Swordbreakers: A Myth ?

[Jim McDougall]

All this talk about rapiers set my swashbuckling mind on another adventure,
the myth of the deadly 'swordbreaker'.

From "Schools and Masters of Fencing" (Egerton Castle,London, 1885, p.246):

"...the very vicious looking and somewhat fantastic so called 'swordbreakers' represented as usual fencing weapons of the 'main gauche' class by so many writers in arms and armour, never were at any time but the result of individual fantasy. As fencing implements notwithstanding thier elaborateness and forbidding appearance, they are decidedly inferior to any ordinary dagger. If they were ever used at all, it was probably in the right hand and alone, not in conjunction with the rapier. No mention is ever made in old books of fence, and thier date must be ascribed as 'anterior' to the 16th c."

It seems I have seen this topic discussed somewhere, but too long ago. In many cases the rapier and left hand dagger were made en suite, anybody ever seen a set which comprised one of these dramatically dentated daggers?

Fernando, I just know somewhere in that corpus of esoteric arms literature there must be something on these !

Comments, observations pulleeze.

signed,
'Z'

[fearn]

Hi Jim,

Another great topic. Couple thoughts. One is that the Japanese had "sword breakers" as well, and it's not clear how often they broke swords. Rather, I think they were better for catching swords, and if the sword broke under the stress, so much the better. A second thing from the Japanese side is that some of the sword breakers seemed to be more "gadgets" than regular weapons.

I'll be interested to see what others come up with.

Best,

F

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Fearn,
Thanks very much, and I wasn't aware the Japanese had these too.
Your note on the 'gadgetry' is well placed, as I've ravaged through references here, it would seem that these may well be another of those romanticized notions that have become emplaced in arms literature.

While I'm anxious as well to see if anyone out there has references to these actually being used, or knows of authentic examples, here are some notes on what I have found so far.



In the Wallace Collection (1962, Sir James Mann) #A867, and A868 are 'sword breakers'.
#867 (German c.1600) is described as having 14 deep teeth, each fitted with a spring catch which allow the blade to enter, but not withdraw. The teeth are separately wrought and brazed into the blade. Supposedly the blade would be easily broken with a turn of the wrist...? While it seems that many rapier blades were fragile, it seems also known that these blades were forged to withstand considerable forces, although certainly any flaw might compromise it.

#868 seems to be the example used in several references, one that I found was "Daggers and Fighting Knives of the Western World" H.L.Peterson, 1968, where it is shown as Plate 51. This example in the Wallace collection is shown as Italian c.1600 and states it is intended for use as a dagger.
It is noted in the text that this example has barbed heads on the teeth that work with springs also, and that the blade has been broken and repaired in the middle.

This brings the next observation. Would these deeply indented blades not be compromised themselves in trying to break a blade, let alone trying to thrust into an opponent?
Sir Richard Burton ("Book of the Sword" 1884, p.138) discusses the entire uselessness of toothed or serrated blades, in particular the toothed bayonet in which if successfully penetrated would become deeply lodged in the victim.
He illustrates several of these 'sword breakers' referring to them as 'so called' suggesting perhaps he questioned the veracity of that potential.

Burton was a well known and respected master of arms, and certainly must have known Egerton Castle, who wrote the following year and described these in the reference I previously cited, in which it is suggested unlikely these were ever used as such.

In "The Smallsword in England" (J.D.Aylward, 1945) the focus is obviously on the smallsword of the 18th century, and apparantly the use of the left hand dagger had fallen out of use in fencing in the 17th, however in his historical references to fencing, in particular disarming opponents, there is no mention whatsoever of the use of sword breakers. He does describe various methods of physical combat in disarming the opponent by grabbing blades etc.

Without a wide number of these unusual daggers being found in numerous collections, and corroborating contemporary description of thier use, it would seem that perhaps Castle may be right in questioning actual use of these.
As Fearn has noted with the Japanese examples, maybe this was just fanciful gadgetry.

Hopefully we can find more ,

All the best,
Jim

[Matchlock]

This early 17th combined lantern shield left hand iron glove and sword catcher is at the Imperial Armory Vienna. It does not appear to be robust enough to actually call it a sword breaker, though.

Michael

[celtan]

Hi Jim et al,

Some of the japanese and chinese versions don't even look like a weapon, but more like a trinket, or a hair styling utensil, a comb...

Dojo Senseis and police often use an odd-looking stick called a Jute, but it's more a sign of rank and authority than anything else.

I'm following all the threads, but I haven't had anything interesting to contibute so far. I have always found difficult to believe that you can break a sword by catching it with a main-gauche and a mere flick of your wrist.

As a catcher-deflector cum stabbing weapon, the LHD is cumbersome for every day carry, but certainly a useful and very deadly weapon. Easy to thrust between the ribs.

Sword breaker? Nah..

Alas, they do look beautiful..!

: )

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Fearn,
Thanks very much, and I wasn't aware the Japanese had these too.
Your note on the 'gadgetry' is well placed, as I've ravaged through references here, it would seem that these may well be another of those romanticized notions that have become emplaced in arms literature.

While I'm anxious as well to see if anyone out there has references to these actually being used, or knows of authentic examples, here are some notes on what I have found so far.



In the Wallace Collection (1962, Sir James Mann) #A867, and A868 are 'sword breakers'.
#867 (German c.1600) is described as having 14 deep teeth, each fitted with a spring catch which allow the blade to enter, but not withdraw. The teeth are separately wrought and brazed into the blade. Supposedly the blade would be easily broken with a turn of the wrist...? While it seems that many rapier blades were fragile, it seems also known that these blades were forged to withstand considerable forces, although certainly any flaw might compromise it.

#868 seems to be the example used in several references, one that I found was "Daggers and Fighting Knives of the Western World" H.L.Peterson, 1968, where it is shown as Plate 51. This example in the Wallace collection is shown as Italian c.1600 and states it is intended for use as a dagger.
It is noted in the text that this example has barbed heads on the teeth that work with springs also, and that the blade has been broken and repaired in the middle.

This brings the next observation. Would these deeply indented blades not be compromised themselves in trying to break a blade, let alone trying to thrust into an opponent?
Sir Richard Burton ("Book of the Sword" 1884, p.138) discusses the entire uselessness of toothed or serrated blades, in particular the toothed bayonet in which if successfully penetrated would become deeply lodged in the victim.
He illustrates several of these 'sword breakers' referring to them as 'so called' suggesting perhaps he questioned the veracity of that potential.

Burton was a well known and respected master of arms, and certainly must have known Egerton Castle, who wrote the following year and described these in the reference I previously cited, in which it is suggested unlikely these were ever used as such.

In "The Smallsword in England" (J.D.Aylward, 1945) the focus is obviously on the smallsword of the 18th century, and apparantly the use of the left hand dagger had fallen out of use in fencing in the 17th, however in his historical references to fencing, in particular disarming opponents, there is no mention whatsoever of the use of sword breakers. He does describe various methods of physical combat in disarming the opponent by grabbing blades etc.

Without a wide number of these unusual daggers being found in numerous collections, and corroborating contemporary description of thier use, it would seem that perhaps Castle may be right in questioning actual use of these.
As Fearn has noted with the Japanese examples, maybe this was just fanciful gadgetry.

Hopefully we can find more ,

All the best,
Jim

[kisak]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

This brings the next observation. Would these deeply indented blades not be compromised themselves in trying to break a blade, let alone trying to thrust into an opponent?

First of all, I'm assuming that the European sword-breaker here is the "saw-like" ones, and not the trident main-gauche. (I have seen the latter described as a sword-breaker before, so it felt best to make sure we were all on the same page.)

The indentations, especially if not properly rounded off in the bottom, would certainly make for stress raisers, and thus weaknesses in the blade. I wonder if the torque of trying to break another blade might not be worse than the linear stress from a thrust though, but that's mostly speculation.

One possibility perhaps is that these sword-breakers are akin to many if the odd combination weapons lying around, ie more or conversation pieces and the smith showing off what he could do than anything seriously intended as a weapon? (I hope I'll never have to eat somewhere where flintlock cutlery would seem like a necessity.)

Also, in regards to so-called sword breakers in general, regardless of culture. These tend to have shapes which would be quite suitable for catching the opponents blade (as it'd be hard to break it otherwise). However, if you can catch and control your opponents blade for a moment, then breaking it might perhaps be unnecessary in many cases, in that you can then simply run him through instead (that supposedly often being the ultimate goal of it all). So while some rather exotic things may have been made with the intent of being good at catching the sword of an opponent, the idea that one should then break the opposing blade apart may have been slapped on later, at least in some cases.

Finally, I'd wonder a bit about the tempering about a sword which can be broken just by a twist of the wrist like that. Not having tried it I guess the leverage might be larger than I think, but it still strikes me as odd.

[Matchlock]

Hi Jim and all,

Please pe patient. I am tracking down a photo of a very stout and technically refined combined blade catcher and breaker at the collections of the Historic Museum Dresden and will post it as soon as possible.

I am sure it will add greatly to our discussion.

Michael

[Jim McDougall]

Michael, now THERES a sword breaker, catcher, etc etc! It looks like there might have been an ancestor of James Bond's 'Q' working in the armouries! Thats excellent, thank you for posting that, and looking forward to the example you're searching for...if anybody knows thier way through these museums you do !

Manolo, your contributions and observations are always well placed and astute, and I cannot imagine anything you add not being of interest!
Its good to have perspective and opinion on items being discussed as we try to locate support either for or against the actual use of these items. I was not even aware of the Japanese items that Fearn brought up, so at this point they bring in interesting dimension to the discussion, even though the main focus is on these European left hand versions.

Kisak, excellent note on the expanding triple blade form, and I must admit I had forgotten to include that type as I was intent on the deeply toothed example. In the references I looked at, those were indeed mentioned, and included as a 'rare' type blade, just as the toothed version (Peterson).
Thank you for the confirmation on my thoughts on the compromising of blade strength on these toothed blades.
What brought that to mind was the blades from China and India which had pierced channels in the blade carrying movable 'pearls' (actually usually bearings) which caused noisemaking effect. It seems that Philip Tom had noted that these were likely parade or ceremonial swords or daggers as the 'worked' blades would have had thier strength compromised, so would not be advisable for combat.

I burst out laughing on the comments on flintlock cutlery!!! then as I read down...here you have posted some!!! LOL!! That 'Q' !! Relatives everywhere!

I have always been intrigued by combination weapons, and always recalled a book I had in my younger years titled appropriately "Firearms Curiosa" by Winant. It does seem of course that armourers and weapons makers often exercised thier innovative imaginations to the max!! In many, if not most cases, these were just as labeled...curiosities, and that was the reason I posted this thread, to discover the feasability of these 'swordbreakers'.

It does seem that if one of these blades, in which your very life hung in the balance in its quality, could be snapped with a flick of the wrist, that bladesmith would definitely have questions to be answered. If my understanding is correct, one of the purposes of bladesmiths marks, was to guarantee the quality of his work. The guilds monitored this, while of course the marks were used for other bureaucratic purposes as well, and presumably held these makers somewhat accountable.
It would be interesting to research town or guild records, in which bladesmiths had disclaimers posted against failure of thier blades caused by the 'foul play' of use of one of these devisive daggers.

Again, as far as is known, no corroborative contemporary mention is made of the use of these or any other device for breaking the blade of an opponent.
The existence of only a couple of these, and the question of thier veracity since the 19th century by well established authorities on arms, compells me to believe these.....along with considerable of weapons curiosa, whether ethnographic or European....are likely the works of earlier 'Q's, and inadvertantly intended to drive we later weapons historians mad!!!


Thanks so much guys!! Great observations and discussion,

All the best,
Jim

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... Fernando, I just know somewhere in that corpus of esoteric arms literature there must be something on these ...

Ah Ah Ah !
You are well aware that my vestigial library is composed of all possible mediocre stuff, only surpassed in mediocrity by its owner
In my imagination there must have been zillions of sword breaker types. Some could have been for the right hand, used in regular troops, by specialized sections, to disarm and break down the oponents first impact; these guys would have to be backed by efectively armed ranks, as having these things in their right (or both hands) they would be defenseless. This pattern of one type of impact weaponry being backed in battle by other, is often seen in classic battles (square); i wouldn't reject the idea of sword breakers having being an eventual resource.
As for the left hand sword breaker being more of a fantasy, this appears to be so virtual as the 'rompe puntas' in cup hilted swords; one wonders how much skill it takes to catch the opponent's balde tip inside that tiny cup rim and manage to brake it, without wasting the oportunity. Yes, the skill would be the oportunity, as i don't think it takes much strenght to break a blade tip. A bit like Judo fighting; the greater the balance of the opponent, the greater becomes the blow you apply. On the other hand, those trained guys surely had rather strong fists/grips/hands.
But let's see the precious stuff Michael is about to show us.
Fernando