dussage german sword

A Senefelder · 12th February 2010, 04:00 AM

You've got a thumb ring on yours, i'm jealous, mine don't have them ( I own the two posted above ) and I love thumb rings. After my first encounter with them on a Wallon style cavalry broadsword ( c. 1650 ) I owned a number of years back I was sold on the feel in the hand of them. There is a security on the backside or drawthrough protion of a cut that comes with them that seems to make for a smoother cut in my personal expirience ( there also seems to be less wobble at the wrist after the blade comes free from the target when cutting with one ).

cornelistromp · 12th February 2010, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Senefelder

You've got a thumb ring on yours, i'm jealous, mine don't have them ( I own the two posted above ) and I love thumb rings. After my first encounter with them on a Wallon style cavalry broadsword ( c. 1650 ) I owned a number of years back I was sold on the feel in the hand of them. There is a security on the backside or drawthrough protion of a cut that comes with them that seems to make for a smoother cut in my personal expirience ( there also seems to be less wobble at the wrist after the blade comes free from the target when cutting with one ).

Hi, yes you are absolutely right, it gives a lot more stability to the swordhand. specially on hilts where the forefinger can not go over the guard to the ricasso of the blade to give additional stability. ( swords/rapiers with a plate-filled ringguard and all kind basket hilt types)

regards from Holland

broadaxe · 15th February 2010, 09:36 AM

The term is obscure indeed. Jim, I have to argue with your definition as "heavy". I don't think they were heavier - considering the combat use - than their period couterparts. Mind that the simple form of the peasant dussack is just a short steel blade without additional fittings, though its knuckle bow and sometimes broader-than-usual blade give it a little more weight comparing to a "regular" bare blade.
I have two examples, will post photos later on.
Some written info can be found in:

Sach, Chladne Zbrane, p.30 (Czech text).

Muller/Kolling/Platow, Europaische Hieb-Und StichWaffen, pp.36, 76, 428 (German text).

Wagner, Cut & Thrust Weapons, pp. 34-6 (vaguely, English text).

broadaxe · 23rd February 2010, 11:49 PM

Here are the photos:

Jim McDougall · 24th February 2010, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broadaxe

The term is obscure indeed. Jim, I have to argue with your definition as "heavy". I don't think they were heavier - considering the combat use - than their period couterparts. Mind that the simple form of the peasant dussack is just a short steel blade without additional fittings, though its knuckle bow and sometimes broader-than-usual blade give it a little more weight comparing to a "regular" bare blade.
I have two examples, will post photos later on.
Some written info can be found in:

Sach, Chladne Zbrane, p.30 (Czech text).

Muller/Kolling/Platow, Europaische Hieb-Und StichWaffen, pp.36, 76, 428 (German text).

Wagner, Cut & Thrust Weapons, pp. 34-6 (vaguely, English text).

Broadaxe, Im sorry I missed your post here! Extremely well put, and thank you for the references. I agree with your excellent presentation, and it does appear the term 'heavy' would not apply to these short sabres. Your illustration of the two forms together is brilliant!!! Thank you so much.

All the very best,
Jim

A Senefelder · 24th February 2010, 03:37 AM

Broadaxe, wow, just wow. What excellent examples. The second lower piece is the virtual stereotypical dussack pictured in period manuals of fence. This is what WMA usually visualizes when the term dussack is mentioned.

broadaxe · 24th February 2010, 08:27 AM

Thank you guys. I was going to post the stats - the most important info (at least, for myself) and almost forgot:
The longer, "Sinclair" saber is 75 cm long, 1.150kg and feeling lighter, due to excellent balance of 6cm down the blade.
The shorter, "pure form" dussack is 60cm long, ~0.720kg, pob is 10cm. Supposedly the grip was wrapped by cloth or leather, maybe some more material on the back of the tang to make it more substantial.

There was a long debate in another forum, regarding the nature of the dussack. Some people tend to believe there were no "live" dussacks, just the wooden/leather sport or pratice weapon, as portrayed so vividly in Joachim Meyer's fencing manual. I think the reason is that the dussack was so simple and cheap, it was neglected by the years and underrated by western collectors of the 18th-19th centuries, so you cannot see them in museums. But, they do exist and there are several specimens in collections over central and eastern Europe. I saw one (identical construction, straight blade) in Bratislava, Slovakia.

23rd February 2010, 11:49 PM	#4
broadaxe Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 334	Here are the photos: Attached Images

24th February 2010, 08:27 AM	#7
broadaxe Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 334	Thank you guys. I was going to post the stats - the most important info (at least, for myself) and almost forgot: The longer, "Sinclair" saber is 75 cm long, 1.150kg and feeling lighter, due to excellent balance of 6cm down the blade. The shorter, "pure form" dussack is 60cm long, ~0.720kg, pob is 10cm. Supposedly the grip was wrapped by cloth or leather, maybe some more material on the back of the tang to make it more substantial. There was a long debate in another forum, regarding the nature of the dussack. Some people tend to believe there were no "live" dussacks, just the wooden/leather sport or pratice weapon, as portrayed so vividly in Joachim Meyer's fencing manual. I think the reason is that the dussack was so simple and cheap, it was neglected by the years and underrated by western collectors of the 18th-19th centuries, so you cannot see them in museums. But, they do exist and there are several specimens in collections over central and eastern Europe. I saw one (identical construction, straight blade) in Bratislava, Slovakia. Attached Images

12th February 2010, 04:00 AM	#1
A Senefelder Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 214	You've got a thumb ring on yours, i'm jealous, mine don't have them ( I own the two posted above ) and I love thumb rings. After my first encounter with them on a Wallon style cavalry broadsword ( c. 1650 ) I owned a number of years back I was sold on the feel in the hand of them. There is a security on the backside or drawthrough protion of a cut that comes with them that seems to make for a smoother cut in my personal expirience ( there also seems to be less wobble at the wrist after the blade comes free from the target when cutting with one ).

15th February 2010, 09:36 AM	#3
broadaxe Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 334	The term is obscure indeed. Jim, I have to argue with your definition as "heavy". I don't think they were heavier - considering the combat use - than their period couterparts. Mind that the simple form of the peasant dussack is just a short steel blade without additional fittings, though its knuckle bow and sometimes broader-than-usual blade give it a little more weight comparing to a "regular" bare blade. I have two examples, will post photos later on. Some written info can be found in: Sach, Chladne Zbrane, p.30 (Czech text). Muller/Kolling/Platow, Europaische Hieb-Und StichWaffen, pp.36, 76, 428 (German text). Wagner, Cut & Thrust Weapons, pp. 34-6 (vaguely, English text).

24th February 2010, 03:37 AM	#6
A Senefelder Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 214	Broadaxe, wow, just wow. What excellent examples. The second lower piece is the virtual stereotypical dussack pictured in period manuals of fence. This is what WMA usually visualizes when the term dussack is mentioned.