[Douglas J.]

Hello, I am a new member but I have been following this forum for quite some time now. I have a question about Rheinfelden sword, I can't seem to find much information about it. Does anyone of you personally own it? I'd like to hear more about it.
I am planning to buy it in next few months, and as it is a "cut & thrust" kind of sword, how well does it do in actual combat, against two-handers for example. Is it easy to handle for a novice? It would be my first own sword.

As still being new in this field, I think that I am not qualified to judge swords, so I kind of thought of buying the sword that pleases my eyes. By no means I want a fake sword, don't get me wrong. Swords have always been my dark little desire and now that I'm financially capable of buying one, I will. I want a sword that I can use in practice and do little sparring but it should please my eyes too.

This is all from newb's mouth(hands hehe ) but endure it. I could not find any posts either concerning this exact sword.

[Chad Arnow]

Douglas,
Hello and welcome to myArmoury. I've moved your thread to Historical Arms Talk since you're asking about a historic replica.

Here's a thread where this sword was discussed briefly:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=2663

[Sean Flynt]

There's been a bit of discussion/review over at Swordforum. See if this link will take you to my search results:

http://forums.swordforum.com/search.php?searchid=86198

It's a repro sword type we just don't see much apart from high-end production pieces (see the A&A "Town Gaurd" sword, for example). It's an infantry or cavalry sword of the early 17th c. It wouldn't be expected to oppose two-hand swords. Those were largely out of combat use by this time. Rather, it would be an officer's sidearm or a sword for a better equipped or specialized soldier (musketeer, maybe). It's a secondary weapon. It would most likely face other common field swords--hangers (a.k.a., cutlasses, falchions), backswords and broadswords, and then only after the discharge of arms or the incapacitation of pike.

There's a famous illustration of two opponents in this era fighting to the death, starting with muskets and ending up rolling on the ground. In between they use every bit of equipment they have against each other. The point is, infantrymen in this era didn't charge into battle waving their swords. They carried pikes, mainly, and some carried shorter polearms such as halberds and bills. Cavalrymen carried pistols. You'll also see illustrations of pikemen braced for a cavalry charge, with one hand on their pike and one ready to draw their sword. Those swords, usually with simpler hilts than this one, tended to be of what is informally termed cut and thrust design, as you already know. So the MRL piece has the right general blade shape for the period (tapering, diamond section) and hilt (complex, with wire grip wrap), but I'd want to see a broader blade. This one looks too narrow compared to many field swords of the era (see below and the A&A piece). I think it's reasonable as-is, though. There were narrower blades like this on field swords as well. As far as looks are concerned, I'd like to see that high polish knocked down. Then it could look much better than its price suggests. If the hilt isn't plated or stainless, I'd love to see it blued or blackened. I'm not crazy about the pommel shape.

See this wall of swords for reference to originals of similar type, and please try not to drool on your keyboard. These are displayed with cavalry helmets, by the way, which may be a clue as to their use.

[Sean Flynt]

Some examples from A&A:

[Sean Flynt]

And here's the full-length view of the Rheinfelden sword. Note that the blade is narrower than those shown above. It's hard to judge proportions without seeing the weapon in hand. This is a long weapon at 43" (as long as the first A&A weapon shown above) so the blade would still be relatively broad. When you get one you can review it for us and get an in-hand shot.

[Steve Grisetti]

[Nathan Robinson]

Those search results links won't work.

[Steve Grisetti]

Nathan, am I correct in taking your statement to mean that a link to a search will never work?

[Nathan Robinson]

[Sean Flynt]

Just enter "rheinfelden" and you'll get the same results I got. Mostly just stats.

[Mark Millman]

I have one of these swords, which I bought to modify for use in the seventeenth-century re-enactment group to which I belong.

I concur with many of Mr. Flynt's critiques, and would therefore like to find images of the original on which MRL based this. I have not, however, been successful. I can't even find out in what museum it resides.

Do any of you recognize the sword that the Rheinfelden attempts to imitate? If so, can you send me any information about it?

I'd be very grateful for any help.

Sincerely,

Mark Millman

[Jim Mearkle]

The siderings on the MRL piece match the siderings on their "Elizabethan cut and thrust" sword from the early to mid 90s. That was not based on a historical sword. Instead, it was designed to match a dagger from the period. I would not be surprised if it was not based on any one particular sword.