[Nate C.]

Greetings,

I am in the process of placing an order for a rapier and dagger (Dresden from A&A) and I intend to get a suspension for it as well. my question is this; what is the historically correct way to hang the dagger on the belt. I've seen plenty of rapier suspensions but they don't usually show how the dagger is hung. Thanks in advance for your help.

Cheers,

[Martin Wilkinson]

My understanding is that the dagger is suspended from a belt, normally hilt to the right, but people also did/do it to the left.

[Nathan Robinson]

Historical portraiture is a good source for such information.

[Ian Evans]

To be honest, the few pictures that I've seen that do show the back of someone wearing a belt and hanger all show the dagger simply stuck thro the belt with the hilt pointing towards the right side of the body and the right hand....

[Gordon Frye]

Nate;

Everything I've seen in historical paintings and illustrations show that the dagger was pretty much either just stuffed into the belt and/or tied to the belt. I have yet to see an original dagger scabbard with a loop on it, though that doesn't mean that they weren't on some or even most of them. However, one almost always sees some sort of cords dangling from the dagger, and I am pretty certain that they are the ends of the ties. It's definitely what I do with my own Dresden dagger!

Check out "Image of Irelande" by John Derrick. It shows English soldiers on the march in the latter-half of the 16th Century, with daggers stuffed and tied to the belt:

http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/about/bgallery/Galler...eland.html

BTW, glad that you're going to gird yourself properly with your Dresden. It's a beautiful sword, and a big one as well, so it deserves a stout, high-quality belt and hanger.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Nate C.]

Thanks everyone!

I had a hunch that this was a pretty simple question, but I wanted to make sure. I'd hate to get it wrong since this set will probably be the start of a armored cav kit (once I can ride, get more money, etc.).

Gordon - Yes, I thought it definitely deserved a correct suspension all the way around. the sword/suspension will be my graduation present to myself this spring when I finish my Master's. I've also started riding lessons . I've discovered places I didn't know could get sore .

Cheers,

[Gordon Frye]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Gordon Frye]

Jean;

I just sent you a couple of shots to amuse yourself with, so crop to your heart's content!

Thank you for making the offer, I appreciate it.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Gordon Frye]

Thanks Jean! That's pretty cool how you can do that.

Anyway, the method used for affixing my dagger scabbard to my waist belt (aka "girdle" in Elizabethan English) is with both the belt-loop that was riveted to the scabbard as it came from A&A, and with the brown chord with tassles that you can see floating in the wind. I bound the scabbard around the belt several times in an "X" pattern, to keep it at an angle, and tied it firmly. Seems to work well, and looks just like the illustrations I've seen of Elizabethan soldiers and gentlemen.

The light-coloured chord you see bouncing under the dagger is one of the points from my breeches, which tie them to my doublet. Must have come loose somehow in the course of the day...

Again, thanks Jean for posting those! And good luck, Nate, on your own endeavours in this hobby!

Allons!

Gordon

[Ian Evans]

Just spotted something interesting in the 1607 set of the De Gheyn plates. The only plates to show a dagger being worn are the Calivar plates, with maybe half of the plates showing a dagger hilt. One plate shows the rear of the Calivarman and shows the dagger stuck thro the belt, with cords tying it into place.

[Peter Bosman]

[George Hill]

[Peter Bosman]

[Gordon Frye]

[Gordon Frye]

Peter;

Indeed, the essence of LIGHT Cavalry certainly is "Light & Fast", but of course during the Renaissance, such Light Horse was rather despised as useful for nothing more than reconaissance and raids (which of course became the primary reason for Cavalry to exist during the 19th and 20th Centuries, but that's a different story). For Heavy Horse, it's a whole different program indeed. Rather like a weight lifter compared to a marathon runner.

As for carrying the sword, it changes over time and is totally dependent upon fashion and styles of the day. I've ridden with swords slung in the Mediaeval fashion, used (as pictured) the Renaissance hangers, baldrics, and the Hussar straps so fashionable during the 19th Century, and I have to say that the hanger-type under discussion is the most comfortable and the easiest to access. It's very true that you have to be careful not to use the scabbard as an aid to your riding though! Thus I don't use a crop to train my horse, I want him rather immune to such cues as might be inadvertently given by me through my scabbard.

I've had horses that were very fidgetty with such a sword suspensory device poking him in the flanks, but were perfectly at ease with the 19th Century straps slinging the sabre straight down, banging away at every step, so I definitely understand where you are coming from with the comments. But it depends upon the horse, his temperment, and of course, training and the rider's ability to NOT be fidgetty in the saddle, too.

But you are absolutely right in that the weapons and suspensory style depends greatly on how they intend to ride, and what the ultimate purpose of the style is intended to achieve. For Light Horse of the 19th Century variety, definitely "Fast and Light" must be achieved for proper service. But for the Heavy Horse of the Renaissance, where shock was a primary objective and protection of the horse and rider a secondary, but still important one, strength and power were the proper focus. Different styles for different purposes.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Peter Bosman]

[Gordon Frye]

Peter;

I would argue the point that the ART of riding is not mixed with the battlefield need, as the primary purpose of a horse has always been, until recently, for combat rather than pleasure. And the lightness of touch is indeed something to be striven for, but again, given the needs of combat, and the excitement produced therein, sufficient control of the mount is an absolute necessity. I wouldn't wish to use some of the severe implements used during earlier days on my own horse, but I can see the purpose for it when considering the use of stallions in combat situations. With blood, sweat, fear and excitement all around, even the finest horses would tend to become somewhat elevated in their own levels of excitement, and difficulty in control. But with severe bits and spurs, a light touch is usually all that is needed, and was indeed striven for. Using them brutally and unnecessarily results in a ruined horse, as you would no doubt agree.

One of the major problems that was encountered during major wars, and indeed during the Wars of Religion in France, was a severe lack of trained war horses suitable for the use of the Gendarmerie. Less training, more use of severe aids for extreme conditions.

On the other hand, 19th and 20th Century Light Cavalry discovered that they really had no use for the curb bit most of the time, since they were riding long and hard across ground, rather than at someone else. In fact, Col. Frank Thompkins of the 13th US Cavalry, after his jaunt across Northern Mexico in 1916, noted that they ought to have left the curb bits in store, since they never used them, but rather the snaffle instead. They did't do much in the way of charging of course, either.

Anyway, I'm speaking from a perspective of what was used, rather than what might be considered proper and optimal today. Indeed Pluvinel would agree heartily with you, but sadly, your average horseman was of the opinion that more is better, rather than less is better.

Cheers!

Gordon

[Nate C.]