| myArmoury.com is now completely member-supported. Please contribute to our efforts with a donation. Your donations will go towards updating our site, modernizing it, and keeping it viable long-term.
Last 10 Donors: Anonymous, Daniel Sullivan, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
Jean Henri Chandler
|
 Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject: Palasch vs. Schiavona |
 |
|
Can somebody explain to me what the functional differences are, if any, between the Polish "Palsach" (Palascz, Palash, etc. etc. not sure how to spell it) and the (originally) Venetian Schiavona. Both seem to be relatively long, strait cavalry swords intended for both cutting and thrusting. I realise the Schiavona tend to have a bit more hand protection and such cosmetic features as the characteristic cat's head etc., but I'm interested in differences in how they were used, how they might cut, chop, slice, slash or thrust differently, and any differences in handling, balance etc.
While you are at it, O prospective cavalry weapon expert, perhaps you could go into the broad functional differences between different types of cavalry swords generally. Is it true for example that strait swords were more for thrusting, curved swords for ride-by draw cuts? I have also read that sabers were somewhat less effective in the defensive role than strait swords. Which types were considered better for a heavy fight? Etc.
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
  |
 |
Michal Plezia
Industry Professional
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In polish it would be Palasz  As far as I know(I have not much knowledge about this type of weapon) palasz has one sharp edge like saber and is more curved than schiavonna...but I may be wrong 
www.elchon.com
Polish Guild of Knifemakers
The sword is a weapon for killing, the art of the sword is the art of killing. No matter what fancy words you use or what titles you put to
it that is the only truth.
|
|
 |
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
|
 |
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | It's hard to really make such a comparison, as the Palsach really defines a type of weapon and a Schiavona defines a variation of hilt style. A Schiavona hilt, specifically, can be seen mated to numerous blade types ranging from long, stout, narrow, almost "rapier-like" blades to short and wide blades to any number of varieties of single-edged blades. |
Thats interesting. Are you saying that a 'Schiavona' was not recognizable as a specific blade form even in the early days when the first Schiavona were appearing (or evolving from Schiavonesci (sp) or whatever other previous more primitive forms)?
I probably haven't seen as many as you but while I have seen some variation, the vast majority of the historical Schiavona I have seen (or weapons with the recognizable Schiavona type hilts) were more or less of a type: usually somewhat between an arming sword and a sidesword in breadth (I know these are generic terms but bear with me) strait bladed, with a rounded, sharp to spatulate point, and often with a partial false edge. Many seem to have some fullers especially in the forte of the blade.
I guess my question is, while granted a schiavona hilt could appear on a rapier or sidesword type civilian weapon, weren't they typically seen on a fairly heavy, strait cavalry sword actually somewhat similar to a palascz?
J
(P.s. for what it's worth, I seem to have seen as much or more variation in what is called a Pallasch (in various spellings) as I have with Schiavonas)
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
I probably haven't seen as many as you but while I have seen some variation, the vast majority of the historical Schiavona I have seen (or weapons with the recognizable Schiavona type hilts) were more or less of a type: usually somewhat between an arming sword and a sidesword in breadth (I know these are generic terms but bear with me) strait bladed, with a rounded, sharp to spatulate point, and often with a partial false edge. Many seem to have some fullers especially in the forte of the blade.
|
I've actually seen the early schiavona hilt mounted on a curved blade  . I tend to agree with Nathan that these are more a hilt style than blade type.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Hopkins
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with what Nathan and Chad have said about the Schiavona really being more of a hilt than a blade form. Schiavona could have broadsword (two edged) or backsword (one edge) blades. Woxikon.com translates pallasch from German to English, and according to this site it means "broadsword". Broadsword is quite a general term, so that would account fro why it would be hard to nail down exactly what is meant by pallasch. I suppose a schivona with a straight blade could be considered a pallasch!
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Trueman
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi
In earlier periods, the palasz is described as a straight one edged blade, with some of the back edge sharpened. The hilt is pistol gripped and was the forerunner to the early sabre. I have seen some ealier so called palaszes with a slight curve to the tip.
sorry if thats a bit off the subject.
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Wed 13 Dec, 2006 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The book, Complete Encyclopedia Of Arms & Weapons, defines the Pallasch as:
"A term derived from the Turkish Pala (meaning "straight") and used in Germany and other eastern European countries to denote a backsword with a straight, heavy blade, usually single-edged, and a closed (ie, with a knuckle guard) or, more rarely, an open hilt. It was designed mainly for cutting, although thrusts with the pont were also possible; occasionally the blade was double-edged and was grooved and ridged on both faces. As a weapon of the heavy cavalry, it was used at least from the beginning of the 17th century, and its typological derivations are still used today.
Sailors, special corps, and irregular troops also adopted it in smaller forms. It found considerable favor among hunters. The hunting version of the pallasch was in fact one of many types of hunting hanger. Its handle was made in a wide variety of materials, usually carefully decorated and surmounted by a cap with a button. Unlike the military prototype with a closed hilt, the guard of the hunting weapon had only two short quillons, whose finals were occasionally shaped like an animal's foot or head; a shell of the guard, when it was present, usually pointed toward the blade. The blade was sharply pointed and sometimes had a fuller running almost the entire length; it was decorated with ornamental patterns and gilding. Along the other types of hunting hangers, such weapons were still used in the 19th century."
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Dec, 2006 1:21 am Post subject: Re: Palasch vs. Schiavona |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: |
While you are at it, O prospective cavalry weapon expert, perhaps you could go into the broad functional differences between different types of cavalry swords generally. Is it true for example that strait swords were more for thrusting, curved swords for ride-by draw cuts? I have also read that sabers were somewhat less effective in the defensive role than strait swords. Which types were considered better for a heavy fight? Etc. |
In broad terms, yes, a straight sword is more suitable for thrusting and chopping, while a curved sword is more suitable for draw cuts because the curve of its edge makes it naturally drag across the surface of the object it is trying to cut. But curved sabers can be used to thrust effectively as long as they have a thrusting (i.e. pointed, not rounded) tip, although the techniques involved are a little more complicated. Remember that the motion of a thrust on horseback is always a curve--never a straight line. The only time where you have straight-line action is when you're not thrusting, but merely "presenting" the point while letting the horse's movement do the job of driving the sword into your enemy's body. In this case a straight sword is obviously better--but curved sabers can still also be used in this role, albeit in a rather awkward manner.
I wouldn't say that a saber is more or less effective in defense than a straight sword. Mounted swordsmanship was not always a sword-on-sword affair--you or the enemy would sometimes have a shield or a buckler, and this changes the relative vulnerability of your left and right sides against their strikes. And even on sword-on-sword, the better swordsman tends to win over the "better" sword (and the better horseman would usually win over the better swordsman).
Maybe the statement comes from the tendency among curved sabers to be shorter than straight ones? Even here I don't see why it would give an advantage to one side or the other because you'd deflect or parry the enemy's cuts and thrusts with the forte of your sword--the one-thirds or one-half of the blade closest to the hilt. The length of this portion doesn't vary as dramatically as overall blade length.
(And anyway, the best defense in mounted swordsmanship is either killing the bastard first or riding out of his range altogether.)
As for the last question, it's impossible to answer unless you can clarify what you mean by a "heavy fight." The press of a line vs. line cavalry combat? Or the loose-order melee involved in a skirmish or pursuit? Or armored fighting on horseback?
Other posters here have given better and more detailed overviews of the difference from a purely hoplological standpoint, and I won't repeat what they have already said.
|
|
|
|
|
Nathan Robinson
myArmoury Admin
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Dec, 2006 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is such a variety of blade types mated to schiavona hilts that I'm not sure it's possible to classify a typical schiavona. I can throw out some very informal non-scientific guesses of how to categorize the 200 or so examples I've seen first-hand, published, or otherwise photographed. Of these, I'd say 25-35% are single-edged blades, 75% are "stout" wide blades, 85% have fullers, 60% have spatulate blade tips, there is a good mix of cross-sections ranging from hexagonal, diamond, and fullered lenticular, but also a fair number of "odd" blade shapes with complex fullering. One can very well figure out an average to all this and probably will conclude that it's a double-edged, fullered blade of relatively wide, stout width having a gradual profile taper and a spatulate tip. But given the tremendous variety of blade styles for the various schiavone surviving, this "average" certainly does not create a definitive type and, likewise, does not lend itself to wide-sweeping or all-inclusive conversations on the subject.
I don't know nearly as much about the subject of the pallasch, but I suspect that the type includes just as much variety and, perhaps, may even include a variety of definitions for the type. My understanding of the type is that it is simply a straight-bladed cavalry weapon generally having a single edge. That is likley too generic for most, and possibly completely incorrect.
.:. Visit my Collection Gallery :: View my Reading List :: View my Wish List :: See Pages I Like :: Find me on Facebook .:.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruno Giordan
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Dec, 2006 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | It's hard to really make such a comparison, as the Palsach really defines a type of weapon and a Schiavona defines a variation of hilt style. A Schiavona hilt, specifically, can be seen mated to numerous blade types ranging from long, stout, narrow, almost "rapier-like" blades to short and wide blades to any number of varieties of single-edged blades. |
yes, I have examined a batch of true schiavonas, there weren't almost two blades of the same type: one fullered narrow blades, two fullered large ones, one had a double ridged fuller and an extremely narrow blade etc.
So handling characteristics varied greatly too from a blade to another, point of balances were strikingly different, weight varied significantly.
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Dec, 2006 9:16 am Post subject: Re: Palasch vs. Schiavona |
|
|
[quote="Lafayette C Curtis"]
Thanks for your comments Mr. Curtis, I found them informative
| Quote: |
Maybe the statement comes from the tendency among curved sabers to be shorter than straight ones? Even here I don't
|
I can't remember where I had read this but I believe it was in anecdotes about military policy in arming cavalry vis a vis applied military tactics, IIRC in a quite late, 18th - 19th century context. I remember the assertion being made, more than once, that the curved sabers were less effective at displacement or parrying, and even that the more prounounced the curve the less effectrive they were.
I also remember discussion of the various types of cavalry swords, short swords, long strait 'estoc' like thrusters, long choppers or cut-thrust swords, and various types of sabers. I understand it's not very helpful refrring to such a vague 'source' as this but I am actively researching this issue and if I can find a concrete source I will come back to this thread and cite it.
For the record I didn't necessarily believe what these military experts were saying, what i was interested in was how much the collective Western military establishment, if such a thing could be said to have existed, understood the basic principles of fencing in a military way, especially how this related to equipment. I'm interested in the process of analysis and how accurate they were, if at all. I'm interested in how this might reflect on earlier eras.
| Quote: |
As for the last question, it's impossible to answer unless you can clarify what you mean by a "heavy fight." The press of a line vs. line cavalry combat? Or the loose-order melee involved in a skirmish or pursuit? Or armored fighting on horseback?
|
What I really meant was any kind of close, continued fight where more than one or two cuts/ thrusts might be exchanged between two enemy cavalrymen, as opposed to a more typical light cavalry hit and run attack where just one cut is made before galloping away. But your request for clarification brings up other issues which makes this more complex, indeed, bucklers or shields, armor are major factors, so of course would be lances and even handguns which go quite far back in the form of early snaphaunces etc. and your so-called "ritter knights"
J
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
Jean Henri Chandler
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Dec, 2006 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Nathan Robinson wrote: | | One can very well figure out an average to all this and probably will conclude that it's a double-edged, fullered blade of relatively wide, stout width having a gradual profile taper and a spatulate tip. |
Indeed, that corresponds with my much smaller sample, the only difference i would make is I seem to have seen a lot with partial false edge, including recently last year close up in private collections in Venice and Prague.
| Quote: | | But given the tremendous variety of blade styles for the various schiavone surviving, this "average" certainly does not create a definitive type and, likewise, does not lend itself to wide-sweeping or all-inclusive conversations on the subject. |
True, but couldn't that be said about most categories of swords one could think of? I have observed discussions of fighting with a weapon like a kriegsmesser, yet I have seen similar varities with those: quite a variety in length, some curved, some strait, some single eged some with partial false edge, some with fullers, some acutely pointed, some with more rounded points. Some people argue there is so much overlap between falchions and messers that it's impossible to distinguish, and yet we do for the sake of discussion, perhaps erroneously (as for Messers you also have the Swiss and Hungarian hand-and-a-half sabers to consider as well...) Even Oakeshots typology can be pretty loose in that different types of fullers or blade profiles, many if not most individual examples overlapping between types in some cases etc.
| Quote: |
I don't know nearly as much about the subject of the pallasch, but I suspect that the type includes just as much variety and, perhaps, may even include a variety of definitions for the type. My understanding of the type is that it is simply a straight-bladed cavalry weapon generally having a single edge. That is likley too generic for most, and possibly completely incorrect. |
The pallasch on the other hand, from the examples I have seen which are all quite late (almost all 19th century) they seem to be of a type, with certain recognizable features, which you can see clearly here:
i.e. A long (usually 42"), strait, slightly tapering, single edged blade with two fullers, and a specific recognizable type of swept guard (with a sort of a swept open basket one side and a stub of a quillon or from the cup on the other), and a canted sabers grip.
Here are some other photos I found:
This one allegedly from the 18th century
This one from an old ebay auction
 From Derrittmiester.com, where you can see how deep the twin fullers are in that detail photo...
I also found this little burb about the napoleonic wars at http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_...eonic.html
| Quote: |
"French heavy and medium cavalry (Cuirassiers and dragoons) were equipped with a thrusting weapon with a heavy brass hilt whose weight helped bring the blade up, whereas the French light cavalry were armed Hungarian style with a slashing weapon. The German style Pallasch was a heavy sword with a straight blade suitable for cutting and was favoured by many nations’ heavy cavalry. Early British versions of the weapon had a hatch like blade end making it impossible to thrust with, so many units ground the weapon into a point at the end to add versatility. Compared to the French thrusting weapon it was heavy and clumsy a ‘chopper like’ weapon especially when fatal blows in combat normally came from a thrust although the Pallasch did inflict horrendous damage in combat." |
Jean
Books and games on Medieval Europe Codex Integrum
Codex Guide to the Medieval Baltic Now available in print
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Hopkins
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Dec, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Try googling "pallasch" and you will see that there is quite a variety of swords that have been classified as such.
Here is what came up for me when I did a Google image search: http://images.google.com/images?q=pallasch&am...amp;tab=wi
Jonathan
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 14 Dec, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: Re: Palasch vs. Schiavona |
|
|
| Jean Henri Chandler wrote: | I can't remember where I had read this but I believe it was in anecdotes about military policy in arming cavalry vis a vis applied military tactics, IIRC in a quite late, 18th - 19th century context. I remember the assertion being made, more than once, that the curved sabers were less effective at displacement or parrying, and even that the more prounounced the curve the less effectrive they were.
I also remember discussion of the various types of cavalry swords, short swords, long strait 'estoc' like thrusters, long choppers or cut-thrust swords, and various types of sabers. I understand it's not very helpful refrring to such a vague 'source' as this but I am actively researching this issue and if I can find a concrete source I will come back to this thread and cite it.
For the record I didn't necessarily believe what these military experts were saying, what i was interested in was how much the collective Western military establishment, if such a thing could be said to have existed, understood the basic principles of fencing in a military way, especially how this related to equipment. I'm interested in the process of analysis and how accurate they were, if at all. I'm interested in how this might reflect on earlier eras. |
Oh. The 19th century cut vs. thrust debate. It is an amusing debate, although I concur that it is also quite pointless (forgive the pun). At some points the parties involved in the debate seem to have come to blows--physically--and came out none the better for that.
Of course, I can see the point about a curved sword being potentially less capable of displacing an enemy's blow--but as far as I've seen in my hands-o nexperiemnts, this is only applicable if the deflections and parries are accomplished with the more distant (and therefore "weaker") portion of the blade. The curve of the blade makes little difference in a parry executed from the forte.
The accuracy and applicability of the analyses proposed in that 19th-century debate varied greatly from proponent to proponent, since their fighting experience varied greatly from hardened veterans to armchair soldiers who had never wielded a sword in a life-and-death situation. One of the most pertinent observatiosn made at that time was that the cut was the more natural motion and hence should be preferred for the training of new, inexperienced cavalrymen recruited from among the common stock, but the officers coming from among the nobility and the gentry generally had some prior knowledge of fencing in a thrust-based system so they should be allowed to use a fighting sytem that also emphasized thrusts. This observation was quite specific to the situation of the 19th-century European society. However, with a little conjecture we can easily conclude that the best kind of sword for any kind of mounted soldier is one that can both thrust and cut--which conclusion should have been obvious in the first place, but got lost in the subtleties of the debate!
BTW, there is a good article describing the methods of British cavalry training in the Napoleonic period, when the training programme was handled by a master that favored the cut:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organ...oint2.html
and a reference on the practice of grinding the points of British heavy cavalry swords to make serviceable thrusting points:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organ...point.html
| Quote: | | What I really meant was any kind of close, continued fight where more than one or two cuts/ thrusts might be exchanged between two enemy cavalrymen, as opposed to a more typical light cavalry hit and run attack where just one cut is made before galloping away. But your request for clarification brings up other issues which makes this more complex, indeed, bucklers or shields, armor are major factors, so of course would be lances and even handguns which go quite far back in the form of early snaphaunces etc. and your so-called "ritter knights" |
Yes. There is no simple answer. Both straight and curved swords have been known to be used effectively in the press of a static fight between two cavalry lines. And the fighting in such an environment was generally less "heavy" than a lay observer might suppose--the two lines tended to stand just beyond the reach of the weapons, with individual horsemen or small groups skipping in to trade a few blows before returning back to the line. In a late medieval or early Renaissance environment with heavy armor for both man and horse the fight might have indeed been quite "heavy" since the armor gave the men more confidence against injuries than in, say, a similar fight between two largely unarmored squadrons of 19th-century cavalry, but even in this case I suppose genuine melees with a mingling of men would have been a rare occurence if not actually nonexistent.
Try looking at these pages. They're supposed to describe the methods of Roman cavalry, but in doing so they quote from books referring to episodes of later cavalry warfare.
http://garyb.0catch.com/cavalry2_intro/cavalry_intro.html
and
http://garyb.0catch.com/cavalry3_details/cavalry_details.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic