those mysterious Colichemardes

[urbanspaceman]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The other example is also from Gill: a fine, decorated hollow blade.

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.

[Jim McDougall]

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.

[urbanspaceman]

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.

[urbanspaceman]

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

[Jim McDougall]

Paraphrasing from "Schools and Masters of Fencing" (Egerton Castle, 1885, pp.235-239), it seems that at the end of the 16th c. the best fencing masters professed the cut and thrust play, but actually prejudiced to the thrust.

Long slender blades (regarded as 'tucks' or 'estocs') were almost devoid of cutting edges and with a lozenge (diamond) section almost square and became incredibly long (so much so that a footman had to carry these behind the duellist).
These were apparently called 'Verduns' for the French city most commonly producing them (p.235). These long bladed swords favored by 'swaggering' duelists, were regarded disdainfully in England and blades became shorter.

The 'prismatic' blades were retained in dueling swords until middle of the 17th century, when it was abandoned gradually in favor of the deadly and lighter three cornered (trefoil) fluted blade.
However, the most USUAL blade until middle of the 17th c. continued to be the double edged type.

It seems that the trefoil fluted blade which had gained favor in France as noted c.1650-60 came into fashion in England about the time of the Restoration.

The French were of course the first to discard all cutting from rapier fencing, and first to adopt the lightest blade form for thrusting alone, which developed the familiar 'small sword'. The blade of the small sword though much lighter than the double edged rapier, was still 'heavy about the point' (p.239).

Between 1680-1690 first in France, then Germany and England the COLICHEMARDE blade came into fashion. This is what is described as the 'squeezed' blade as the great width of the fort, which abruptly becomes slender at the faible, thus a light and 'fast' point, and broad,stiff fort.

In these notes it is not clear exactly where or when in the time of the advent of the colichemarde type blade, there was any distinct variation between the older double edge type blade in the combination or the trefoil.
Perhaps it might have been a matter of preference as some may still have preferred cut and thrust over the French style of thrust alone.

As these blades were produced in various centers, the degree of which in each remains the question especially as pertains to the entry of Shotley Bridge into this enterprise for these highly desirable blades.

The note in 'Castle' mentioning 'Verdun' as a blade making center in France suggests maybe more research into how long their blade making, which seems to have been focused to 'dueling' swords, might have become a 'player' in the colichemarde.

It is worthy of note that in the private sector, this 'highly perfect' form of blade seems to have been in use 1685-1720, when the civilian small sword gradually returned to the tapered trefoil blade through the rest of the century. However, the military, staid in their tradition, had the colichemarde blade remain in favor with officers contemporary to the civilian forms also through the century. George Washington owned one.

[urbanspaceman]

Hello again Jim. Thank-you for running with this ball. You bring up in my memory two issues that might benefit from exposition: firstly, did the fluted blade arrive with Charles 2nd and brother James? The smallsword certainly did but... we have looked - recently - at the re-hilting of slender rapier blades, could it be possible that these found favour prior to the arrival of the trefoil blade? They certainly persisted long after. Also, I have seen squeezed blades that taper abruptly to a very narrow rapier blade.
Returning to the initial essay I submitted, there's something I wish to interject:
a petition to The Council of State from John Cooke who had a mill in Hounslow (cross and star mark) occurred in 1655 "seeking to encourage him in his manufacture of hollow ground smallsword and rapier blades". At the time he was supplying the Tower with Hounslow Hangars (600 in 1658 is recorded) for Naval use. This looks like yet another example of the Mohlls trying to get their machines over to England. Apparently Cooke had Johannes Dell grinding for him back then.
What reinforces this presumption is that there is a curious incident occurred in 1686 that is recorded in the London Cutlers Company archives:
Lord Dartmouth (the Master-General of the King's Ordnance) revealed a plan to the Company to produce hollow swordblades with a secret machine: a scheme that would result in the creation of the Hollow Swordblade Company in Shotley Bridge - which by then was already underway. Dartmouth (a staunch Jacobite) was informed by the Crown of the new syndicate and their imminent Shotley Bridge endeavor; and here's the vital bit: AN ENGLISH HAND-GROUND HOLLOW BLADE HAD BEEN PRESENTED TO DARTMOUTH ALONGSIDE A 'MACHINE-MADE' EXAMPLE FOR COMPARISON. This is a very important occurrence as it poses two crucial questions: first, which smith in England, in 1686, could have hand-ground a hollow blade that was worthy of competing; and second, where did that machine-made blade come from?
BTW. Re. Washington: he had two colichemardes: this one was never seen before by me.

[Jim McDougall]

Keith, my pleasure of course, as this is a fascinating though challenging sector of sword esoterica. I am unsure of exactly when the 'fluted' blade arrived in England, but Burton (1884, p.135) says "...the small sword was introduced in England during the 18th century"....but this cannot be correct in accord with the production of small sword blades in England in mid 17th.

Interestingly, Burton in this text also notes in describing blade cross sections (fig. 124, #4)the BISCAYAN shape, which seems to be the 'fluted' trefoil.
He notes, "the Biscayan shape, the trialamellum of more ancient days, with three deep grooves and as many blunt edges by which the parries were made".

Further noting, "..there is so much difficulty in making the blade straight and of even temper that many professional men have never seen one not crooked or soft. Yet this is the small sword proper of the last century, which stood its ground as far as the first quarter of the present century".

Going to Castle ("Schools and Masters of Fencing", Egerton Castle, 1885. p236):
"...the prismatic shape of the blade was retained in many dueling swords until the middle of the 17th c. when it was gradually abandoned in favor of the still more deadly and lighter THREE CORNERED FLUTED BLADE. The most USUAL blade however remained until the middle of the 17th century one of the DOUBLE EDGED type. "

The scientific term 'prismatic' does not do well in this case in blade study, and what it refers to is geometrics, in this case a 'lozenge' (=diamond) section blade, which Burton (1884,p.135) describes as "making a strong, stiff, and lasting but very HEAVY sword. He notes further this type blade (previously noted as the tuck, estoc or 'Verdun' was known to English armorers as the 'Saxon' type blade, to workmen often as the 'latchen' blade.

The only reason I add these notes is that while going through period references describing blades etc. these terms might be helpful semantically.

Returning to the colichemarde topic, and again Burton (p.135) notes the introduction of these blades around 1680, and that this was ",...a trialamellum very wide and heavy in the whole string quarter near the hilt, and at about 8 inches suddenly passing to a light and slender rapier section. ".

Further "became a favorite dueling blade, the feather weight at the point making it the best of fencing weapons. It remained in fashion during the reign of Louis XIV, then suddenly disappeared".

In a footnote to that text, it is noted that it was suggested in 1881 by an English writer that the colichemarde had fallen out of favor due to its COSTLINESS and inelegant appearance when sheathed. ??

Most of these references, while not of any great help in most of the questions posed here, are simply to frame the context of these colichemarde blades and the difficulty, thus cost of making them. These would seem of notable consideration with the desire to have a machine that would not only be more efficient in quality but volume in producing these blades.

The mystery of what English maker could have produced such a blade as you note remains a conundrum, and much deeper diving into the resounding esoterica of English blade production .

[Jim McDougall]

This I found in "Small Arms Makers", Col. Robert Gardiner, 1963.

MOST perplexing! This reference shows this mark remarkably like the bushy tail fox of Shotley, but to Austrian maker of Steyr...1620?
This reference seems pretty reliable, so the mysteries of Shotley deepen. This is the ONLY time I have seen the BTF in this sort of context, and wish there was some note on how or where it was found.
Steyr in upper Austria was center of many conflicts during Thirty Years War when it was under rule of Duke Maximilian I of Bavaria, and the Peasant War of Upper Austria in 1626 took place, There was a tradition of arms making in later years there, and wonder if Oleys might have had any connection?
It is an intriguing thought.....I had always thought the bushy tail fox was sort of a parody of the Solingen running wolf, but perhaps Oleys had these kinds of connections ?

Though digressing from the topic, these markings have been curious as long as we've discussed Shotley.

In "The Catalog of the Sword Collection at York Castle Museum", P.R. Newman 1985:
CA833 (p.51) is an English hanger of Hounslow type hilt with blade marked with a 'RUNNING HORSE' ?
CA822 (p.49) another hanger of Hounslow type with blade marked with 'RUNNING DOG'? with letter H incorporated.....suggestion made for a 'Birmingham maker, Harvey'? Obviously this refers to Samuel Harvey of Birmingham, but he was much later, mid 18th c. with SH within the figure not just H.

[urbanspaceman]

It is mysterious Jim. Such an elaborate rendering of the Passau Wolf is entirely possible on an expensive blade down in Austria at that time. I will keep looking, because the fact that an almost identical rendering was used on a 1760s colichemarde suggests it may not be entirely alone.
ps
The talismanics are typical of Passau blades back in the 1620s; not just Solingen.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

It is mysterious Jim. Such an elaborate rendering of the Passau Wolf is entirely possible on an expensive blade down in Austria at that time. I will keep looking, because the fact that an almost identical rendering was used on a 1760s colichemarde suggests it may not be entirely alone.
ps
The talismanics are typical of Passau blades back in the 1620s; not just Solingen.

Such are the mysteries of arms! Gardiner seems reasonably meticulous in his material, so there would seem no reason for this to be inaccurate. To take this to another level, could an Austrian maker from Stehr have been among those fleeing the aftermath of the Thirty Years war into England? Stehr was the center of the Peasants war (1626) trying to overthrow the Bavarian rule, also there were problems with collapse of iron resources.

Tenuous yes, but possible. As you note the talismanic number 1414 was one of the most commonly used in Germany, and ironically often appeared with the 'running wolf' in Solingen. It is tempting to note that Austria in these times was virtually a hotbed of magic and occult influences (East European) which then were absorbed into German contexts.

It would not seem a far stretch for this rendering used in Austria to extend into the shops in Shotley at some point, then adopted by Oley, as noted used by Bewick the artistic engraver.

[Hotspur]

This one from Sweden seems later than the start of hollow trefoil blades

Notes are gone...but iirc, Napoleonic era. I'm thinking it was related to the union with Norway in 1818 and several given by the Swedish king as presentations. Either an old SFI thread or elsewhere. I believe Napoleon had Swedish officers working the cause.

Cheers
GC

[urbanspaceman]

Hello Glen. I am sorry to hear of your malady, you have my sympathy.
Thank-you for joining this thread; this sword strikes me as an anomaly. I don't understand what indicated Scandinavia... but that is to be expected as I am still very much a novice outside of my specialist field. The blade is remarkably similar to the one I posted in my essay - yet a much better quality, so if you don't object I will use your image instead. Thanks again and best wishes for your health.

[urbanspaceman]

deleted.