Hello all,

Acta Periodica Duellatorum has just published an article of mine on rapier hilts archetypes. Here is the abstract:

Quote:

A.V.B. Norman?s typology of hilts currently serves as the standard for the classification of rapiers. However, its flat structure and minutious granularity make it inconvenient for memorization and discussion. This work proposes a restructuration of Norman?s extensive typology into fewer archetypes that renders it less cumbersome to use and follows the functional developments of complex hilts.

Le Chevalier, V. (2026). Rapier hilts archetypes. Acta Periodica Duellatorum, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.36950/apd-2026-001 (direct link to PDF)

I've done this work with the hope that it might make it easier to discuss rapier hilts, or to approach Norman's typology at any rate. Here is one of the figures, showing a synthetic view of all outer guards archetypes:

[ Linked Image ]

Best regards,

In general I like the idea of a functional typology.

Do I understand right that the model does not distinguish between hilts with a full cross, hilts with the forward arm of the cross bent into a knucklebow, and hilts with a cross and a knucklebow?

I have a memory that knifes with Nagels date back to the early 15th century. I may poke around, but my library of medieval knives is not the most extensive. One of the limits of A.V.B Norman's typology is that he could not use the vast archaeological dataset that is now available.

Hi Sean,

Sean Manning wrote:

Do I understand right that the model does not distinguish between hilts with a full cross, hilts with the forward arm of the cross bent into a knucklebow, and hilts with a cross and a knucklebow?

As I point out in section 2, I have indeed grouped these together. These variations exist for pretty much all hilt structures almost right from the first knucklebows. So it's rather a choice that you get within an archetype based on what you prefer.

I had thought about separating them, because Oakeshott splits the hilt types like that. But it just does not simplify anything: you have to duplicate archetypes between the three variants.

Quote:

I have a memory that knifes with Nagels date back to the early 15th century. I may poke around, but my library of medieval knives is not the most extensive. One of the limits of A.V.B Norman's typology is that he could not use the vast archaeological dataset that is now available.

Indeed there are some blind spots in Norman, and my goal was only to lay some structure above his work to make it hopefully more usable. Starting an entirely new typology would also be interesting, but the sheer volume of information in Norman is difficult to surpass!

Best regards,