[David R. Glier]

How can something with an affixed hilt, pommel and padded grips be called "Broken"?

[Jean Thibodeau]

David;

I was almost going to say " broken " myself seeing that they seem abandoned while the knight have decided to grapple.

The pommel end looks like what one might draw if wanting to show a broken shaft.

Now, my arguments against this theory are that the Two are of the same size and shape, the " broken " ends can easily be very aggressive pommels made for almost mace like blows and if these were a longer broken weapons there should be on the ground the fragments of the rest of the shafts.

Unless the two weapons are actually only one weapon broken in two ? But in that case where is the other guys weapon ?

Just multiple ways to interpret the drawing, some better than others. Maybe I'm just adding to the questions rather than finding answers !

[Allen W]

Looks like a mutant ahlspeiss. Except for the single edged blade these are commonly seen in pictures of ritualized armoured combat.

[Sean Flynt]

I'm not seeing any edge on these at all. Looks to me like a thick, triangular cross-section. So, what some are interpreting as an edge, I'm seeing as a flat. That's why they look to me like giant rondel daggers.

[David R. Glier]

You know, a chisel has a much steeper edge geometry than this thing could *possibly* have, and a sharp one can cut your finger off clean.

It looks much like a rondel dagger to me, too. But then, rondel daggers can be sharp enough to shave with.

Panzerstecher -being a loose term not often used these days- seems to work well. Scheibenschwert works for me, too, though I'm thinking they might fall under the umbrella of the former.

[Martin Wallgren]

I am very happy with many of the answers here , In my opinion the big stabby thing was the best.

And as for the use of it... just do halfswordning... the "blunt" end will do marvels for the cosmetic surgery industry... MOOOAAHAHAHA!!!

[Peter Johnsson]

I know I have some other pic of these monsters in one of my books somewhere. I just can´t find it!
It shows two late 15th C combatants in a fenced of square armed with just this weapon: judicial fight/trial by arms/duel or possibly tourney even if they seem to come at each others with deadly intent. The difference between this illumination and the illustration posted above is that there are two rondells on the grip/haft, one in front of each hand. Size seems to be the same and the illumination give an impression of the blades being square or triangular in section, possibly hollow ground. Even the pommels are similar: close to some war hammer heads. As I recall it the pommels were drawn like the top of a Fleur-de-lys, but this can be an artistic version of a four-pronged head.

(to those who have second thoughts about this pommel shape hurting your hand: the fighters were *not* gripping the pommels and so were free to use them as striking weapons. This is something that must be observed with other pommel shapes as well: not all pommels are meant to be gripped like a smooth scent stopper pommel)

I am intrugued by these eapons as well. I have not posted befoe since I hoped to dig up this illustration, but I have not been succsessfull so far. I will keep looking though. It is very clear details even if small. If I find it I´ll post it.

A thought that struck me seeing the initial illustration in this thread: if there were versions with one rondell in the middle of the grip, perhaps then it is possible that there were weapons having one single rondell at the junction between blade and grip: this would make the weapon look like a short awl-spear with a pommel (and a tang going throught the grip of course). I am intrigued by this possibility. I´d like to see such a weapon made some time!

For the time being, here is my recollection of what the weapon looked like (I remeber seeing rivet heads on the rondells. Possibly securing a padding?) :

[Martin Wallgren]

[Sean Flynt]

So, who will be the first of us to make one of these?
Just a little square-section bar stock, a grinder, etc.

[Fabrice Cognot]

Hi all


This type of weapon has been (scantily) described as being used somehow extensively in Xvth century Burgundy (and, generally speaking, western Europe).

I have in mind a quote from Olivier de la Marche's Mémoires - Olivier de la Marche was the captain, or rather conducteur of the First Company of Ordinance of Duke Charles (the Rash) in the 70s - later in his life, he wrote down his memoirs, providing us with an inside view on the court of the last two Dukes of Burgundy - there'd be more to say on the man, but I suppose you already know).

Anyhow, quoting (and translating) from memory, he wrote something about two knights fighting in the lists using swords of this precise type (he gives rather accute descriptions), adding "these swords are called estocs". If you allow me some time, I'll look a bit further in my papers.

Cheers

Fab

[Fabrice Cognot]

Alright, I found my papers.

in the 1440s, near Dijon, took place a Pas d'Armes known as Le Pas de l'Arbre Charlemagne. 13 Burgundian knights and squres held the Pas for about 6 weeks, and the noblemen passing by were offered to fight either on foot, with poleaxes or swords, or on horseback ; they signified their choice by striking one of two shields hanging from the tree.

One knight from Savoy, Jehan de Compays, struck the two sheilds, and had to fight against Anthoine de Vaudrey, lord of l'Aigle. After performing their horse runs, they therefore had to fight on foot (on he 8th of August), and Compays elected to fight with swords - earlier in the relation of the Pas, La Marche specifically called these estocs.

now here are the interesting bits : Anthoine held his own with two hands, but with the left hand reversed, "just beneath the roundel" (et empoigna a deux mains, la main senestre renversée, et couverte de la rondelle"), while Compays puts the left hand forward too, but in a 'regular' grip, also covered with the roundel. The entire fifteen strikes the fight was fought (yep, they uttered a finite amount of strikes to be performed, while striking the shield), were only thrusts. La Marche mentions their coats being torn to pieces, and the fight ended with both having stuck their sword into the opponent's visor.

Later, in 1446, an Italian knight named Galiot de Baltasin had his [emprise/i] touched by the Lord of Ternant, and both had to fight in Arras. They first fought with spears, on foot, and then with "[i]deux estocs, que l'on nomme espees-d'armes". There again, Ternant holds his sword with le left hand forward, in a reversed grip, well covered by the roundel. Apparently, they managed to damage each other's armours pretty badly with these, sometimes tearing bits off.

Later again, in the famous Pas de la Fontaine aux Pleurs, the Burgundian knight Jacques de Lalaing, keeper of the Pas, had to fight with poleaxe, sword and lances against a squire called Jacques d'Avanchies. With the sword, d'Avanchies required 11 strikes. He held his estoc as above, with the left, reversed, hand forward, well covered by "la rondelle de l'estoc". La Marche writes these were hard and sharp, and indeed it was the only occurence in which Jacques de Lalaing, who usually fought with nothing to cover his face, and little armour on his right hand and leg when using the poleaxe, had to wear a bascinet.

Also, a French book on judicial duels contains illustrations featuring these estocs (can't remember the exact reference, though).

So, it appears this type of weapon is, in the mid 15th century, commonly known as an Estoc, and its regular features are at least one roundel, beneath which the handle is long enough to accomodate the two hands (with a reverse left-hand grip the armour prevents the wrist from bending too much - which would be the case if the hands were held too close).

Still looking for more info

cheers

Fab

[Merv Cannon]

Hi....The correct name for these gizmos is the " Pike Awl ". I only know of them being used for Foot Tourneys. Our fearless leader of the tourney group has a matching pair. ( Not much point having only one ! )
Cheers !

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

I think I've found the pic Mr. Johnsson was referring to.

[Peter Johnsson]

Thank you!

Where did you find it?
I´ve been looking through my books many times in search of this one.
Can´t find it.

A little different than I remembered, although it still has two discs. The "blade" gives an ipression of being not quite square, but a very thick hollowground diamond section. The shaping of the point hints at a substantial thickness right down to the point.
The discs seems to be riveted to transverse "guards" or supports.
Pommel could possibly be "trilobe" but I still think it is four pronged, like a war hammer head.

[Wolfgang Armbruster]

I found it during a search on swordforums in order to trace back the origin of a pic I posted in the Morthschlag thread here. Didn't find it, but this one. It reminded me of the weapon you drew in an earlier post here.

I'm not surprised that that there are no surviving examples (yet) of those weapons. Everybody would have recycled the costly steel after the end of the judicial combat tradition.

[Michal Plezia]

Two more pictures...

[Fabrice Cognot]

Hi Michal

I'm quite sure the first picture was made after an illustration from that French/Burgundian treatise on wagers of battle I mentionned earlier, the one I couldn't find the reference of...

Fab

[Michal Plezia]

[Mark Eskra]

note the armor-they're probably horse lances that are shortened to fit in picture...

[Justin W. Lewis]

I apologize for bumping this topic after four years of being over and done with, but the bouche shield depicted in the picture above appears to be strapped to the knights upper arm, leaving his hand free. Is this typical? Is that shield of a particular type or name?