. You will find sword families that nearly all lack this little crowning pearl of a thing, and other sword families where nearly all members are nut jobs.
If you ever get to make a sword yourself, you will experience how the rivet button does make peening the tang easier. But it was obviously not so important that it was always added. And it takes extra time to make one after all.
Likewise it seems that a pommel is quite capable of caving in skulls even without this extra extension, otherwise you would expect it to be a more common feature, perhaps.

Peen block is a modern term, I should guess. So is Skull crusher.
We will have to look for terms in latin or medieval french or german to learn what it was called back in the day. I expect there were several terms used to describe it.
-Tollere Calvaniam?
-Faciem Feri?
-Caput Ictus?
-Caput Fragor?
-Parvum Pomum?
-Cybus Clavus?
The nomenclature of swords tends to be complex and confusing.

Mike, you mention how we find older blades on newer hilts, but not newer blades on older hilts. That is mostly correct. Except in the case of rapiers of course, where a nice hilt could be given a new blade if the old one broke...
If you get to take a closer look at dismounted rapiers (both hilts and blades) and unmounted rapier blades you will appreciate the role of the rivet button (and yes, this is the accepted term for the thingamabob in this context) as a facilitating detail for the cutler. The rivet button also becomes almost a standard feature in this period (even if still commonly a separate little piece), when blades and hilts increasingly were separate products and when you could expect the mounting and dismounting to have been a more common procedure in the working life of the weapon. Or perhaps the caving in of skulls and smashing of faces also became really, *really* popular in this time period?

Mike you say that you are open to the idea that the thingamabob at the top of the pommel makes the life of the sword cutler a little easier (and also that this aspect is self evident) but you keep pressing the tactical importance of the thingamabob as its most important aspect. To me it seems that it is a personal favourite thing for you and that you prefer to see functional explanations over practical ones. But I may be mistaken.
In my view, many, if not most aspect of swords fulfil many roles at the same time. I did let myself down when I suggested otherwise in this case. It is just that my experience as wordsmith sometimes takes control of the mind office. Especially when I discuss swords from a sword makers perspective. In the heat of the moment I sometimes forget to put forward important tactical roles of various parts of the sword.

If you can forgive my misstep in neglecting to point to the skull crushing nature of the rivet button (or pommelthingomabob), perhaps we can agree that it is not a natural integral part of the design of all swords? That it can be added or not added and therefore lies outside the basic form of the sword? I hope that that much comes across in my post, even if it was woefully incomplete and sloppy in how I presented the concept?
;-)

To be complete, I guess I should point out that there are some late medieval pommel types that have the rivet button/thingomabob made integral to the form of the pommel. In those cases it should naturally be considered part of the design. I am still on the fence wether it should be considered part or not for type U pommels: the so called Key shaped pommel, (or may I suggest the "thingamabob shaped pommel" or the "Tyrolean nut cracker pommel"?)
When you look at originals of this type you can see how the tang button/rivet block/pommel nut/skull crusher/nose bleeder is sometimes integral to the pommel and sometimes shaped separately.
We can have a whole separate discussion thread about the reasons and functions therefore and thereof. :-)
Perhaps the integral ones are examples that were never dismounted and the ones with separate ones are swords than had the original thingamabob filed down and then replaced with a new tactical skull crushing feature?

Hmmm?

Mike,

With rapiers we have a situation where many today are not mounted with their original blades.
I also have a suspicion that hilts may more often have been designed as a separate thing from the blade during this period. -Less a complete wholeness of things as was the case with high medieval swords.

However, I do find rapiers conforming to geometric structures in many cases. Again, it seems to be Italian weapons that do not as readily follow this rule. I post again an image showing two rapiers following similar geometries that was posted by me earlier on in this thread.
I have several more that are as of yet unpublished (hoping to do so in the future).
The geometry of rapier(-hilts) tend to be more complex tun that of simple cruciform swords. There are more parts involved... Therefore the geometry is by itself not as convincing. However, if you look closer you will see that it is the same strategies used for medieval cruciform swords, but repeated to define the greater number of elements.

The one written support I have for the use of geometry in the design of swords come from the year 1633 in the play "The Weeding of Covent Garden" by Richard Brome, where "the Father" tells "his Son" to get himself a proper sword (instead of the sorry excuse of a weapon he now as), saying: "buy you a good one, one with the mathematical hilt, as they term it."

This may be a late trace of a very old tradition....

---

 Attachment: 32.38 KB

Peter, Mark, gentlemen,

As I had suspected, I was submerged by work and travel until this morning and was forced to put this thread aside for a few weeks. I've just caught up with the very interesting concluding discussions.

Just a quick thank you to Peter, and indeed to all of you, for your continued generosity in sharing your time, thoughts and experience, and for your ever friendly and respectful manner. They are greatly appreciated!

Looking forward to new adventures soon.

Kind regards and a lovely winter's end to all!

Well, thanks to YOU, Anthony! Actually that was your step by step tutorial that made me take my ruler and compass to do some drawings. Before that I was just looking at all the interlaced geometric figures, trying to understand something.

Now I think I have a far better comprehension of the thing, and I draw swords every week. And I'm seriously thinking about ordering swords fully designed by me for me, and not "just" museum replicas. This is a major step forward.

Donc, merci beaucoup, et très bonne continuation !

(Incidentally, I'm impatient to see your Black Armoury Rapier/Sidesword jacket...)

Hey guys... Is this my first post? I think it might be!
I'm a great fan of the geometric theory behind sword designs and also the graphing of dynamic handling in another 'parallel' thread, watching with great interest!

I just wanted to ask, what program are you all using to draw the geometry?

I have past experience modelling in Solidworks, whose sketch function would allow something very controlled but it's massive overkill.

I have less experience with pure vector graphics, so I'm sure there is a simpler tool, but I can't seem to find something which allows the correct degree of control over the shapes and lines.

Okay, I think I've got Inkscape under control enough... I have a submission for A457!

I went for the simplest shapes I could find. I'm spotting weaknesses in my interpretation already, but I'm going to call it done.

Blade/hilt divison 1:7 of the small circles
Blade width is 1/5th of the large circle
Guard width is *almost kind of, if you squint* a square inscribed in the large circle
Guard thickness comes from a pentagon inscribed in the second small circle
Centre of the pommel circle is the apex of equilateral triangle built from the lower guard line (this step I think is weak, being a "second-degree construction"?).
The radius of the pommel intersects the diagonal arcs of the large square, and the first small circle.

---

 Attachment: 116.69 KB
[ Download ]