[Will Phillips]

Hi all,

Slowly assembling some bits and pieces for a Dutch noble infantry captain during the time of Prince Frederick Henry and the end of the Eighty Years War, 1625-1650 (technically 1647 or 1648).

Trouble is, I'm at a loss here of what manner of sword I need to acquire (or, if I have to spend the big bucks, commission).

As far as I'm aware, there are three criteria I need to go with. Past that, I'm ignorant and would appreciate your input.

1. Infantry used shorter blades than cavalry. Something in the 30-34 inch range. Is that correct?

2. Would I be using a rapier or a heavier cut and thrust blade? I'll only be investing in a single sword, so I'd like to make sure I'm on the mark here. My early assumption is a heavier blade.

3. This is the era of handguards, but what type? My guess is a Walloon hilt, but is my 1625-1650 timeframe too early? Most of those I've seen are 1676 onwards. If not Walloon, what should I be researching? Anything particularly Dutch/Low Countries?

4. Bonus question: How were swords affixed to a person during the second quarter of the 17th century? As you can tell, I've still got a lot of reading left to do.

There's a wealth of information around here. I enjoy reading and learning. Thanks in advance for the replies.

[Roger Hooper]

An infantry officer would use a robust cut and thrust blade, 30 - 35 inches long.

Walloon swords showed up in the 1640's, though there were earlier models that had some of the same characteristics. Look at This Thread to see many photos of Walloons and other sword of this period, hopefully with dates attached to them. Also, go to Hermann Historica and look at their auction swords. You will find many from the 17th century.

[Pieter B.]

Portrait of four brothers of William I ca, 1630 (technically in cavalry uniform but I believe the scabbard is held in the same way on foot)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...Nassau.jpg

Another portrait showing rank and file and I believe some officers. (the sash is usually a good indicator) 1625

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...625%29.jpg

1615 (this one shows the whole sword and scabbard well

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons...gsbild.jpg



EDIT: in some filenames a different date is named, either the filename or wikipedia is incorrect. However I believe the paintings do give a general feel as to what the swords should look like.

[Ian Hutchison]

Excellent paintings Pieter, thanks for sharing them.

[Will Phillips]

Thanks for the links, guys. I'll look into them.

It seems that almost a proto-basket hilt was in play before the Walloons arrived in force in the 1640s. Do these types have a specific name?

[Pieter B.]

[Will Phillips]

Doing some further reading and research, I feel somewhat torn in my time frame. The Walloons are a bit late (although some similar hilts appear in paintings), and the late 16th century side swords might be too early for my portrayal.

That, and the Walloons I've seen have all been out of my price range. Since I'm building this all from the ground up, I'd like to keep an eye on budget options, and then splurge on something custom or more expensive (like an A&A order). Same reason I'll likely start with a buff coat, gorget, and late burgonet first, and worry about the breastplate and tassets once I have the rest of things assembled.

So, right now it seems the two acceptable options would be:

• Windlass Munich Cut & Thrust Sword, or
  
• Hanwei Side Sword
  

Both run around the same general price. The Side Sword has been officially discontinued, but appears to be for sale, still, in a few locations.

I'm not sure which would be the more appropriate purchase and/or the measurably "better" sword at this $250ish price point.

[Roger Hooper]

There is a Walloonish sword over at KOA, made by Fabri Armorum. I can't speak as to its quality, and it may be a little more expensive than what you are looking for.

[Will Phillips]

[Jeffrey Faulk]

I would go with the Windlass Munich over the Hanwei if you are looking for a 'user' sword. I have the Hanwei. Here are my impressions:

While the blade is very nice, and the fittings are likewise quite well done for their price, it suffers greatly from being badly balanced. The fittings are solid (stainless? mild? Who knows) steel. The blade, conversely, is a fairly light piece with good distal taper. As such, it's quite heavy in the hand, the balance is far back due to a very heavy pommel. If the fittings were paired with a more authoritative blade, it would be a far better sword. As it is, I've since chopped the blade into two dagger-size pieces. It was simply too light and short to be really useful as anything but a too-wide smallsword or 'pillow sword' blade.

The Windlass Munich, on the other hand, has a more robust blade, and Windlass is not necessarily known for excellent distal taper, so while the weight would not be ideal it would probably be better balanced than the Hanwei. Plus it's more easily obtained. It's a bit 'old school' for the 30 years' war but wouldn't get any funny looks as it's only a decade or two out of date for that period.

From what I understand Fabri Armorum's pieces at KOA are largely stage-combat swords and as such if you want to make it into a user you would have to do a lot of grinding and further work. I would suggest contacting KOA though and seeing what they say in regard to the sword.

[Pieter B.]

[Roger Hooper]

[Mike Janis]

I’ll be the bad guy here. The SCA cutoff is one minute after midnight (00:01) on 1 January 1601. Of course you can adopt any persona you want, but you will probably get grief if you use 1625-1650. My persona is from 1566 and you should see people fume when I show up with a pistol stuffed in each of my boot tops and an arquebuse in my hand. They positively soil their baise when I point out at the siege of Malta in 1565, the knights had: plate armor, muskets, rifles, pistols, hand grenades, napalm, flame throwers, cannon, in addition to their swords/shields/spears.

FWIW, I have the Windless Munich Town Guard sword.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Roger Hooper]

[Jeffrey Faulk]

I am guessing as well that it varies between groups. There may also be further codes about periods allowed as they may not wish to have to deal with, say, an English Civil War cuiraisser versus a Norman knight! Though not being a member nor having looked into it all that much, I cannot comment much further upon this...

[Will Phillips]

It is my understanding that the hard cutoff is "pre-17th century," but there's a more or less accepted grey period of until the English Civil War / Peace of Westphalia. That time period or even the Protestant Reformation - a hundred years earlier - both make a lot more sense to me than the arbitrary date of December 31st, 1600 if you're looking to define the end of the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

At any rate, in the reading I've been doing the past couple of days, it looks like a lot of people - a vocal minority, perhaps - get really worked up about that date and how "jarring" it is to their pre-17th century sensibilities (but heaven forbid the ancient Celts and Romans along with the horde of generic Norse in pajama pants), which is a whole 'nuther topic separate from the discussion here. I'm starting to rant here!

To bring it back to the subject of appropriate sidearms for the time period, if I push back my kit to the 1579 Union of Utrecht or 1581 Act of Abjuration, I think the Munich side sword (and dagger) would work admirably well. Except now I'm stuck with the giant, puffy, super-starched ruffs - which I could have avoided had I gone 1625-1648.

C'est la vie!

[Lafayette C Curtis]

Well, on one hand, you might eventually grow to like ruffs. On the other hand, ruffs weren't always huge and heavily starched -- in France, Germany, and England, we often see fairly small ruffs, and sometimes pretty floppy (or sloppy!) ones too. You might be out of luck with the Dutch, though, since (if I remember correctly) they liked huge ruffs more than anybody else.

[Pieter B.]