Greetings all,
During the negotiations for my purchase of his MRL brass hilted rondel dagger, Chad Arnow expressed some discontent at the length of the hilt on that piece. He felt that it was too long to represent a typical period example. I countered that while it's true that extant pieces don't typically feature such long grips, that there was evidence in fighting manuscripts that show them.
It turns out that this is a common thing in treatises featuring illustrated dagger fighting. In a number of cases, from what I've seen at least, the grip is generally (albeit, not with 100% consistency) depicted as extending away from the hand by 1/4 to 1/2 hand width.
Manuscripts including this feature are:
3 Copies of the 'Gladiatoria' armoured combat manuscript (Kracow, Yale, and Vienna)
Cod. 11093
Hans Czynner
Peter Falkner
Fiore dei Liberi (Pissani-Dossi codex)
Now interestingly, the other copies of Fiore don't show this, neither does the Wolfenbuttel codex of Gladiatoria, or Paulus Kal (though a couple of images show slightly longer hilts).
It would be instructive to find non-technical depictions of dagger combat to see what that yields. In any case, I'm content in thinking the MRL specimen is not a completely freaky outlier.
All the best,
Christian
That's true, and Christian was kind enough to send me an image showing a long-gripped rondel (thanks again!). So it may not be entirely ahistorical. :)
I do still think, though, that the MRL brass-hilted rondel is an over-large version of surviving examples it's close to/based off even if it's within the realm of plausibility based on period art.
It's a nice piece for the price for sure, though. :) Here's a pic of that dagger in-hand:
[ Linked Image ]
I do still think, though, that the MRL brass-hilted rondel is an over-large version of surviving examples it's close to/based off even if it's within the realm of plausibility based on period art.
It's a nice piece for the price for sure, though. :) Here's a pic of that dagger in-hand:
[ Linked Image ]
Absolutely my friend...the particular piece it's closest to does not feature so long a grip.
BTW, my guys here at class love the thing! It's quickly become one of my favorites for demonstrating how awful such a weapon would be to face.
All the best,
Christian
BTW, my guys here at class love the thing! It's quickly become one of my favorites for demonstrating how awful such a weapon would be to face.
All the best,
Christian
Christian,
Don't forget the plate in Talhoffer's Ambraser Codex that shows the armored guard:
http://jfgilles.club.fr/escrime/bibliotheque/...es/044.jpg
It says: "Das ist der viert stich gewappet" which I translate as: "This is the Fourth, armed stab", noting that "gewappeter hant" is used to mean to take your sword into a halfsword grip in Gladiatoria.
All of the daggers shown in the Ambraser Codex are of this type.
Don't forget the plate in Talhoffer's Ambraser Codex that shows the armored guard:
http://jfgilles.club.fr/escrime/bibliotheque/...es/044.jpg
It says: "Das ist der viert stich gewappet" which I translate as: "This is the Fourth, armed stab", noting that "gewappeter hant" is used to mean to take your sword into a halfsword grip in Gladiatoria.
All of the daggers shown in the Ambraser Codex are of this type.
Oh good God Hugh...I meant to include both that and the 1443 Talhoffer as sources showing these!
Good catch! Thanks,
CHT
Good catch! Thanks,
CHT
Christian,
Couldn't one argue that the drawings in medieval manuscripts are not reliable enough to make your assertion? I'm not saying such daggers didn't exist; they probably did. But I'm not sure if we can necessarily use the size of daggers illustrated in the fechtbuecher as a guide.
Couldn't one argue that the drawings in medieval manuscripts are not reliable enough to make your assertion? I'm not saying such daggers didn't exist; they probably did. But I'm not sure if we can necessarily use the size of daggers illustrated in the fechtbuecher as a guide.
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| Christian,
Couldn't one argue that the drawings in medieval manuscripts are not reliable enough to make your assertion? I'm not saying such daggers didn't exist; they probably did. But I'm not sure if we can necessarily use the size of daggers illustrated in the fechtbuecher as a guide. |
I'm not Christian of course, but period art (such as fechtbucher) is a big source of info on period weapons. We have more surviving art than we do antiques and there are a number of things we see in art that aren't illustrated in historical examples. Every worthwhile book on arms and armour references period art. I wouldn't want to read an arms and armour book that didn't have a healthy (key word) reliance on period art.
That said, some things clearly need to be taken with grains of salt, such as helms being completely split by a sword blow, etc. However, fechtbuchs are clearly designed to illustrate techniques which include how to hold weapons. While they might exaggerate some things here and there for pedagogical emphasis, I'd think these were at least possible.
| Craig Peters wrote: |
| Christian,
Couldn't one argue that the drawings in medieval manuscripts are not reliable enough to make your assertion? I'm not saying such daggers didn't exist; they probably did. But I'm not sure if we can necessarily use the size of daggers illustrated in the fechtbuecher as a guide. |
Hi Craig,
Yes, we must always be careful when evaluating medieval art. One cannot, as an example, use fighting manuscripts as reliable guages of sword length - the art fluctuates too much in that regard. Neither can we assume that most armoured judicial combat was performed without gauntlets - they're just not always illustrated, likely to preserve clarity in the art as to the position of the hands.
However, the long grips are shown in use in some instances. And example of this may be found in the 4th dagger guard in the Ambrasser Talhoffer codex; this would be impossible were there not room for two hands to fit on the grip. So here we have technical corroboration of what the artwork seems intended to convey.
All the best,
Christian
You are both neglecting the armoured hand. One needs a little more room on a grip to accommodate the bulk added by even the finest gauntlets. In addition, a bit more grip length makes drawing the dagger a bit easier. One does not look down to the dagger on your hip to draw it. When you need it, it has to pop into your hand without a moment's thought. Having a dagger grip that fits your naked hand neatly would be a nuisance even when wearing gloves as a gentleman often did. A bit longer grip resolves that problem.
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
| You are both neglecting the armoured hand. |
Actually, I'm not. :) Even with my really-not-streamlined gauntlets on, there is still a lot of extra uncovered grip on MRL's dagger. If I can dig up a picture I took, I'll post it.
We also shouldn't forget that there are several similar historical examples whose grips are much smaller than the MRL dagger's and these illustrations. Looking at the blades on them, they appear optimized for heavy-duty thrusting and would therefore likely have belonged to a man at arms, whose hand would likely have been armoured. Also, their form and decoration would probably have made them expensive enough that they would have been purchased by a wealthy noble who could probably also afford a gauntlet.
There has to be another reason. :)
Hi Kel!
I did consider the gauntlets actually...that's what is so significant about the appearances of the daggers in Cod. Vin. 11093 - they extend well past the gauntleted hands. There's even a plate where one combatant has both his hands on the dagger grip.
All the best,
Christian
I did consider the gauntlets actually...that's what is so significant about the appearances of the daggers in Cod. Vin. 11093 - they extend well past the gauntleted hands. There's even a plate where one combatant has both his hands on the dagger grip.
All the best,
Christian
Here's a pic of the MRL brass hilted rondel in-hand. It still extends past the gauntlet a good amount.
Attachment: 51.73 KB
Attachment: 51.73 KBHi Chad,
Heh...I'm struck with amusement at this photo. Since I bought that dagger from you, and own almost the exact same pair of gauntlets from Lewis Moore, that could be me in the photo! ;)
Best,
Christian
Heh...I'm struck with amusement at this photo. Since I bought that dagger from you, and own almost the exact same pair of gauntlets from Lewis Moore, that could be me in the photo! ;)
Best,
Christian
| Chad Arnow wrote: |
| Here's a pic of the MRL brass hilted rondel in-hand. It still extends past the gauntlet a good amount. |
Looks just about right to me. :cool:
It must be a lot easier to snatch that out of its scabbard with gauntlets on than it might be with a grip that just fits an underhand grip. I think its just right for such a classy dagger. If it really bothers you, I'm sure you can find someone who would like it. Its dandy.
TTFN,
Kel
| Kel Rekuta wrote: |
| Looks just about right to me. :cool:
It must be a lot easier to snatch that out of its scabbard with gauntlets on than it might be with a grip that just fits an underhand grip. I think its just right for such a classy dagger. If it really bothers you, I'm sure you can find someone who would like it. Its dandy. TTFN, Kel |
Kel,
My issue with it was that it simply is larger (a lot in some cases) than the period examples it seems to be based off of. There are plenty of daggers that were probably used with gauntlets that are indeed smaller than this one. I did find someone who likes it: as Christian mentioned above, he bought it from me. :)
I don't doubt that some were larger to facilitate being grabbed by armoured hands. However, there are some that seem to be meant for armoured combat that are much smaller in the grip. So a large grip can't have always been necessary for armoured use. :)
| Christian Henry Tobler wrote: |
| Hi Kel!
I did consider the gauntlets actually...that's what is so significant about the appearances of the daggers in Cod. Vin. 11093 - they extend well past the gauntleted hands. There's even a plate where one combatant has both his hands on the dagger grip. All the best, Christian |
Ah, I will have another look at that treatise, haven't looked at it for years. :blush: I've never noticed a two hand grip dagger, although two hands on a dagger is common enough. Big rondels are enough of a nuisance on the hip. I wouldn't have thought of making them longer too. :lol:
Going back out to enjoy the sunshine. Later guys!
Use of both hands to get that little extra power when forcing between plate lames ?
With a longer grip one can choke up on the the knife and them let it slip forward for the extra inch or two of extra reach ?
Easier to flip from a forward grip to an ice pic grip ?
And there is always that intangible thing called " fashion " !
Just a few possibilities ?
With a longer grip one can choke up on the the knife and them let it slip forward for the extra inch or two of extra reach ?
Easier to flip from a forward grip to an ice pic grip ?
And there is always that intangible thing called " fashion " !
Just a few possibilities ?
My Rondel was made with the mitten gauntlet in mind. It's 5" and fits well.
Jean, fashion may be a good answer here.
Jean, fashion may be a good answer here.
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum