What are the fundamental differences between the waloon and spadroon? This my period of special interest but I don't think I could tell these weapons apart at this point in my education. Is the difference primarily one of cultural origin, or are there significant design/functional differences that would allow me to easily distinguish between these weapons?
Thanks!
Hi Sean
From what I've gathered it's the hilt design that really seperates the two ..... the walloon has a distictive shape, pommel etc., that is recognized as a walloon, whiles't the spadroon seems to vary from hilt to hilt !
I'm no expert on these, though , so hopefully Eljay , Jim, or Scott , pops by !
There were several good discussions on SFI about what constitutes a spadroon, etc!
Type in spadroon on thier search engine and a bunch will come up !
Here's a good page on the Walloons , from Oakeshotts 'European Weapons & Armour' ! Mac
[ Linked Image ]
From what I've gathered it's the hilt design that really seperates the two ..... the walloon has a distictive shape, pommel etc., that is recognized as a walloon, whiles't the spadroon seems to vary from hilt to hilt !
I'm no expert on these, though , so hopefully Eljay , Jim, or Scott , pops by !
There were several good discussions on SFI about what constitutes a spadroon, etc!
Type in spadroon on thier search engine and a bunch will come up !
Here's a good page on the Walloons , from Oakeshotts 'European Weapons & Armour' ! Mac
[ Linked Image ]
Thanks, Mac!
For others interested in the subject, here's a helpful Spadroon thread at SFI:
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s...t=spadroon
Now I need to go finish reading European Weapons and Armour! It's a great book but I sure wish Oakeshott had included more photos. Line drawings don't always do the trick.
http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s...t=spadroon
Now I need to go finish reading European Weapons and Armour! It's a great book but I sure wish Oakeshott had included more photos. Line drawings don't always do the trick.
Hi Sean and Thomas,
On the page from Oakeshott provided by Thomas, the paragraph that starts with " The next development... Holland....". This marks the beginning of what I'd call the true Walloon hilt. The name itself even refers to a region in the Low Countries, perhaps where this development took place. The Dutch Walloon hilt has a heart shaped guard filled with pierced plates, the quillon is nicely curved (usually), and most have a broadsword blade stamped "Sahagum" in a short fuller. A running wolf appears at the end of the fuller. At the blade forte is stamped the Amsterdam coat of arms, and on the other side is stamped only the central portion of the arms: a series of 3 x's (XXX). Grips are usually wire wrapped. I'll see if I have a photo of one around here.
--ElJay
On the page from Oakeshott provided by Thomas, the paragraph that starts with " The next development... Holland....". This marks the beginning of what I'd call the true Walloon hilt. The name itself even refers to a region in the Low Countries, perhaps where this development took place. The Dutch Walloon hilt has a heart shaped guard filled with pierced plates, the quillon is nicely curved (usually), and most have a broadsword blade stamped "Sahagum" in a short fuller. A running wolf appears at the end of the fuller. At the blade forte is stamped the Amsterdam coat of arms, and on the other side is stamped only the central portion of the arms: a series of 3 x's (XXX). Grips are usually wire wrapped. I'll see if I have a photo of one around here.
--ElJay
Very enlightening, ElJay. Many thanks!
Hi Sean,
I found the photo of the Walloon that I was looking for. This one is a very typical example of the Dutch version of the Walloon, although this one is missing the pierced plates. The grip is original, with the original wire, but someone has attempted a repair to the upper third of the grip, which is why the wire is a bit lumpy-looking. One thing I forgot to mention the other day is that these Dutch Walloons usually have a thumbring, as this one does. This example also has an armorer's stamp in the shape of a small blossom, to the left side of the quillon.
--ElJay
Attachment: 13.87 KB
I found the photo of the Walloon that I was looking for. This one is a very typical example of the Dutch version of the Walloon, although this one is missing the pierced plates. The grip is original, with the original wire, but someone has attempted a repair to the upper third of the grip, which is why the wire is a bit lumpy-looking. One thing I forgot to mention the other day is that these Dutch Walloons usually have a thumbring, as this one does. This example also has an armorer's stamp in the shape of a small blossom, to the left side of the quillon.
--ElJay
Attachment: 13.87 KBIsn't this what the English, in the mid-17th c., would have called a "good stiff tuck"-the sort of thing to be issued to pikemen as a secondary weapon?
Hi Sean,
Hmm. Not sure that this sword would have been used by a pikeman. The blade is 35" long, which isn't too long for a footsoldier, but for sure these were mainly cavalry weapons. However, one with a shorter blade would certainly be useable.
Isn't "tuck" an English language version of the earlier "estoc"? If so, then perhaps a good stiff tuck may refer to a rapier of one kind or another.
--ElJay
Hmm. Not sure that this sword would have been used by a pikeman. The blade is 35" long, which isn't too long for a footsoldier, but for sure these were mainly cavalry weapons. However, one with a shorter blade would certainly be useable.
Isn't "tuck" an English language version of the earlier "estoc"? If so, then perhaps a good stiff tuck may refer to a rapier of one kind or another.
--ElJay
The word "tuck" seems to have changed over time, as you say originating from estoc and meaning the same kind of thrusting weapon. Some sources suggest that by the mid 16th c. "tuck" was used to describe a sword that could cut as well as thrust. Here's a reference and an image that bears strong resemblance to the weapon you showed above.
The caption for this is as follows:
"C. Sword with simple hilt, including ring to protect thumb; probably typical of the 'stiff tuck' favoured during the Civil War (after Wagner)." Haythornthwaite, Philip. The English Civil Wars, 1642-1651: An Illustrated Military History. 1994. p. 140.
Attachment: 8.49 KB
The caption for this is as follows:
"C. Sword with simple hilt, including ring to protect thumb; probably typical of the 'stiff tuck' favoured during the Civil War (after Wagner)." Haythornthwaite, Philip. The English Civil Wars, 1642-1651: An Illustrated Military History. 1994. p. 140.
Attachment: 8.49 KBLast edited by Sean Flynt on Sat 04 Oct, 2003 4:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Here's another intriguing reference,this time from an ECW living history site:
"The pikeman's sword was supposed to be the ‘good stiff tuck, not very long’ recommended by General Monck, which cost the New Model 4s 6d each. (Tuck is derived from the ‘Estoc’, a C15th thrusting sword used in single-combat fights in the champ-clos) In reality they were any short, cheap and nasty weapon and had to be short to use in a confined melee. Their main use was in threatening civilians and brawling or chopping firewood (according to Monck and Turner)."
"The pikeman's sword was supposed to be the ‘good stiff tuck, not very long’ recommended by General Monck, which cost the New Model 4s 6d each. (Tuck is derived from the ‘Estoc’, a C15th thrusting sword used in single-combat fights in the champ-clos) In reality they were any short, cheap and nasty weapon and had to be short to use in a confined melee. Their main use was in threatening civilians and brawling or chopping firewood (according to Monck and Turner)."
Hi Sean,
That drawing from one of Wagner's book is undoubtably a Walloon- he even got the thumbring right! I note that you report that the author states that this is probably what was referred to as a good stiff tuck. In other words, he thinks that the Walloon could have been what was meant, but he wasn't sure. Now I'm not saying that these Dutch swords couldn't have been used in England, but they developed a little late for the English Civil Wars. Is any documentation provided for Walloon usage in the ECW? The English had their own rather similar sword style to the Walloon that was in existence possibly as early as the 1640s, and perhaps this is what a tuck was back then.
--ElJay
That drawing from one of Wagner's book is undoubtably a Walloon- he even got the thumbring right! I note that you report that the author states that this is probably what was referred to as a good stiff tuck. In other words, he thinks that the Walloon could have been what was meant, but he wasn't sure. Now I'm not saying that these Dutch swords couldn't have been used in England, but they developed a little late for the English Civil Wars. Is any documentation provided for Walloon usage in the ECW? The English had their own rather similar sword style to the Walloon that was in existence possibly as early as the 1640s, and perhaps this is what a tuck was back then.
--ElJay
Very interesting. Most likely the author picked a pre-existing image he thought represented the style rather than commission a new one. The two books may even be from the same publisher, which would have facilitated recycling the image. I've found no documentation of this weapon in the book, but, in fairness to the author, it's an esoteric issue relative to the overall content. It's actually a very helpful publication. Many weapons are illustrated in the manner of the Osprey books, although there's no indication of the documentary evidence upon which the illustrations are based.
Can you direct me to an image representative of that earlier English weapon?
Can you direct me to an image representative of that earlier English weapon?
I felt a bit queasy when Thomas threw my hat in the ring.
The thing is, I have a sort of fatal attraction to threads such as this, and wind up feeling I've landed on the other side of the Looking Glass, more confused then when I started out.
I resisted the Walloons, and even the early spadroons. (Thank God no one mentioned sheering/shearing swords!)
But then, Sean had to sweeten the pot with mention of the infamous and elusive ECW "tuck".
"Tuck" was an English nickname for a rapier during this period (and "rapier" itself was a somewhat slippery term).
This appears to be an amalgam of at least two, but more likely three sources with the author's interpretation thereof.
The Monck quote comes from George Monck's Observations Upon Military and Political Affairs, written while he was a prisoner in the Tower of London from 1644-46. He did nothing further with it at the time, and it was not published until 1971, a year after his death.
The first thing to note is that this is simply his observation and recommendation. There is no particular reason to think it was ever acted upon, any more than Franklin's suggestion that longbows might be used by the Americans in the War of Independence. It would, however, be interesting to know if his own private soldiers were equipped with rapiers, because I believe that rapier is what he means by "tuck" here. My understanding is that the makes this explicit elsewhere, but I haven't read the book.
However, the meaning is quite implicit in his statement here. He is suggesting that soldiers ruin their munitions-grade swords by lopping boughs off trees and is suggesting they would be better equipped with munitions-grade rapiers that they wouldn't be tempted to use as tools. (Although they would, of course make excellent barbecue spits. :lol: )
As far as the idea the "tuck" was short, what he's saying is "not very long". This is in the context of rapier blades which could range up to nearly four feet. Silver's "short sword" works out to around36-39 inches, depending on one's build.
I've never seen the monetary figure linked with Monck's quote, and suspect it comes from actual accounts. If the term "tuck" were included in the account, it would surely be included as it adds to the case.
It's not clear in the passage precisely what from Turner is being referenced, but he apparently did say:
This apparently comes from his Pallas Armata, a treatise on the use of the rapier and single-handed sword published (in Latin) in 1639. I haven't read it either, though I've seen a couple of passages in translation. I'm not at all sure how he got onto this subject in the context. He apparently also suggest that the soldier, for combat purposes, would be better off with a 12-inch blade than either a sword or musket-butt.
So, what about all those ECW reenactors going about calling their hangers "tucks"?
[ Linked Image ]
(From: Devereux's Regiment of Foote--nice site, BTW, in case you guys pop up over here. :))
Well, yes, I think they can. At least that's the way I see it at this point in time. But then, I'm just an amateur in these matters.
[
The thing is, I have a sort of fatal attraction to threads such as this, and wind up feeling I've landed on the other side of the Looking Glass, more confused then when I started out.
I resisted the Walloons, and even the early spadroons. (Thank God no one mentioned sheering/shearing swords!)
But then, Sean had to sweeten the pot with mention of the infamous and elusive ECW "tuck".
"Tuck" was an English nickname for a rapier during this period (and "rapier" itself was a somewhat slippery term).
| Quote: |
|
Here's another intriguing reference,this time from an ECW living history site: "The pikeman's sword was supposed to be the ‘good stiff tuck, not very long’ recommended by General Monck, which cost the New Model 4s 6d each. (Tuck is derived from the ‘Estoc’, a C15th thrusting sword used in single-combat fights in the champ-clos) In reality they were any short, cheap and nasty weapon and had to be short to use in a confined melee. Their main use was in threatening civilians and brawling or chopping firewood (according to Monck and Turner)." |
This appears to be an amalgam of at least two, but more likely three sources with the author's interpretation thereof.
The Monck quote comes from George Monck's Observations Upon Military and Political Affairs, written while he was a prisoner in the Tower of London from 1644-46. He did nothing further with it at the time, and it was not published until 1971, a year after his death.
The first thing to note is that this is simply his observation and recommendation. There is no particular reason to think it was ever acted upon, any more than Franklin's suggestion that longbows might be used by the Americans in the War of Independence. It would, however, be interesting to know if his own private soldiers were equipped with rapiers, because I believe that rapier is what he means by "tuck" here. My understanding is that the makes this explicit elsewhere, but I haven't read the book.
However, the meaning is quite implicit in his statement here. He is suggesting that soldiers ruin their munitions-grade swords by lopping boughs off trees and is suggesting they would be better equipped with munitions-grade rapiers that they wouldn't be tempted to use as tools. (Although they would, of course make excellent barbecue spits. :lol: )
As far as the idea the "tuck" was short, what he's saying is "not very long". This is in the context of rapier blades which could range up to nearly four feet. Silver's "short sword" works out to around36-39 inches, depending on one's build.
I've never seen the monetary figure linked with Monck's quote, and suspect it comes from actual accounts. If the term "tuck" were included in the account, it would surely be included as it adds to the case.
It's not clear in the passage precisely what from Turner is being referenced, but he apparently did say:
| Quote: |
| The foot soldier's sword, being for the most part extreamly base. It would be better to provide them with hatchets, so that they might cut wood for making their huts or their fires. |
This apparently comes from his Pallas Armata, a treatise on the use of the rapier and single-handed sword published (in Latin) in 1639. I haven't read it either, though I've seen a couple of passages in translation. I'm not at all sure how he got onto this subject in the context. He apparently also suggest that the soldier, for combat purposes, would be better off with a 12-inch blade than either a sword or musket-butt.
So, what about all those ECW reenactors going about calling their hangers "tucks"?
[ Linked Image ]
(From: Devereux's Regiment of Foote--nice site, BTW, in case you guys pop up over here. :))
Well, yes, I think they can. At least that's the way I see it at this point in time. But then, I'm just an amateur in these matters.
[
More good info! Thanks, Scott!
Well, I wondered where the hanger fit into all this. But aren't hanger's typically curved weapons? Were straight (cut and thrust) hanger blades common enough that the type could logically carry on the name "tuck"? Hmmm...I sense that we may be headed into academic land, trying to create a rigid typology that didn't apply in the period in question. This has been a very interesting thread!
Well, I wondered where the hanger fit into all this. But aren't hanger's typically curved weapons? Were straight (cut and thrust) hanger blades common enough that the type could logically carry on the name "tuck"? Hmmm...I sense that we may be headed into academic land, trying to create a rigid typology that didn't apply in the period in question. This has been a very interesting thread!
| Sean Flynt wrote: |
| More good info! Thanks, Scott!
Well, I wondered where the hanger fit into all this. But aren't hanger's typically curved weapons? Were straight (cut and thrust) hanger blades common enough that the type could logically carry on the name "tuck"? |
Hi Sean
Hangers with straight blades were quite common ..... Neumann's book, "Swords & Blades of the American Revolution", has many examples !
Mac
| Sean Flynt wrote: |
| More good info! Thanks, Scott!
Well, I wondered where the hanger fit into all this. But aren't hanger's typically curved weapons? Were straight (cut and thrust) hanger blades common enough that the type could logically carry on the name "tuck"? Hmmm...I sense that we may be headed into academic land, trying to create a rigid typology that didn't apply in the period in question. This has been a very interesting thread! |
I should note that my use of "hanger" here is my own term for describing them.
I came across an interesting one today from Garth Vincent:
[ Linked Image ]
http://www.goantiques.com/search/item_detail.jsp?id=325278
I find the use of the term proto mortuary curious since the "mortuary" sword was fully developed at this point.
I note that Armour Class also applies the term to their "Tower Hanger", apparently inspired by a specimen there. Perhaps the Tower folks applied the term and it caught on?
Hi Sean,
As requested, here's a photo of one of those English swords that are similar to the Walloons. In the scan it's the one on the lower right. Mentally eliminate the scrolled branches, and what you've got is close to a Dutch Walloon. This sword is from the 1640s, and is a broadsword with 25 1/2" blade (probably shortened). The other swords in the photo are all products of Hounslow, and I thought I'd include them. First, because they're interesting, and second because they saw a lot of ECW usage. I note that in several of yesterday's posts, there was a question about straight bladed hangers: the sword in the lower left is straight bladed. The upper two are described as cutlasses (25" and 27" blades), but the drawings of the blade markings appear to show straight blades!
Hi Scott,
The English sword ca. 1640 that is similar to the Walloon is the type that changed form a bit and by the 1680s was of brass. I remember you remarking that you liked this type of hilt (in brass at least).
Hi Thomas,
Neat photo of the "proto" Mortuary. I've got one of those here in Thailand for some grip work and dent (!!) repair to the hollow pommel. Mine has a 35" broadsword blade, marked 1414 and with the running wolf.
--ElJay
Attachment: 12.24 KB
As requested, here's a photo of one of those English swords that are similar to the Walloons. In the scan it's the one on the lower right. Mentally eliminate the scrolled branches, and what you've got is close to a Dutch Walloon. This sword is from the 1640s, and is a broadsword with 25 1/2" blade (probably shortened). The other swords in the photo are all products of Hounslow, and I thought I'd include them. First, because they're interesting, and second because they saw a lot of ECW usage. I note that in several of yesterday's posts, there was a question about straight bladed hangers: the sword in the lower left is straight bladed. The upper two are described as cutlasses (25" and 27" blades), but the drawings of the blade markings appear to show straight blades!
Hi Scott,
The English sword ca. 1640 that is similar to the Walloon is the type that changed form a bit and by the 1680s was of brass. I remember you remarking that you liked this type of hilt (in brass at least).
Hi Thomas,
Neat photo of the "proto" Mortuary. I've got one of those here in Thailand for some grip work and dent (!!) repair to the hollow pommel. Mine has a 35" broadsword blade, marked 1414 and with the running wolf.
--ElJay
Attachment: 12.24 KBAgain, many thanks, ElJay! I especially love to see Hounslow weapons.
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