| 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: Daniel Sullivan, Anonymous, Chad Arnow, Jonathan Dean, M. Oroszlany, Sam Arwas, Barry C. Hutchins, Dan Kary, Oskar Gessler, Dave Tonge (View All Donors) |
| Author |
Message |
|
Sean Manning
|
 Posted: Fri 14 Jun, 2024 4:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | Which is the reason why is despise rapier typology on hilts rather than blades. A sword like the one used by Jean de Vallete in the Siege of Malta is simply a normal 16th-century sword with complex guard. Since it's not diamond section, it would cut even better than the Munich. I can't remember who made Grand Master Jean's reproduction, but here's the original used in the siege:
https://timesofmalta.com/article/Copy-of-the-real-de-Valette-sword-again-used-in-battle-.474176 |
If you consider just the hilt or just the blade, I think you will have problems by the late 16th and 17th century. There are some swords with relatively simple hilts but long, narrow blades and there are some swords with complex hilts with lots of rings and bars but short, broad blades. If your theory about early rapiers is right, they would not have been called rapiers in England in 1590.
Unfortunately, European straight swords of the late 16th and 17th century do not fall neatly into two groups 
www.bookandsword.com
|
|
  |
 |
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Sun 16 Jun, 2024 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | Which is the reason why is despise rapier typology on hilts rather than blades. A sword like the one used by Jean de Vallete in the Siege of Malta is simply a normal 16th-century sword with complex guard. Since it's not diamond section, it would cut even better than the Munich. I can't remember who made Grand Master Jean's reproduction, but here's the original used in the siege:
https://timesofmalta.com/article/Copy-of-the-real-de-Valette-sword-again-used-in-battle-.474176 |
If you consider just the hilt or just the blade, I think you will have problems by the late 16th and 17th century. There are some swords with relatively simple hilts but long, narrow blades and there are some swords with complex hilts with lots of rings and bars but short, broad blades. If your theory about early rapiers is right, they would not have been called rapiers in England in 1590.
Unfortunately, European straight swords of the late 16th and 17th century do not fall neatly into two groups |
I`m refferring here mostly to a modern terminology (espatologia, as we call in Iberian languages; I guess we don't have an English term for that) rather than the contemporary and flowing terminology given at the time. At least in Germany, it seems, they would call rappieren swords with complex guards, whether 2.5-3cm classic rapiers or more wider blades. But given how basket-hilted swords became a norm by the English Civil Wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, I suspect these nomenclature was abandoned because ALL swords would be classifiable as rappieren (as mortuary/basket hilts would be normally slim, with the most rare exceptions).
I have read yesterday that George Silver also mentioned backswords in his works, but I'm not aware of what he meant by that. From the little I have seen in his treatise, and the criticism he said about the weapon, and how an Italian rapierist was killed in London, his main concern was the "rapier" as a slim and thrust-dependant sword, which is reasonable considering the 1590's dominant tendency; he might have been less critic if he lived some 50 years earlier, I guess.
So, contemporary terminology wise: sideswords being hexagonal swords, slimmer than their contemporaries (around 2.8-4cm for example), regardless of guard complexity (this meant that Alexandria 1430, Irish and a number of Iberian swords would fall in this category). Albion features some 3-4 type XIX swords with the same blade, differing just in their guard; therefore they are the same sword.
Early rapier being diamond shape, slimmer than military contemporaries (around 2.8-3.5cm wide), tappering depending on the base width, regardless of guard complexity
I know bad the obssesion with classification is, but the current sidesword/rapier division is just a huge mess, judging by guard complexity level is a mistake.
----
I`m not educated in the overall state of one handed swords through 16th-17th centuries, but it seens the complex hilts became a norm for one handed swords at some point, and a number of Iberian montantes through this period also seen to have adopted complexities unseen in German Zweihanders, such as the use of finger-rings, swept-hilt, pappenheimer etc; given that what we own is just a fragment of what we had, I cant say for sure if this as a minor, aristocracy-centered, culture, or something as popular as normal two handers, uncomplex or with guard-siderings.
I would have to study more, but it seens that, except for more non-conventional swords (short terciados of 60cm BL and badelaires), the rank-and-file would be equipped with one handed straight sword of some guard complexity. I suspect this forced a change in linguistics, if we consider "broadsword" as a contemporary difference between a rapier and backsword, both complex
“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Jun, 2024 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
That's weird claim because Dutch Rondassiers appear with normal or conservative complex hilts, as in here:
Spanish Tercio rodeleros (or officers fighting as rodeleros), appear either with Terzado swords (the name comes from a blade that's 2/3 the length of a normal sword) and heavy sabers, in the manga's van (a manga/sleeve is a block of firearms in the corners of the tercio block). Some paintings of the battles in Dutch Brazil also depicts rodeleiros with minimally complex swords, normal length of around 80-90cm. For the tercios: |
I think it is one of those "common sense" claims. I am not sure how long a sword has to be to reach a rider, and reaching the rider can be enough. One has to be far enough away to avoid being trampled. The best technique would probably be to kill the horse.
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
By the way, do we have any datation for when Koncerz appear? I mean, very long blades that doesnt have a fillet/ridge in the flat, like Estocs (what we call Estocs today)? |
I am not sure. Alby Butler says that they first appear in the 15th century, but that they reached their full form in the 16th century. His article seems to contradict itself, on that point, and is possibly based off wikipedia. His listed sources include 2 Fechtbucher that don’t cover the Koncerz and a single page from a book on the 30 Years War. It seems to share some similarities with Turkish and Chinese swords. https://malevus.com/koncerz/#koncerz8217s-history
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
Which is the reason why is despise rapier typology on hilts rather than blades. A sword like the one used by Jean de Vallete in the Siege of Malta is simply a normal 16th-century sword with complex guard. Since it's not diamond section, it would cut even better than the Munich. I can't remember who made Grand Master Jean's reproduction, but here's the original used in the siege:
https://timesofmalta.com/article/Copy-of-the-real-de-Valette-sword-again-used-in-battle-.474176 |
Blades are more important than hilts to function, although hilts can help with dating. What is needed is to be able to expand Oakeshott´s typology to the Renaissance. Oakeshotts typology is good, because it doesn’t rely on terminology. It is important to keep in mind that typology and terminology are two different things. This is especially as there are more and more people have access to period documents. Clearly, Silver and Meyer meant different things by the word rapier, but there are probably more cases that are less clear.
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
I`m refferring here mostly to a modern terminology (espatologia, as we call in Iberian languages; I guess we don't have an English term for that) rather than the contemporary and flowing terminology given at the time. At least in Germany, it seems, they would call rappieren swords with complex guards, whether 2.5-3cm classic rapiers or more wider blades. But given how basket-hilted swords became a norm by the English Civil Wars of the 17th and 18th centuries, I suspect these nomenclature was abandoned because ALL swords would be classifiable as rappieren (as mortuary/basket hilts would be normally slim, with the most rare exceptions).
|
I don’t get the impression that the type of guard played a major role in classification. There are also some later German fencing books that depict rapiers or foils with very simple cross guards. During the 30 Years War, maybe earlier, the term Degen began to become the dominate term for double-edged straight swords. I think historically, most swords were classified based on function.
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Jun, 2024 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
This lists the instructions for the valets (Kammerdiener) at the archducal court at Graz. It describes the dressing of the Archduke and preparations for when he goes out riding. When putting on his coat (Mantel) the Archduke puts "Leibwehr" or bodyweapon. For riding, the valet has to get the Reitschwert ready as well as the guns. The guns are then given to the pages (Edelknaben). It seems that this applies every time that the Archduke goes riding. I would think that the Leibwehr fits more the definition of an easy wearing sidesword, and the Reitschwert is something more fitted to riding, be it is a military or civilian context.
https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/24915/1/Hengerer_24915.pdf
Last edited by Ryan S. on Wed 19 Jun, 2024 1:12 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Jun, 2024 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ryan S. wrote: | | This lists the instructions for the valets (Kammerdiener) at the archducal court at Graz. It describes the dressing of the Archduke and preparations for when he goes out riding. When putting on his coat (Mantel) the Archduke puts "Leibwehr" or bodyweapon. For riding, the valet has to get the Reitschwert ready as well as the guns. The guns are then given to the pages (Edelknaben). It seems that this applies every time that the Archduke goes riding. I would think that the Leibwehr fits more the definition of an easy wearing sidesword, and the Reitschwert is something more fitted to riding, be it is a military or civilian context. |
What`s the source`s datation? Cause in German Wikipedia they define a Reitschwert as essentially a sword able to cut and thrust. Civil rapiers would be slimmer and thus not able for the cutting performance we see in these complex hilted military swords. I suspect the source is reffering to a sword different to what we, today, define as a reitschwert.
| Ryan S. wrote: | | I think it is one of those "common sense" claims. I am not sure how long a sword has to be to reach a rider, and reaching the rider can be enough. One has to be far enough away to avoid being trampled. The best technique would probably be to kill the horse. |
Nagamaki swords were seen by Japanese to be an anti-cavalry weapon. The blade is at least 2 shaku (61cm), the minimum expected from the shortest infantry katana (or the maximum length for the heaviest wakizashi), but grip is either as long as the blade, or as long as you wish. Kult of Athena has a Nagamaki that's almost a naginata, etc.
I was discussing with Carlos with that was the reasoning behind the long handles seen in 15th-16th century Norse and Baltic swords, whose blade-hilt ratio is 2:1. The Trondheim T17729 has a blade length around 90-98cm and a handle length of 47.5cm (center figure).
These types have cutting profile blades with roundish points. Carlos gave the idea they had long hilts for trying halfswording with both hands under the crossguard, but that would only be useful for cutting halfsworing (though some XVIIIe posted in the group are thrusting two handers that could benefit from a safe halfsworing like this).
Using these swords as anti-cavalry weapons would make sense in cultures where infantry was considered more useful than elsewhere (Swedish foot, for example, is praised by many Late Medieval Histories, and managed to win battles against professional mercenary forces raised by the Danish King). Nagamakis were also known to be efficient slicing sword, with is in the same function as these Baltic beasts.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/444864076083475/posts/1526215697948302/?paipv=0&eav=Afa8Pk1NUFyBS7lQ7vh63LdpuNJT7JL_2bgfZuD9YPaejRLag8NjOkAMUMB4zkZUzqc&_rdr
-----------------
| Quote: | | Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | By the way, do we have any datation for when Koncerz appear? I mean, very long blades that doesnt have a fillet/ridge in the flat, like Estocs (what we call Estocs today)? |
I am not sure. Alby Butler says that they first appear in the 15th century, but that they reached their full form in the 16th century. His article seems to contradict itself, on that point, and is possibly based off wikipedia. His listed sources include 2 Fechtbucher that don’t cover the Koncerz and a single page from a book on the 30 Years War. It seems to share some similarities with Turkish and Chinese swords. https://malevus.com/koncerz/#koncerz8217s-history |
Yesterday I saw an Hungarian koncerz from the 16th century, I suspect Hungary and Poland adopted spear-leangth Koncerz either as a sheathe-able second spear or as a primary weapon per se.
We do have the Saxonian Prince's sword at Muhlberg 1540's, it was a normal length estoc. For length issue, check these early estocs:
| Quote: | | Blades are more important than hilts to function, although hilts can help with dating. What is needed is to be able to expand Oakeshott´s typology to the Renaissance. Oakeshotts typology is good, because it doesn’t rely on terminology. It is important to keep in mind that typology and terminology are two different things. This is especially as there are more and more people have access to period documents. Clearly, Silver and Meyer meant different things by the word rapier, but there are probably more cases that are less clear. |
For that sake, the person would have to update some stuff on thrust or diamond-shaped types of Oakeshott typology, risking making an even bigger typology. I guess everyone is too scared to touch on Oakeshott Typology and simply accept the errors, specifying a sword is not typological when necessary (the Haifa Crusader Sword for example is a mix of type XI and XII, at least)
“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sean Manning
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jun, 2024 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: | | For that sake, the person would have to update some stuff on thrust or diamond-shaped types of Oakeshott typology, risking making an even bigger typology. I guess everyone is too scared to touch on Oakeshott Typology and simply accept the errors, specifying a sword is not typological when necessary (the Haifa Crusader Sword for example is a mix of type XI and XII, at least) |
I think its that lovers of the medieval sword love Ewart Oakeshott, and more precise and rigorous typologies are often hard to use. So even if someone created a more academic typology, it might become something that just a few academics used.
So Marko Aleksić expanded the Oakeshott typology in his book while noting how often its hard to tell an Oakeshott type XV from XVIII or XIII from XVI, while James Elmslie created his own typology for falchions and messers and cross-sections-types" target="_blank" class="postlink">Maciej Kopciuch created one for two-edged swords.
www.bookandsword.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ryan S.
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Jun, 2024 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pedro Paulo Gaião wrote: |
What`s the source`s datation? Cause in German Wikipedia they define a Reitschwert as essentially a sword able to cut and thrust. Civil rapiers would be slimmer and thus not able for the cutting performance we see in these complex hilted military swords. I suspect the source is reffering to a sword different to what we, today, define as a reitschwert. |
The document is dated 1572-1590. They have a different definition as the modern use, but the modern use isn't consistent. Some German books mention Reitschwerter but don’t define them. Some define them as a heavy rapier, but the difference isn’t clear. There are also instances of hand and a half swords being described as Reitschwerter". This lines up with Andre Paurenfeyndt who lists the Reitschwert with other two handed weapons such as the estoc. It is possible that as combat changed and riders used different swords, they became the new riding sword.
| Quote: |
For that sake, the person would have to update some stuff on thrust or diamond-shaped types of Oakeshott typology, risking making an even bigger typology. I guess everyone is too scared to touch on Oakeshott Typology and simply accept the errors, specifying a sword is not typological when necessary (the Haifa Crusader Sword for example is a mix of type XI and XII, at least) |
I think it would make sense to apply the same principles to renaissance and early modern swords.
|
|
|
|
|
Pedro Paulo Gaião
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Jun, 2024 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sean Manning wrote: | | So Marko Aleksić expanded the Oakeshott typology in his book while noting how often its hard to tell an Oakeshott type XV from XVIII or XIII from XVI, while James Elmslie created his own typology for falchions and messers and cross-sections-types" target="_blank" class="postlink">Maciej Kopciuch created one for two-edged swords. |
I was only aware of Elmslie typology, I will check the others. You and Ryan talking about reforming Oakeshott made me think these days about it. A solution I had was changing Oakeshott obsession with fullers and making a typology primarly based on blade profile and cross section.
So diamond-shaped swords would be type XV if they profile tappered all the way to the point, if they didnt tapper enough, they would be XVIII (another number because that would simplify a whole lot of his typology) or hybrid.
Fullers would be a subtype rather than a type (especially when late Spathae from the 5th and 6th centuries featured different fullers or no fuller at all). So a Brescia Spadona would be a type XV (slighty going to XVIII) with the small case letter for the fuller system. Bastard and two-handed styles of a type would be identifiable by something like an "h" or something
Hexagonal styles would be simplified under the same logic, and we could add estoc profiles like one-sided fillet,two sided fillet, triangular, square/pyramidal etc.
| Ryan S. wrote: | | The document is dated 1572-1590. They have a different definition as the modern use, but the modern use isn't consistent. Some German books mention Reitschwerter but don’t define them. Some define them as a heavy rapier, but the difference isn’t clear. There are also instances of hand and a half swords being described as Reitschwerter". This lines up with Andre Paurenfeyndt who lists the Reitschwert with other two handed weapons such as the estoc. It is possible that as combat changed and riders used different swords, they became the new riding sword. |
For me it seens, from what I could get, it meant a category that included complex hilted bastard swords and wider, war rapiers with cutting abilities. The bastard sword was an interesting thing because you still wanted to use it with one hand when on horse; again, I'm not a specialist on later 16th and 17th swords, but it seems bastard swords disappeared in infantry because they would either take the convenience of one-handed swords or the reach and sheer power of Claymore and True Two Handers (Montante/Zweihander).
A bastard hilt also had the convenience of allowing a gauntlet hand.
--------------
I guess this will be the last time I post art, but Fernando Gallego has interesting features for complex guards in the 1480's. A finger ring for a falchion and a swordstaff with finger-rings. Dolstein claims Swedish swordstaves were blades recycled as spearheads, but this one looks like intentionally made for a highly decorative weapon:
The Betrayal of Christ, by Fernando Gallego, c. 1480-1488.
Other artwork showing espada de pitones: https://useum.org/artwork/The-Resurrection-Fernando-Gallego-1488
A weird messer: https://useum.org/artwork/The-Agony-in-the-Garden-Fernando-Gallego
It interesting that Castilian and Leonese/Galician artistic evidence seems to point out they were very conservative in their adoption of complex guards, the extant swords of El Gran Capitan, Afonso el Catolico and others are 4-5.5cm swords with just a pair of rings, while Portuguese were adopting pins and thumb-rings and the Italians were really into knuckle bows and thumb rings by the 1490's.
While controversial to credit this to a specific nation, I would suggest this:
1471 Portugal develops pins and thumb rings -> 1480's Italy made blades longer (up to 90~110cm) and slimmer (like 2.5-3cm) -> 1490's Italian introduction of knuckle-bow -> 1535-1539's Portuguese development of opposite cross-lacing between crossguard and finger-rings.
I still have to figure it out when the perpendicular pin managed to go both ways, generally ending in a small catcher in the opposite side. The sword attributed to Pedro Alvares Cabral, c. 1490's-1500's, has the pair of pins in opposite directions:
“Burn old wood, read old books, drink old wines, have old friends.”
Alfonso X, King of Castile (1221-84)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
