[Chad Arnow]

Jean,
I'm asking simply because of my own collecting preferences. The reason I don't own true rapiers or smallswords is because the classic forms are thought of as civilian weapons. I prefer to collect weapons of war. We see so many military effigies/brasses from the 15th century that have rondel daggers and so few (if any) with ballock daggers. Were ballock daggers therefore unpopular on the battlefield among the upper crust?

I'm well aware that items will be pressed into service as needs arise regardless of their original design intent, of course.

If I were building a mid to late 15th century battlefield kit, would something like the Wallace ballock dagger be an appropriate choice for a fairly "typical" kit or not? Ballock daggers don't seem to be that common in knightly monuments.

The pictures Manouchehr took in France, though, (shown above) show some ballock daggers form the 15th century with stout diamond sections blades that should be great on the battlefield. Some look like hilted spikes. Ballock daggers like that should definitely be appropriate for what I'm looking for. The Wallace ballock dagger has a different cross-section to its blade, though, which would make it seem like more of a utility/civilian knife than one designed for heavy combat use.

But I could be wrong. That's why I'm asking.

[Chad Arnow]

Andreas,
Thanks for the post. In the 14th century, we see a lot of ballock daggers on military effigies/brasses, indicating they were pretty popular among the warrior class. In the 15th century, we see the rondel dagger much more often. Some ballock daggers, like the ones shown above, have blades that seem to be made for heavy-duty thrusting, indicating a martial use. Many have more traditional knife blades which would of course be better than nothing on the battlefield, but not as good as a reinforced thrusting blade.

[Fabrice Cognot]

Both types (ballock and roundel) were equally "civilian" or "military". As shown before, you have paintings of people carrying ballock daggers when armoured, and the opposites are also true (roundels with and without armour, ballock knives without armour).

You must keep in mind that although there were definitye types of "weapons of war", specifically called so (une espée de guerre), there were also ubiquitous weapons, usable both in war and in town - and both for the same purpose : killing an opponent. I don't see why a slim, thick blade should be kept striclty for military use. Illustrations abound of such knives being carried, and used, in a non-battle environment (read : in town, in civilian clothes). So, although there were purely-designed-for-an-almost-exclusive-battlefield-or-at-least-armoured-use daggers, a dagger of such or such type - especially since dagger typology is based so far on handles - is exclusively-designed-for-a-specific-purpose.

Things are not as 'separate', as compartimented as nowadays. Our ancestors were more pragmatic and open minded that us, sometimes.


Fab

[Chad Arnow]

I'm really not looking to get into a philosophical discussion about terminology or the attitudes of our ancestors.

Let me see if I can be more plain, since I'm evidently not getting my point across.

Does the Wallace ballock dagger have any characteristics that show what its primary intended purpose may have been (military, civilian or general purpose)?

For example, how thick is the blade's cross-section? If it's thin, that might indicate it was more intended for unarmoured and/or civilian use. If it's thick, that might imply something else. Etc.

If it doesn't have any characteristics that sway it one way or another, feel free to say so. If it does have some, then I'd love to hear why. If you just don't know, join the club. If you have any more info on it than what is published, I'd love to hear it.

Take the dagger below, for example. Its blade looks like it would not be much good for general purposes (eating, around-the-camp chores, etc.).

[Paul Tompkins]

[Chad Arnow]