Over a faily long period, fos as far I can figure out, from the 3th c. to the advent of the rapier the estoc seems to have been used by cavalry. Also named tuck, panzerstecher.
The polish noblemen husars seem to have used one-handed blades from 130 to 160 centimeter!! (up to 63 inches)
A 13the century quote given by Oakeshott in which the knight first explains about the difficulty of unsheething the thing and then how he runs through his opponent using is as a lance. Surely a long estoc....

However, I have so far found only 1 reproduction and that is only 42 inches. Who knows why and if more replicas exist?

Peter

Peter,
Michal Dabek, a polish armorer now in Canada, once made panzerstecher along with all the other accoutrements for a polish winged hussar... he's now out of the medieval arms business, but you could always try.. his phone number used to be 450-834-8493, and his home address 6871 Rawdon park boulevard, Rawdon, Quebec J0K 1S0... his stuff was impeccable, but he decided he was making better money working for designers who needed quality metalwork for
restaurants, clubs and goddamn condos.... ( do I sound bitter?.... our loss was their gain) , but being Polish, he did have a
weakness for his own national stuff, so a Panzerstuchen might get the creative juices flowing.
As usual I have no pictures, but the one I handled was like a very long four sided nail, about four feet in length, and the hilt was much like a standard D shaped hanger or saber hilt, to be held one handed while the other hand would clutch the unsharpened square blade, much like using a broken or shortened spear. Michal explained to me that this would be used in armored melés, after the hussar had broken his lance on the first charge, as a cavalry vs cavalry weapon. The hussar would eventually revert to the use of his saber as a last resort, or when running down infantry.
Good luck.
Jean-Carle

Thank you, I can get forward now. The MRL is good enough for me as it will be bashed not displayed.

Yes Jean-Carl that sounds about as I understood its use too. From the 13th century on knights appear to have (occasionally?) had one hanging from their saddle-bow under the left knee.
Is was used after the lance and they had the knighly broadsword, later sabre, for close combat.
Oakeshott gives a quote about ths from a battle from 1250.
Untill the 16 th century it had a narrow four-sided blade but later develloped into hat you accurately describe as a long nail which was in Poland colled the Koncerz.

Thanks again and I wil chase the links given!

Peter

The MRL estoc does come with the typical leather MRL scabbard--steel locket & chape, no suspension rings or other means of attachment. Mine holds the weapon tightly. If you want to wear the scabbard, you'll need to make a suspension system.

I don't know about suspending a bare 4' long needle from from a saddle in combat--sounds a wee bit hazardous. I can't imagine why these wouldn't have had scabbards, even if the scabbards were suspended from the saddle.

I've seen only one contemporary 16th c. image of what looks like an estoc. It's worn by a German horseman in full (or maybe 3/4) plate. The weapon is in a scabbard suspended from a typical sword belt of the period. It's carried like a longsword, basically. If you want to make a scabbard for this relatively plain weapon, think of the German longsword scabbards depicted by Dürer.

See this thread with an estoc made by PJ. We were talking here about details of estocs (second page).

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=7292

If you want to know more about what kind of scabbard is appropriate these weapons, you should ask PJ. I'd be very interested to know more, too.

By the way, the MRL piece is a little over .25" at its thickest. That's much thicker than most MRL blades, but not as thick as many (most?) historical estocs. PJ's is twice that thickness, for example. Hank R., owner of the original on which the MRL piece is based, noted that the orginal's blade is thicker. The repro is not as stiff as an original would be and will handle differently due to the reduced mass of the blade, but for display or living history purposes it's a nice piece with historically appropriate basic dimensions and design. A simple upgrading of hilt and finish could make a very attractive weapon....

Well Sean, I have no problem attaching suspension attachements so will solve that quickly enough.

I see no problem with carrying a sword suspended on the pommel. The advantage of attaching it to the saddle is that you can prevent it from flopping about. adding a lower fixing point would make it easier to draw too and considering the lenght might be needed.
With a broadsword the disadvantage of this would be that the knight would be left without his sword if he took a tumble.
I guess the most flexible way to be armed was to carry a bow-and-arrows, lance, estoc, bashing instrument and broadsword in their order of use.

The bow-and-arrow is one of those things also rarely depicted but in Frankish battle instructions these are specified as obligatory equipment for the knights just like two swords and a lance.
King Duarte even mentions javelin too as an option instead of a lance.

Peter

I also think it would make sense to suspend the estoc from the saddle (works with pistols and rifles and the "Patton" sword). I'm just not sure about suspending a bare sword, which I seem to recall reading somewhere. Having said that, it would be easy enough to do--simply stitch a steel ring to the saddle. But he tips of these weapons are acute, and I'd hate to be around a bare estoc blade attached to a horse :eek: It would be unpleasant enough to have a horse fall on you or simply rear next to you...now add a .5" thick steel spike..... :eek: Maybe that was the least of a man's concerns on the 16th c. battlefield.

Maybe Gordon Frye will chime in here. He's great for information about the mixture of horse and period arms.

If one looks at 16th century illustrations, it appears that it was not uncommon common for cavalrymen to carry bare swords, in ring suspensions.
Basically, this makes them easier to draw, as there is no scabard, and you can pull the sword at any angle you chose. Since you are on horseback, bouncing isn't such a huge problem, and the estochs are not the keenest of swords, so no problem there.
Most likely, the swords had regular scabbards for day to day wear and transport, which where left behind in the camp.

A cavalryman would also commonly bring two swords; the saddle sword, usually a large type, and a regular, onehanded sword in the belt, for festive occasions.

From Gordon's "Lance to pistol" article
[ Linked Image ]

Note the bare longswords, and backup katzbalgers

Now just have a good look at the gravure.
This guy has the equivalent of bow, lance-estoc by his musket and pistols... Just think of it that these things were for these riders single-shot only and he would have to drop them and go to the next one. That is why he carried up to five pistols. Expensive!
Fairly obvious too why riding would change rapidly and vastly only a short distance into the future. The Napoleontic wars were on the other side of this change.

Peter

The History Channel here in the U.S. used to show a program called Arms In Action, with demonstrations and commentary by the Royal Armoury at Leeds. The Sword program in that series showed a professionaly re-enacted sequence of attacks with various cavalry swords and sabers. The sequence showing the early 20th c. English cavalry sword (thrust only) was of special interest to us in this discussion. The cavalryman charged the target (meant to be a standing man) and pierced it through-and-through with his sword. The impact of the attack spun the target toward the horse, allowing the cavalryman (or, actually, the momentum of the horse) to withdraw the blade. The cavalryman simply trailed his arm as he passed the target. So, you wouldn't necessarily lose your estoc in an attack.

Based on the Arms In Action demonstration, I'm thinking that it would also make a huge difference how stiffly you hold your arm and how you hold your arm relative to the shaft/blade. Holding a spear underhand but with a stiff arm and the shaft agains the arm would approximate what the AIA horseman was doing with the late cav. sword. The narrator made a point of the fact that the grip of this sword was designed to position the arm correctly and that the arm must be held stiffly and in line with the point. This can be done with that particular sword design, but a sword held in a hammer grip is difficult to keep in a perfectly straight line with the arm. So, the use/recovery of the estoc might be quite different. Anybody willing to break an arm for science? :D

Sean,
the panzerstuchen I handled did resemble an oversized nail, but the weight of the thing made it an improbable weapon to use one handed. Also the unsharpened nature of the square basically renders the use of a scabbard redundant for protection against the cut, there's no cut to it, but Dabek had made a scabbard nevertheless. He was quite insistant upon the aesthetics of weapons. In a two handed grip, one on the hilt, the other on the steel, like a shortened spear, this weapon would be effective in a horseman vs horseman melee, but not much use in running down infantry as it is much too long and heavy to be used in the manner described for later cavalry straight sabers. I have a russian circa 1841 straight bladed cuirassier saber, and it's a heavy thing, but still significantly easier to wield than the panzerstuchen. I can imagine a competent horseman executing the manoeuver you describe with the cuirassier sabre, but not with the panzerstuchen which would wreck havoc on the rider's wrist articulation. I just can't see that particular weapon being used efficiently one handed.
Now I also have a nice 1907 white russian dragoon sabre, with the curve you want to properly ride down infantry in clean slashing movements. This weapon is of the same type as used by the Polish Hussars, which brings me back to the lance for the first charge, the panzerstuchen for the cavalry melee where you need something with some ''punch'' to it ( yeah, I know, bad pun, but good description of its' use) and finally the ever trusty curved saber for slashing away at broken (one hopes!) infantrymen scurrying from the battlefield ( until someone masters the square with alternating firing lines).
I know that by using the image of a nail some might think that this is a light object, but it starts out as thick as an average man's thumb, then tapers gradually, and there is no flex in it whatsoever. A very heavy thing to consider using with only one hand.
Cheers,
Jean-Carle