[Lewis Ballard]

[Julian Reynolds]

Lewis, I can't tell because of the angle of the photo, but there's a chance that may be a half-guarded sword similar to this one reproduced by David Ledoyen:

http://www.theroyalsword.com/swords/french-so...guard.html

Adam, from a classification point of view, the HEMA world tends to classify swords more by the way they were used (or the way their uses were written about in treatises) because, as Lewis rightly points out, one man's sword is another man's sabre (or cuttoe etc.) - many of the original treatises simply talk of generic 'swords' because they are more concerned with their use than the minute details of design which 19thC antiquarians and collectors were so obsessed with.

Your sword was designed, looking at the blade, for both the cut and the thrust, that's all that is important, and to use it correctly, you would need to look at cut-and-thrust treatises.....

The spadroon, which comes in towards the end of the smallsword era, is variously described as a nimble cut-and-thrust weapon, which is why I mentioned it. The details of the hilt and blade profile are many and varied (some with half-hilt, some with side bar, some with stirrup hilt etc. etc.). Likewise the blade profile (some double-edged and hollow ground, some single edged with a short back edge etc. etc.). It's their use as a cut-and-thrust that makes them all similar.

Julian

[Roger Hooper]

Here is a somewhat similar sword, part of a portrait of William III of Great Britain, probably painted in the 1690's.

[Adam Simmonds]

Hi guys,

Thanks for the pics.

That makes sense Julian as I suppose the end user views things differently than someone who examines the same objects from an analytical distance.

For example we say 'tooth brush' and 'hair brush' rather than 'small brush' and 'broad brush' as their practical applications are of primary importance to us whereas an achaeologist unfamiliar with such items could examine them in the future and give them all sorts of names which would be irrelevant and even absurd to the user who is concerned only with how he employs them whilst going about his daily business.

Of course we all now inhabit at least to some extent the perspective of the examiner looking on from a theoretical distance, which whilst removing us from a more direct knowledge and experience of such things, is probably for the best. And from that perspective names are useful tools for discussing a range of historical artefacts but they do carry in them the danger of oversimplification and can if we aren't careful make us feel smarter and better informed than we are.

I have attached a few pictures of the sword in hand to show the smallness of the guard.

Best regards,

Adam

[Morgan Butler]

So glad to be able to contribute to this great thread. (always love to talk and look at weapons from the fascinating period of the late 17th and 18th centuries) I remember when Adam first p.m'd me with pics of his sword. I was very envious!
I was very interested in the last photo's on this thread that he posted showing how compact it actually is in-hand. Very illuminating. I agree that it could have been a sword that would have been appropriate for a military officer and yet also for civilian use/travel. I think it would be classified as a "Gentleman's Cut and Thrust."
As a contrast I have this example to show (recently acquired) of a Dragoon Officers sword that is either British or Dutch from around the 1680's. It is similar to the one worn in the portrait of William the III that Roger posted, which I think is probably a larger, military-cavalry version (since he is wearing horseman's armour in it.) Mine has the rather high cross section and a double edged blade that is also still sharp. It is 1.25 at the forte and 31 inches in length. I believe the blade may have been much wider and about 3 inches longer at one time but was slimmed down to take out some rather deep nicks and also shortened, either for the same reason or just for easier wear. Possibly re-purposed for an infantry officer. I have read that the later 18th century versions of this pattern have a fullered blade instead of the cross-sectioned one. Also the grip on mine is more like a dowel instead of the kind that narrows gracefully near the pommel like Adam's.
One can look in Neuman's "Swords of the American Revolution" to see some similar examples. Bottom of pg 104, bottom of pg.146 and top of page 147

http://s258.photobucket.com/user/blackace2/li...amp;page=1