those mysterious Colichemardes
 

This is an essay that has been eight years in the drafting and it begins with an unanswered question, although it has already been asked in various degrees amongst assorted cognoscenti as I nibbled away at the corners and edges of the jigsaw puzzle, but now I have what I suspect is a definitive picture so I want to get everyone's take on the issue as it may well be a seriously contentious statement I'm about to make.
Firstly the question: does anyone know, assuredly, where and when hollow trefoil style colichemarde blades were first made? Clear enough?
Before the classic style hollow blade colichemarde became popular in the mid. 1700s, there had long existed what was known as a "squeezed" blade that was not of a trefoil cross-section. Plenty of examples can be found today and I attach one below. This is a c.1760s rehilt and just one of a few variations on this theme.
Attachment 244222
Few folk have possibly considered the fact that the 'squeezed' blade concept long predated the advent of the hollow blade and was certainly easier and cheaper to make so continued until both styles were available.
As an aside I suspect that it was this style of blade that was referred-to by fencing master Sir William Hope in 1707 regarding the 'Köningsberg' blade favoured by Otto von Wilhelm Königsmarck. It has been suggested when referring to the origin of the name colichemarde yet almost always rejected because of the date and/or the family name factor but it is perfectly valid if you accept that Hope did not refer to the classic hollow blade that was later associated with the name colichemarde. Again we come back to my question about the birth of the hollow blade colichemarde.
The first thing I found of interest during my initial research into the Shotley Bridge story was that hollow colichemarde blades differed from the bulk of smallsword blades in that – without exception – they all featured a groove in the broad face. This was of constant width as opposed to a constantly reducing radius. It is a fuller that also I found on many non-colichemarde blades. This example below is further typical in that although it does not have a vulgar shoulder, which is not visually pleasing, it does enjoy an extra broad fort and in my opinion a very attractive and successful happy medium.
Attachment 244223
Harmonn and Abraham Mohll who were part of the 1687 diaspora from Solingen to Shotley Bridge were from a family listed by Bezdek as Grinders, yet were not guild members; this was in total contradiction to the rigorous Solingen protocol where each element of blade creation was practiced exclusively by pertinent guild members. The Mohlls were paper mill owners in the village of Oak in Lennep, part of Protestant Remscheid. Harmonn acquired the big mill in Shotley Bridge yet they were never under contract to either of the management syndicates as everyone else had been until Oley became autonomous in 1713.
Next: I began to see more and more mention of the use of secret machines (or 'engines') even as far back as 1639 when Jenkes of Hounslow claimed to have use of them; then I saw the same again from Munsten and Henekels, again in Hounslow but after the Civil War. What were these machines?
It had been established from long ago that machines were forever absent in Solingen, and more recently even Burton claimed this, yet we know that over 30,000 Huguenots had found refuge in the Lennep parish of the Wuppertal while escaping from French persecution, and Huguenots were famed for their technical and mechanical skills. They invented the awesome Slitting Mill to produce nail rods for example. The conclusion I came-to was that the Mohll family had converted one of their paper mills to a Huguenot made blade grinding mill using these mysterious machines but, due to the entrenched luddite attitude of Solingen, they were not able to fully exploit them, so had looked to England for some time e.g. Jenkes et al.
It appears that the exodus to Shotley Bridge was the perfect opportunity, so Abraham and Harmonn Mohll took the machines over, appropriated the site of the flour mill in the village and converted it to power one of their (two) machines alongside a typical blade-mill works. In 1754 a sketch of that machine – then no longer secret – was made by Swedish spy RR Angerstein and its functionality is obvious: small, dry-grind (sic) wheels, instead of laborious hand filing.
Attachment 244224
N.B. profiling those very hard little wheels would only have been possible once 'tool' steel appeared following the development of the Cementation process in Nuremberg in 1601.
But where was the other machine, and why was it there?
More recent mentions of this second machine were that it had been to enable a 'one-pass' creation of a hollow smallsword blade, dramatically cutting down on the skilled, demanding, hand fashioning and finishing of these blades that was exclusive to Solingen. So, I consulted with professors of engineering in my local universities as to the possibility of producing such a machine back in the 1600s and they unanimously declared that it was not possible. The constantly decreasing radius of the hollows on all three faces was impossible, but…
If the two, smaller, hollow faces were forced into a die in an anvil top by a steel roller compressing a groove into the upper face then that would be possible. They all agreed on that, and also insisted that hand-fashioning the groove, as opposed to the alternative regular hollow, was more trouble than it was worth and it was obviously machined. So, there's our second machine.
That second machine, by necessity, had to be in the forge and no Swedish industrial spy got into the Oley forge, no-one ever got in there. Angerstein did make mention of smallsword blade decoration in Shotley Bridge as by then (1754) this was the Oley's principle swordblade output. There is an example below, etched in 1767 by famous Tyneside artist Thomas Bewick – apprenticed to the Oleys during his early years with the Beilby glass company – using a stylised version of the Oley family's bushy tailed fox. That impressive style of fox has materialised on more than one occasion.
Attachment 244225
So when you consider the official story told to the Crown at the time – that the Shotley Bridge enterprise was established to make fashionable but rare and expensive hollow smallsword blades at a lower price by using new secret machines, then you factor in the end-result of that second machine, I propose that all blades with a groove (colichemardes especially, hence my opening question) were made in Shotley Bridge.
There are other factors to consider: in 1690, within the articles attached to the company's royal charter was a clause that permitted punishment and seizure of goods from any person offering hollow blades for sale that did not have the company's mark. So all smallswords during that period (peddling aside) should have been made in Shotley Bridge, which is contrary to an enduring general acceptance – mainly disseminated by a statement from Aylward – which claimed that Shotley Bridge never produced smallswords because there were never any found with their name on them.
First of all, thanks to that machine-made groove, there was no need to add identifying marks as no-one else (i.e. Solingen) was producing that style. Second, until the late 1700s, when Klingenthal began producing and signing blades, there were virtually no (if any) smallsword blades marked by smiths, not English or German, so how can a lack of Shotley Bridge marks indicate that none were ever produced there. I did find two signed examples though:
By the last quarter of the 18th century, when Shotley Bridge sword manufacture had virtually ceased, Moles and Oleys took their skills and those machines down to Birmingham. I found a George III smallsword that featured the infamous groove and had Gill's warranties stamped on the ricasso. It was a special commission from a Naval officer so was appropriately a short blade (27") but with a sizeable hilt.
Attachment 244226
The other example is also from Gill: a fine, decorated hollow blade.
Attachment 244227
I've seen others, and I'm confident Gill could not have produced these blades.
By-the-way, I have often wondered how the Gills alone managed to produce a standard of blade that equalled the Solingen output: I suspect those Oleys and Mohlls had a lot to do with it.
Now, these suppositions are not unlike many theories tendered by historians based on available facts, and we have here a fresh handful of pages of British history that establish the beginnings of our successful sword industry – I mean our ability to forge acceptable blades, an issue that has been detailed and discussed in depth under the "sword wars" banner. But well before that, Shotley Bridge had been supplying the Tower with high quality blades in huge numbers (up to 21,000 per annum) as well as latterly supplying the likes of the Harvey dynasty et al. with unfinished blanks marked with the Oley bushy tailed fox then subsequently appended with Birmingham names and initials. Remember, it was all in the forging – always, and the Oleys were nationally regarded as the finest in the country, easily equalling Solingen's output.
In presenting this information I hope to draw attention to, and fill, some very big holes in our history and to encourage some interest as it has been much lacking so far; deliberately so, as it has turned out: see my book as a free download on the Shotley Bridge Village Trust website.

Keith , this is a fascinating and well presented assessment of the 'colichemarde'
conundrum, and reflects the amazing and tenacious depth of the research you have completed on the mysteries of the Shotley Bridge sword production.

In the years I have studied sword history in general, there were of course general mentions of the phenomenon of German sword makers in England, which pertained to two periods and situations. First there was HOUNSLOW from early 17th century but interrupted by the English Civil wars.
Later in the 17th c. came the SHOTLEY BRIDGE enterprises which again used German makers, and with some degree of connection to the Hounslow venture.
This was all but vaguely described in the literature, and well laced with lore and supposition, but little in the way of organized analysis and history. ...with what little existed being so esoteric few ever pursued it.

You changed all that!!! :) your book is not only thorough, but fascinating!
Nobody ever realized the amount of intrigue and complexity that existed in all this.

Now these aspects of these situations on English sword making reflect the perplexing questions which persist, and the mysterious gentlemans sword called the 'colichemarde' is the key player.


The question of exactly when the 'squeezed' blade evolved into the later ubiquitous trefoil (hollowed) blade. The term hollowed has long thrown people into fanciful notions of a literally hollowed blade, however the grinding of the faces of the blade presenting a triangular cross section are what is meant.

The use of such blades with this kind of section whether trefoil or quadrefoil have long been in use, since the ESTOC of centuries earlier, which was a long straight bladed sword with thin section with multiple faces (rather like the concept of iron girders) which strengthened the blade for thrusting with deep penetration. These were typically worn under the saddle, and used in final combat dismounted, with the narrow blade finding vulnerable spot within armor covered areas.

The colichemarde blade was basically a narrow thrusting blade of rapier form which was double edged, but with added feature of the widened upper third of blade. This was intended for the parry as dueling began to use both cut and thrust in blade to blade combat. Prior to this,the duel was primarily circling movement with carefully executed attacks using the thrust with very little blade to blade contact.

So essentially, the colichemarde was a distinguished type of 'dueling' sword and to the gentleman, a sort of badge of honor and formidability. It is unclear as far as I know exactly when the two blade forms became separate and of course likely were contemporary for some time. As seen with the 'old' blades remounted in newer (1760s) hilts, it must have been a matter of preference or perhaps heirloom blades.

The most perplexing element of what you are discussing are these VERY mysterious machines, which were of course to perform the arduous task of the hollowing faces of these blades. While this was of course done by hand by skilled artisans (grinders) for centuries, in earlier times the numbers of blades were not in the extensive volume of these later times. The nature of commerce of course set forth new requirements, and 'machines' which offered more volume with less time and labor (hence the Industrial Revolution).

The mysteries of Shotley, and the clandestine activities going on involving intrigues of subversive activity, smuggling, financial scams, etc. seem likely to have ended up with so little known on these 'machines' in the Shotley situation.

The 'Luddite' situation in Solingen with Burtons visit in the 1860s and his noting the lack of machines etc. is notable, and evidence that guilds were still strong, much as unions. It would be hard to determine if such machines did indeed exist outside the areas he visited. Solingen was not a single compound but various shop and artisans over wide area.

The notes on Gill, and the unusual issues of the 'sword scandals' of early 1790s is yet another conundrum. How he, as a relative newcomer to the blade making industry (his father was a tool maker) went directly into making the highest quality British blades of the time is curious. He was it seems very competitive (=arrogant) and not well liked by his peers. His swords (assembled) seemed to follow German fashion, and his blades holow ground in the German manner.
Wooley had blades of montmorency section and followed French design in the hilts.
The so called 'tests' were using machines designed by Matthew Boulton, a friend and colleague of the Gills.

Not sure if I stayed on course in this missive :) but indeed, British sword making was complex, and has far more history than commonly observed.

Boulton
 

Hi Jim. Thank-you for your erudite and considered follow-up to my post; as usual your contributions make all the difference to the forum's threads.
Your mention of Matthew Boulton reminded me that the first of the two Gill swords has exceptional hilting by his Soho factory. It is exquisite work, albeit seriously impractical as a defensive effort. As a naval officer's sword I don't think much serious activity was forecast.
I've never stopped looking for detailed information on the hollow blade colichemarde history, but if there is anything out there it is beyond me. Maybe someone knows. I'll post my essay on the Arms and Armour Society Facebook portal and maybe stimulate a response.

ps
 

Just as an afterthought, here is a selection of blade shapes from the Diderot encyclopedia that shows the squeezed blades.
Attachment 244232