My "new" cup hilt sword for your kind comments
 

Why have i acquired this one, despite current austerity days ?
Besides the patriotic inscription on the blade VIVA PORTUGAL, a Royal crest which, despite its faded condition, would implicitly be that of a Portuguese monarch.
The also (faded) patriarcal cross in the tang would have once shown a crucified Jesus, a symbol used by a few smiths, probably inspired by Toledan master Pedro Hernandez.
And last but not least, this blade width, which is really impressive; one that i have never seen and certainly neither many of you guys, i guess; over 5 cms. (2 inches).
The guard is easily dismountable; the pommel turns off rather smootly.

The grip; turned horn.
Cup bowl diameter: 15 cms. (also impressive).
Quillons span: 31 cms.
Blade length: 76 cms. (infantry).
Total length: 95 cms.
Weigth: 1187 grams.

Comments will be welcome.

.

Congratulations Fernando !
it is not just another cup hilt of this genre , it is exceptionally huge and there are the fine engravings , yes I would have bought it to if I had the chance.

Thak you for the kind words, Dirk :cool: .

Stunning piece!

A fine sword, an absolute beast. Great inscriptions and marks, which are always half the pleasure in researching and understanding the sword.

Fernando, you KNOW my weakness!!! cup hilts!
And with Dirk, I agree, this is a wonderful and most unusual example.

In the 18th century, Spain stubbornly held to its cup hilt traditions and Portugal of course also maintained their affinity for these fascinating hilts. Without more detailed research, I would think this is likely a colonial 'arming' version of the continued colonial versions of cup hilts from probably Brazilian context.

I have seen these heavy blades on various Spanish colonial swords of the 18th century it seems, and they are of course infantry officers weapons as I have understood. I am not sure of the Portuguese involvement in the Seven Years War in the Americas but it certainly seems possible this may have some connection there.

Thank you for the great pics, detailed description, and sharing a MOST unusual example of the cup hilt spectrum!

Thank you for your enthusiastic words, Jim :cool:.
Indeed this is an unusual example in all its details. But soon as i posted it here, some acquaintance i have, dedicated to these matters, reminded me of a similar, almost equal, example in exhibition in the Portuguese army museum of Lisbon. In fact all details match, since the key clue VIVA PORTUGAL on the blade, a motto profusely used whilst the restoration of independence from the Spanish Filipes took place (1640-1668). The crown is no doubt that of Dom João IV, who was then acclaimed King of Portugal.
Amazing that the length and profile of both swords is practically the same.

.

Wow! Fernando, you've outdone yourself! That is a beast of a sword!! (And I say that in a marvelous way!). I admit that I also thought as Jim did that it could have been perhaps colonial only in that the grip being horn and unwrapped and it's splendid but unmatched proportions led me to believe it not of standard regulation. I am imagining the man that wielded it to be of equal stature! As I am far from an expert on these, do you believe the proportions of yours were for a special military unit or troop? Was the one you mentioned in the local museum attributed to a particular regiment or smith? You are a lucky dog, my friend!
Mark

Even more exciting Fernando! and certainly this sword would easily place to that period as well. I am glad you were able to add this most vital data which more securely places the period, such as the royal crown which is key evidence.
The heavy and shorter than usual character of the blade was of course well suited for foot forces where the melee and close quarters would find such a sword favorable.
Uh, Mark, it is tempting to even consider maritime possibilities!! :)
I am not sure that swords of this heft would be confined to a certain unit, however, it is interesting that 'dragoons' were essentially mounted infantry, and dismounted for combat in those times. So perhaps a dragoon unit?

Magnificent and unusual sword!!!!

Superb acquisition! This blade is really out of the ordinary. Well done !

Thank you all guys. Always nice to hear from such broad participation.
The caption in the museum mentions this sword as one of 'military characteristics'; doesn't specify what branch it has equipped. Actually the entire caption covers a trio in exhibition; a lobster tail helmet, a cuirass ... and the cup hilt sword. This set is located in the museum war restoration room, as the three pieces are contemporary of such period.

Very impressive piece. Particularly appealing to a Portuguese of course, but with all that history... I guess one can’t rule out naval use, where shorter and broader blades may have been favoured. The horn grip may have been popular in hot climate where metal gets hot to touch and gloves are uncomfortable to wear.

very beautiful piece Fernando

After years of research, I was able to conclusively show that bilbos did indeed "go to sea". This seems like a foregone conclusion based on movies, auction sites appealing to the naval collector, etc, but it was actually more complicated than that. These swords were primarily used by ground troops/soldiers. Even in the New World, sentries guarding the keeps at St. Augustine and Puerto Rico would have been so armed. I had seen famous paintings of Spanish admirals so adorned with the bildo and other cuphilts, but we all know that studios often used such props as...well, as props! It was only after learning that the Spanish and Portuguese Treasure ships coming back from the New World had contingents of soldiers aboard, both to defend the ship and also guard the treasure/discourage mutiny. In later times, the Royal Marines of the British and U.S. marines onboard early American ships followed suit. The point being, these bilbo broadswords and cup hilt rapiers were used by said soldiers and officers aboard ships.
Whew, now after all that, I'm not sure if this one fits into that realm versus a dragoon unit or some such- :shrug:

Hello Fernando and thank you for posting this fascinating sword.

In my novice oppinion the blade is much older than the hilt. I believe the blade may be 16th century while the hilt is early 18th century (or late 17th century at best).

So what do you think about that? :shrug:

PS: The fact the hilt is easily dismountable points to the fact it is a later addition.

WOW! now thatsa some research Cap'n!!!! Thats what I'm talkin; about :)
It often puzzled me how they could use rapiers (typically of course with long slender blades) aboard these vessels (no matter how easy Flynn and Fairbanks made it look).
These stout blades placed with the cup hilt (or bilbo guards) were essentially 'arming' swords made for these kinds of close in combat in my opinion.

I always wonder just how much actual combat there was aboard ships. Following of course the many cases of artwork and literature which lent well to movie material, it would seem extremely difficult for pitched battle of degree in such confined space. Obviously there were some occasions, but the 'Marine' concept of these forces aboard was that they were transporting to places of battle......much as 'dragoons' rode to battle then dismounted (until later becoming 'heavy cavalry' and fighting mounted).

PS....I agree with Marius, this does seem an earlier blade than the hilt.

Mark, i wouldn't hesitate to assume that these swords have gone to sea. You chose a reason; to equip the forces that complemented the ships personel (one part crew one part soldiers), other forces that were going aboard to replace those ending their commission in distant territories. There are also cargo manifests listing bundles of swords bein shipped. Surely and judging by the period, a great numbers of all such swords were cup hilted. By the way, in my modesty, i am a denialist of "bilbo" swords as a typology; but that is another story.
Marius (and Jim), i would not know how you conclude that the sword in discussion has a blade earlier than the cup bowl hilt; it takes some expertize i don't reach. But i can tell you that the other sword from where i have chosen mine, has the same type of blade (only 2" longer) and the same type of hilt; only that the engravings are even more faded than those in mine. Also the "far from modern" dismounting thread system is the same, only the other with a more unusual pommel.
Concerning the army unit, if we add to these two the example in the militar museum with similar characteristics we can infer that all three swords would have belonged to the same branch, probably a Royal detachment ?. I would not call them Dragons; don't think that army forces in these particular wars were organized with such names.


.

Thank you Tony :cool: .

You bet ;) .

Merci, Thomas :cool:.

A very impressive looking blade. We could assume some minor loss in length from sharpenings etc. though naval use is possible. If only it could speak!

Thank you Will. I like to think that these words are suitable for both land and water. However in this particular case, this one must have seen land all its life time; in context, the major number of combats held during the Portuguese restoration war, were terrestrian.

I dont think there are really any set guidelines for where, how or who used various types of sword, nor the blades they chose to have them fit with.
As previously noted, foot soldiers were often aboard ships not only as protection en route, but for campaign or duties at destination.

It seems clear by the motto as well as the patriarchal cross and the crown specifying Dom Joao IV that the blade was in use mid 17th to latter, so clearly a 17th c. type. The question then remains the hilt, which while a cup hilt style, its simplicity in character, quillon terminals non featured suggests later styling, as well as considering possible colonial involvement. However that assumption is not predicated on any sound evidence I could find.
In notes I did find a mention of a 17th c. cuphilt, with VERY wide blade, but no picture or other record :(

I am wondering if the 'Patriarchal cross' (Caravaca in Spain) might have association with military orders as it is so connected to religious and devotional motif of those times of Templars etc. I recall discussions many years back with MIN SINAL HES El SANTISSIMO CRUCIFIXIO ,

Probably iam talking nonsense but ...
 

Yes ... the four arms cross, allegedly shown up in CARAVACA (Murcia), after some legendary story, is one more symbol used for mystic purposes, like MIN SENAL HES ... and others, like Christ in a crucified position but without the cross. At this contextual stage, i gather that they are no more than 'marketing' symbols to entice the believer's preference. The combination of the four arms cross with the crucified Christ in it, occurred to me due to a sword that i owned having such dual motif (pictures attached not pretending to divert from the original subject). Whether the blade in discussion, so as the other two in the same context, are connected to actual religious lobbies, is something i would humbly decline. Also to remember something that we often tend to forget is that, blades come from one maker (even country of origin) and hilts come from another ... this right counting from the sword's original production date.
Concerning the concept of Colonial, i wonder how this typology may be attributed here, as 'Colonial' for Americans is one thing and for Portuguese is another; while i presume that, when such term is (often) approached in this venue, it refers more to Spanish Americas than to Portuguese India and other Asian territories.
On the angle of judging the age of a (cuphilt) sword based on its construction simplicity, i would rather follow the reasoning that, high end Roperas for a noble man (or a street fencer) is one thing and austere Espadas for a soldier is another... whichever the period in question.


.

Actually, I cannot imagine anyone who studies or collects swords forgetting
that blades and hilts are separate entities. I have seldom, if ever, encountered a sword whose blade and hilt were from the same source.
This is why books like "The Rapier & Small Sword" (AVB Norman, 1980) focused on the hilt designs, and Mr. Norman noted that blades were not addressed as they are from entirely separate sources and nothing to do with the study of hilts.

Naturally the use of the symbolism, devices and invocations, mottos and phrases are known to have been used by various brotherhoods, orders and fraternities, so there are cases where particular ones were favored by certain ones. This was much in the way where certain devices such as cross and orb and others were favored by certain makers though not actually their marking as registered.

The 'colonial' term is indeed a most relative term, and probably more often than not misused. For my own perspectives, pertaining mostly to Spanish colonial, these were weapons of notable simplicity, made in the fashion of the
typically higher end examples. For me, these weapons which are in fact, often munitions grade, have a genuine rustic and rugged charm which I admire.
This particular example is very much so, and regardless of where or when it was used, it is a remarkable sword.

Much as with many forms of swords, heirloom or trophy blades are often remounted into all manner of hilts, so seeing older blades in later hilts is not uncommon. I always think of Spanish colonial sabers which have the Spanish motto dragoon broadsword blades (usually c. 1820s with three bar guards). Obviously it is strange to have a broadsword blade on a saber hilt.

It is always good to see a nice sword example bring forth a good discussion on evaluating the particulars of the item :)

So what do the letters I A H I stand for?

Where would people date threaded pommel nuts generally?

What’s the meaning of the ”double” patriarchal cross? Seems this cross originated in Byzance and spread to countries like Hungary, Russia and Lithuania. Why does it appear in Portugal (Byzantic connection)? The cross may have lost its meaning but for sure it had a meaning when it was put on the blade or the smith wouldn’t have bothered with the extra effort/expense.

The cuphilts are associated with fencing. This blade is obviously not for diligent fencing techniques. So there must be a possibility that it was married to the hilt because 1) it was the only one available at the time, or 2) it was so customized for a purpose. Must also be possible that the blade was recycled in a colonial setting (e.g. Portuguese Brazil) where European products imported from afar was more scarce and precious and therefore not wasted.

Well, that would be the one million dollar question. Probably those of the smith; i wish someone would know !

I would not know when in time peened pommels evoluted to the threaded system, and if that took place in the various type of swords as in the different countries at same time; i bet there are members who are more familiar with that topic. But i could clearly define the "conic" manual section in which this specific tang thread is made as certainly much prior to the classic 'cilindric' system. I have also read that tapping and threading pommel fixations can be a later operation. Minding that the pommel of the other sword that was together with this one has a pommel of rather different shape, yet unscrews in the same manner.

Patriarchal cross, Lorena cross, Bizantine cross, Caravaca cross.There are those who join them all in one, fusing their simbology; some even say that the upper shorter arm represents the board where the Romans inscribed the letters INRI in the crucification cross of Jesus. Personaly i would not favor the conviction that these symbols in these swords are a rigid allegory to exoterism, like if they were medieval or free mason swords, as in my humble perspective these are more to entice their selling, naturally calling for a "just in case" religious appeal; notwithstanding the smith applying them with the intent for profit. On the other hand i know for sure that the VIVA PORTUGAL was (in the discussed period) a contextual asset commissioned by the customer.

I confess i am perplex with such assumption; there are cuphilts both mounted for fencing (thin bladed rapiers) and cuphilts mounted for non fencing purposes, with striking blades, some sturdy, for military combat...all in countless numbers.

Reading my above posts we are aware that at least three of these swords are known, all similarly cuphilted, all with the royal coat of arms and all with the patriotic inscription... and all found in Portugal,

I see that the 'colonial' issue is a recurrent approach; as already noted, embellished and elaborated cuphilts (and not only) that were carried in the streets and in court by wealthy people, don't inherently condemn simple, basic, honest, defence or military examples to be colonial.

Not sure how relevant this is but on patriarchal cross in Portugal from A Treatise On Ecclesiastical Heraldry by John Woodward: The title of patriarch was given to archbishops of metropolis, perhaps who had other metrolitans under them. Patriarchs have the right to use in the emblem of their dignity a cross with two bars. Roderid da Cunha, Archbishop of Braga and Primate of Portugal used such a cross. The patriarchal cross symbolises the powers of two offices in the same person: Metropolitan in own province but also having authority over other Metropolitans. The use of this symbol is very old. The patriarchate of Lisbon and the Indies was instituted by Clement XI in 1716. The archbishop of Toledo is the Primate of Spain since 1085 but the Archbishop of Braga in Portugal claims the Primacy of the whole peninsula and uses the double cross.

I think the only reason that the "colonial" thought is still being tossed around is #1-the fancier types owned by private citizens, gentlemen, aristocrats, etc and #2-the confusion with the so-named colonial Spanish cup-hilt rapiers from the New World. These, as you know, are plainer than their European cousins, lack many of the design nuances such as the bowl rim, possess plainer grips (usually horn) and quillons and have specific characteristics marking them as from the New World (such as the mushroom-shaped pommels). In retrospect, yours does not have many of these features, so I agree that this is as you pointed out, a military version of it's richer cousin, but you can see why there were comparisons. Sometimes when one sees a piece that stands out and is not of the typical pattern (and your Goliath blade does that!!), one might assume it is from 'other ports'. I never stated how much I love this piece!

Now, that is a rather interesting approach ... and i thank you for that :cool:.
Dom Rodrigo da Cunha 1577-1643 after being Bishop of Portalegre, Bishop of Oporto, and Archbishop of Braga, ended his career as Archbishop of Lisbon, where he was assigned deputy for the inquisition. The interesting part in context is that D. Rodrigo da Cunha, one of the strong opposers to the anexation of Portugal by Spain, having even refused the Cardinalate of Madrid, during the Restauration of Independence war supported the insurgent and, together with the then Archbishop of Braga, governed the kingdom until the return of Dom João IV.
So this explains the engraving of the cross on these swords tang/ricasso; as i view it, more a motivation of patriotism and authority rather than for religious purposes... or perhaps in great part.

Yes sir, indeed.


.

Duly noted Mark; notwithstanding different perspectives, or different angles in which the (Spanish version)colonial atribution is viewed. A highly regarded Spanish dealer, when describing some (Colonial) sword i bought him, said:

Title:
Cup sword. Spain, colonies, around 1700.
Description:

Iron garnish, consisting of a sober cup with a rim, straight quillons, knuckle guard and pommel. Very wide wooden grip, lined in stingray skin. The status of "colonial" is determined by various aspects, one of which is the silver elements that compose it: ferrules, decorative rivets on the cup bowl, trim on the quillons and hoop, decorated nails and longitudinal bars on the grip. We also highlight the simulated recasso in gilted brass (photo 4). Straight blade, with with two fullers in its first third. The engraving of the legend "DON'T DRAW ME OUT WITHOUT RASON - DON'T SHEATH ME WITHOUT HONOR" is insinuated, although due to wear it is illegible.


Isn't this a somehow different aspproach ? I don't need to upload the sword in question; you will imagine how "not plain" it is by the above description ;).

Thank you so much :cool:.

... Or could it be the person that did all those engravings ?
I take it as highly probable that the inscriptions were applied here in a special procedure.

Always interesting rebuttal Fernando, certainly adds dimension to the discussion by bringing out different perspectives ! :)

I very much like the assessment of 'colonial' which Mark's wonderfully worded description presents. The term 'colonial' ,which is agreeably a most ephemeral description of the character of certain weapons in typed groups, is truly often misunderstood.

It is most typically (in my experience) associated with Spanish colonial swords and weapons in the New World (the Americas), however it is easy to presume that Portuguese colonies would experience some degree of the same application.

The simplicity often associated with colonial weapons of course may be aligned with Peninsular production weapons which were made in the form of higher end weapons but intended for rank and file. It should be remembered that in most cases, highly 'worked' and embellished weapons were privately commissioned by officers; while the 'armory' or munitions grade examples were typically produced in multiple numbers and purchased by unit commanders to be issued to troops.

Those weapons which fall into the 'netherworld' between may be with regard to the oft cases of officers who used 'fighting swords' on campaign. While certainly ego, tradition and status might compel many officers to carry thier elegant dress weapons (many officers did not engage and simply used these to signal or direct with according authority).

With 'colonial' examples, these (especially in Mexico) were often locally made examples using blades imported, heirloom or otherwise acquired with various components, emulating the much admired swords of Spanish officers there.
I have seen almost bizarre combinations of various forms which were entirely not congruent to their host forms, such as the bilbo or cup hilt, where the cup and cross guard (obviously redundant) were both present.

There are also examples of 'colonial' examples become, in a word' nearly garish in their interpretation of the beautifully worked higher end examples.
The example described by Fernando may be in this category (though it is not pictured) in degree. The blade is quite likely one of the 'Spanish motto' blades produced in Solingen in the 18th century specifically for export to Spain's colonies. I have seen countless examples of these blades on swords in that context which have been remounted well into the 19th c.

With regard to the use of religious devices and symbology, I think it is important to note that many of these military orders were with deep religious connection, so use of invocations and devotional devices is hardly unusual.
With groups of letters which appear to have no familiar meaning or seem disconnected, in my understanding these are often most likely 'acrostics' (that is the first letters of phrases, mottos etc) which are meant to be recognized by those so initiated.
I have a cuphilt with a curious assembly of such letters, which is presumably associated with a fraternal/ secret ? organization of years before, and an acrostic as described.

Many swords have these kinds of acrostic situations engraved in blades, which was a traditional convention from medieval times carried forth very much in Italy (I believe Caino blades were known for this).

While the brevity of this group of course could suggest initials, that seems less likely than the possibility otherwise to me. Often the decoration and associations on blades were controversial, so makers may have been less likely to 'sign' work due to possible repercussions. They did not necessarily hold to the convictions of the client.

C'mon Jim, is that what you infer from the description ? I am so frustrated that it wasn't clear enough and gave a wrong interpretation ... 19th. century ?:confused:. See PICTURES HERE .

C'mon Fernando, it was more my 'interpretation' than your description. I already had in mind the examples I had seen which did often closely respond to those you described, at least in my mind.

Thank you for the link to that discussion of 2011, and while an attractive example of 'Caribbean' form cuphilts, it varies from the standards of the Continental examples of the form.
As I explained then, the 'skin' used on the grip I believe to be 'galuchat', a faux rayskin developed by a leather worker in the court of Louis XV around 1760s. This was seeds embedded in untreated horse skin to give the hide appearance of the rayskin, and dyed accordingly.


In kind, I do hope the rest of my missive was somewhat decipherable in describing my views on this subject.

Interesting that while my descriptions of Caribbean/colonial cuphilts lent toward dramatic austerity, this one is nicely done with the grip material as well as turned quillon terminals. On your example the terminals are simply bulbous, but unworked. This observation is just that, and not meant to classify or categorize yours or any other cuphilt example. For me, the entire genre is fascinating regardless of these factors! :)

I took the liberty of extracting a photo from the thread you linked and cuphilt described for the benefit of readers for visual comparison to what we are referring to. The box is of the galuchat material, again for comparison.

Hardly the point, dear Jim; which was (in my atempt) to oppose to the idea that 'Colonial' (tricky term) swords aren't necessarily plain in their construction, as has been put; wooden grips, plain cup bowl and all that. But make no big issue of the subject; we were probably transmitting in different frequencies :shrug:.

PS
Too late i saw that you have added a couple more paragraphs to your previous entry ;) .


.

'well there ya go' , as they say in these parts :)
Exactly, but of course we are often on different frequencies saying basically the same thing.
In my comments toward colonial 'styling' or lack thereof, I used the words 'simplicity OFTEN associated with colonial weapons'.

It does seem that words so often can carry so many meanings beyond what was intended, which is why my entries are 'often' so complex, as I try to qualify and explain my comments.

While it does seem we are deviating from the OP, actually, these observations are key to properly classifying these swords (or reliably attempting to).
There are no 'cut and dry' solutions, as 'colonial' weapons may have been put together in rural or remote locations without the supply, artisans and materials available to makers in Continental or Peninsular cities.

By the same token, many swords may have been put together in locations equally remote on the Continent etc. as well.

Again, it is important to remember that while officers and gentry would privately commission appropriately high end swords, the 'munitions' or 'issue' weapons would have been produced in accord with skills of the maker as well as the costs involved. Many units, especially cavalry, were elite, and deemed extensions of the officers themselves so well appointed, while many units were simply 'field forces' whose weapons need by sturdy but not necessarily stylish.

Excellent arguments, gentlemen. All very important points either way. It really doesn't matter, though, as this piece is hardly a put-together or blacksmith rendition. The 'could be' might never be fully answered, but this sword is so magnificent, who cares at this point! I have never looked down on colonial pieces (NOT saying this is one) as they are an important and integral part of the big historical picture.

Going back to the screw-tang, did we ever determine when this practice was started? Obviously, screws have been around since the Middle Ages and many components of armor possess said attachments. I know Scottish basket hilts with 'screw' pommels started appearing in the last quarter of the 18th century. Many of the Dutch pieces circa 1700 had the off-set screw/nut attachment for the knucklebow. :shrug:

Bladesmiths of my acquaintance have always warned that threaded tangs were failures waiting to happen, sharply cut threads being a failure point just as is the small deliberately placed cut along the sealed edge of a bag of crisps. In Fernando's picture of the threaded tang above, I note that the threads are very rounded and I wonder if the sharp taper is also of some special function.

I will present a British sword dated to within a few decades of 1600 that employs a threaded tang in these forums soon - once pictures are prepared.

Thank you, Lee. I'd love to see pictures of this early example of a threaded tang for reference. Didn't know for sure how long the practice of threading was going on for-