[Dan Kary]

Hi everybody,

I've lately become a bit enamored with Baselards, especially of the Swiss-German variety. I'm wondering if anybody could provide me with some information about when they first came around, what stages they went through, and when they disappeared (that is, if they did at all...I am not sure if their use last century by the Nazis, for example, was a resurrection or a continuation although I am inclined to believe the latter, at the moment). Of particular interest of me is the Holbein version, which I believe is the latest. When did they turn up?

Thank you!

[Sean Manning]

Claude Blair, “The Word ‘Baselard.’” Journal of the Arms and Armour Society XI.4 (1984), pp. 193-206, pl. XLVI, XLVII siglum: blair-baselard (write to the Arms and Armour Society to see if they have a copy of that back issue for sale in their shed or attic)

vignola-riflessioni-sulla-basilarda (I have not seen this)

I think that by the 17th century, you will have trouble finding anything other than sword-hilted daggers and big knives in Catholic and Protestant Europe.

[Chad Arnow]

I’m going to be slightly contrary to many and say that I think the baselard that most people think of is a subset of a larger family of a Swiss daggers that both predated the baselard proper and post dated it.

Swiss daggers like the one below were around in the 13th century, as attested to by many (dozens?) examples in the Swiss Landesmuseum.



The more capital-I shaped hilts of the more prototypical baselard come about more in the 14th century and a number are likely to be English or Italian, not just Swiss. These hang around into the 15th century for sure, maybe later.

Holbein daggers are another subset of Swiss daggers and might have started out as contemporaries of the baselard but hung around longer. These were revived in the 20th century by both the Swiss and Germans. They were first seen in the 15th/16th centuries I believe.

[Mart Shearer]

The "capital I" hilts show up on both daggers and falchions in late XIII century sources associated with Alfonso X.

[Dan Kary]

Thanks for the replies. I have been thinking about this and one thing about baselard evolution I just don't understand is the divergence between the swiss/german and italian/english.

If Chad is right, and I understand him, then this means that the swiss/german baselards predated the italian/english ones, as well as being contemporary to and postdating them (at least the Holbein versions). I'm wondering if swiss/german baselards came into Italy by proxy and sort of took on a life of their own and it is this common ancestry that makes them all baselards - otherwise, there doesn't really seem to be very much in common with them other than, perhaps blade shape - but the hilts look totally different and are certainly constructed very differently. That suggests a rapid and fundamental evolutionary change - so much so that if they weren't both called "baselard" I would have thought they had completely different origins.

Of course, I think it is largely a mystery why the Italian/English baselard is also found, mainly, in two far flung places like England and Italy, but that's a whole other issue (it makes perfect sense why the same baselard dagger form is found in Germany and Switzerland given the similar language, culture, location, etc.).

I'm eager to hear what people have to say!

[Chad Arnow]

Dan,
Mart is indeed correct that there is definitely some early art with the capital-I shape most will call a baselard. In terms of surviving examples/artifacts, we have a higher number of Swiss daggers dated pre-14th century than baselards. It's hard to say for certain which form existed first, but the bulk of earlier surviving examples seem to be more Swiss-dagger-shaped. The true baselard seems to have become more popular in the 14th century, though art and a few examples pre-date this.

I was looking at some of my German-language arms and armour books recently and at least some of them seem to be very careful and specific about how they use the terms "baselard" vs. "Schweizer dolch" ("Swiss dagger"). If I were to try to encapsulate the visual differences they generally distinguish between, I'd say:

Baselard: true capital I -shaped hilt. Tang forged into that shape and covered with scales (ie. capital I-shaped even without the wood grips) .

Swiss dagger: hilt more or less capital I-shaped. Whittle (through) tang with a wooden grip that gives the I shape. Often reinforced with metal on either end of the grip. Earlier examples, especially, may have arms that tend to droop toward the blade (like the one I posted).

So for me, a through (whittle/stick) tang with a capital I-shaped wooden grip (with or without reinforcing bands) is most likely a Swiss dagger. A dagger whose tang is forged into the full capital I-shape would be a baselard.

I don't have much to add on why a form most agree has Swiss origins developed somewhat distinct versions in other places.

[Dan Kary]

That's a nice way to put the distinction, Chad! - Swiss dagger vs. baselard. I think that maybe I was making a faulty assumption that, because they are sometimes both given the same label that there must be a common ancestry which seems very farfetched to me when you consider the stark differences between them (in particular, their construction). Thanks for the response!

I guess that leads to a new question though: why, if proper baselards (as opposed to Swiss daggers) are really found mainly in Italy and England, are they called baselards - my understanding is that this nods to the Swiss city of Basel (which is a lovely city I highly recommend to everybody!). I can see two possibilities (and of course there could be others!): First is that they were developed in Basel but never took off there, but were picked up as fashionable in Italy and England. Second is that the term is just a sort of misnomer.

Swiss dagger, on the other hand, seems highly appropriate given that it seems roughly geographically centered around Switzerland!

[Chad Arnow]

Pure speculation: They likely have a common Swiss origin and are superficially similar in silhouette in some cases; that may have been enough for them to get lumped together. In the era in which they began, there were still sax-like war knives (seen in illustrations) and there were early quillon daggers (in illustrations and a relatively small number of survivors from the 12th and 13th centuries). The Swiss-derived daggers were different from both in that they had hilt shapes that formed quillon-like hand protection but these "quillons" were integral to either the grip or tang not separate like on most (not all) quillon daggers. I think it's fairly safe to say that Swiss daggers were popular before ballock daggers (which also had grip-integral hand protection, sometimes with metal reinforcements) so perhaps the Swiss family of dagger's silhouette and integrated quillons were enough to lump them together as something distinct from quillon daggers and war knives of the time.

Obviously regional variations exist of most weapon forms. There are rondel daggers that are distinctly Burgundian, as well as a family of quillon daggers with large, hollow, globular pommels with heraldic inscriptions. Burgundians were apparently fancy. Some weapon forms seem to have been very popular in some locations and much less so in others (Type XIV blades seem to have been more popular in England/France than elsewhere, as an example).

So I'm not surprised that there is a variety peculiar to England or Italy, though why in both I have no answer for. They were probably popular in Italy before some of the relatively famous English condottieri ended up there, so that probably isn't the link.

I wish I knew.

[Chad Arnow]

On a separate note, buried somewhere in a folder on some drive I have a number of images of earlier Swiss daggers that someone sent me years ago from a Swiss museum. I'll try to find them and see if there are any true baselards in there and when they start to appear.

[Mart Shearer]

All of Du Cagne's references under Basalaria date from the 1380s. What are the earliest literary references to baselards? Is it possible that we've matched the wrong style dagger/knife grip to the term?

https://books.google.com/books?id=y-xCAAAAcAAJ&lpg=RA1-PA609&ots=xamNiYnjSH&dq=cum%20cutello%20sive%20Basalaria&pg=RA1-PA609#v=onepage&q=Basalaria&f=false

[Dan Kary]

Here is another mystery for me that might be untangled by simply educating me: It seems to me that the swiss dagger baselards post date the Italian-English ones. Don't they both burst on the scene in the 14th century while the swiss ones persist into the early 17th century while the Italian-English ones disappear at the end of the 15th century?

Is this simply because in Italy (and England?) they get replaced by a slew of other dagger forms like new forms of quillon daggers, ear daggers, cinquedeas, stilettos, and maybe the rise of bollock daggers (and their evolution into new forms) from being not just for peasants who like a dirty joke but to nobles...who also like a dirty joke?

[Chad Arnow]

[Dan Kary]

Thanks Chad. Most of that strikes me as pretty plausible.

I still wonder, however, if there was a migration away from these to other dagger forms, in the baselard (Italian/English) context, in part because of fashion - certainly you are right that there are a number of factors that played a role. But maybe this is still a possible piece to the puzzle?

My understanding is also that swiss daggers tended to be civilian (although there seems to be some really fancy Holbein daggers - but it seems generally true that low status associated daggers would turn up with fancy high status versions in things like bollock daggers, messers, etc.), while baselards (italian/english) tended to be more military. So I also wonder if yet another factor complicating all this is changing warfare driving a change in military daggers that might not have put the same pressures on non-military daggers. This could explain why the swiss dagger form lasts longer than the baselard (italian/english form)...if I am right about that timeline of course.

[Sean Manning]

[Chad Arnow]

Here’s some of what books on my shelf have to say about Swiss daggers and/or baselards:

George Cameron Stone: “A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times.” (first published 1934)

[Chad Arnow]

Here are some images. First, here are two daggers that I believe the Swiss Landesmuseum calls "Swiss daggers." They'd know. There are a number more that either show the remaining wood hilts or metal bands suggesting what shape the now-lost grip might have.

From this thread,



The one with the grip is dated 1st half of the 14th century as is the bare fullered blade. Several of the framed scabbard examples, like the one above, are dated 2nd half of the 13th century. Grip-less daggers with similar metal bands and blades are dated second half of the 13th century. In images I have, that museum has at least 6 examples from the 13th century that fit this family. There are over 20 examples from this family that they date to the 14th century.

So quite a few whittle tang daggers of this form are dated to the 13th-14th century. There are clearly not typical baselards, but fit the category I call Swiss daggers. Some of the authors above save that term for 16th century daggers, but I feel fairly comfortable applying it to earlier daggers to make a difference between I-tanged baselards and I-gripped Swiss daggers.

Mart posted this image in the thread linked above:



He noted "Here's a manuscript depiction from Cambridge's Ee.3.59 fo.32v from circa 1250-1260." So we have clear capital I/H-shaped hilts from the 13th century and possibly earlier.

Below is the image from the Capwell book. It shows antenna-like daggers (as well as straight-up quillon daggers) in the 11th century.

[Dan Kary]

Wow, I'm speechless. I don't know what to say really other than "thank you", Chad!

There is so much goodness in the information you have given, but one thing that really stands out to me, in regards to the pictures and your commentary, is that when you look at the bones of a Swiss dagger, it sure looks similar to the bones of a baselard (Italian/English). I wonder if that's the relation (why they both get called "baselard). This seems to show (or indicate) a common, "Baselean" (so to speak), ancestor of sorts! Very interesting indeed!

[Dan Kary]

Oh I should have added that it is looking pretty obvious, to me anyways, that the Baselean ancestor does indeed look to be an antenna dagger...I think I've got a much better grasp on all this! Thanks so much!

[Chad Arnow]

Here is even more info, because I just couldn't stop.

Heinrich Muller/Hartmut Kolling: “Europaische Hieb- und Stichwaffen” [European cutting and stabbing/thrusting weapons] (1981)

This is one of my favorite books. In German, it shows highlights from the Museum of German History (or its successor) in Berlin. There is some introductory text, followed by lots of pictures. It’s akin to some Italian titles in that regard, though much cheaper. I used a translation app on my phone to get the gist below. Native German speakers might disagree with the app…

The attached image at the bottom of the post is their description of daggers in the introductory text. They have baselards and Swiss daggers as different entities. Oddly enough, an image toward the middle is what I’d call a Swiss dagger with missing grip. Their caption translates to “dagger with crescent/sickle shaped upper hilt border.” They date it 14th century. Perhaps the authors were unwilling to speculate in the absence of the grip.

Text near that image describes baselards and Swiss daggers as part of the same paragraph, noting the one piece tang and scale grips for baselards. It notes a “strong resemblance” to Swiss daggers whose “handles widen at the top and bottom.” That, to me, indicates that the grip is the main driver of the shape, not the tang shape. The paragraph concludes saying all these were in use in 13th/14th centuries and got slimmer in the 15th century.

The dagger they based the drawing on is shown in the pictures and is captioned simply “Dagger, 14th century.” The physical description in the back gives no geographic origin. They also picture three 14th century baselards of Italian origin and label them baselards. Later, they show what most would call a Holbein dagger and caption it “Swiss dagger.”

Bruno Thomas/Ortwin Gamber/Hans Schedelman: “Arms and Armour of the Western World” (English translation 1964, original German 1963)

This is mostly just an all-stars of attractive arms and armour and doesn’t contain much relevant info here except for how they describe a Holbein dagger pictured. The text has been (occasionally clunkily) translated into English from German for this edition.

[Chad Arnow]

Some takeaways from all this. English language authors sometimes (often?) lump all these into the category "baselard." If English language sources make a distinction between baselards and Swiss daggers, they often don't factor in the 13th/14th century Swiss daggers and note that Swiss daggers (typically synonymous with Holbein daggers in their works) are of 15th/16th century origin. English language sources I've seen seem more likely to use the term "Holbein dagger" than other languages, even though descriptions of these items in other languages pretty much always mention the art of Hans Holbein.

The Mueller/Kolling book above draws a clear distinction in construction between baselards (shaped tang/riveted scales) and Swiss daggers (shaped handles). What I'd call a Holbein dagger is just labeled as "Swiss." Another German book I didn't cite from ("Ilustriertes Lexicon der Hieb- & Stichwaffen" by Jan Sach in 1999) shows a Holbein dagger and just calls it a Swiss dagger. Thomas/Ortwin/Gamber wrote in German and their works were translated into English and Italian. The English-translated book uses "Holbein dagger" (reinforcing my English theory above?); the same item pictured in an Italian-translated book is captioned "Swiss dagger." I'd venture that German authors are more likely to make a distinction between baselard and Swiss dagger, but not between "Swiss dagger" and "Holbein dagger," but I have very few sources to base that on.

Boccia et al doesn't seem to like the term baselard and mostly uses it unflatteringly ("some foreign scholars..."). When describing things, they much prefer "Double T" or they just call it a "dagger." Their origin theory for the Italian version is compelling and may explain why Italian/English examples are different from Germanic examples. The Bargello book uses "baselard" where I'd expect and "Swiss dagger" where English language sources might use Holbein.

After all this, I'm still okay using the term baselard for I/H-shaped tangs with scales and Swiss dagger for things with whittle tangs and varying amounts of metal on either end of the grip.

Dan, thanks for inspiring me to dig into my books. It's always fun.