Portuguese rapier blades
 

Hi Folks.
Without wishing to put up fences, I suspect Fernando will be able to advise me on this issue, but of course I welcome all input.
I have two Court swords with rapier blades that are certainly re-hilts.
The blades are very thin... delicate almost; great stabbing tools.
I've posted images of the silver hilted one before - but for other reasons.
My question is this:
what is the history of these very fine, slender blades and what sort of hilts would they have had originally?

What makes you suspect that these are re-hilted rapier blades?

Your first one retains the shoulders of the blade, so if it was originally a rapier it would have need to have lost a good portion of it’s tip. Is the blade unusually thick at the tip? If not, it will be a purpose built smallsword blade since the effort in re-profiling a blade from the base will be more work than making a new one.

As an aside, I’m always cautious when mixing Rapier and Smallsword (like so called transitional rapiers). Because rapiers command a premium over smallswords, I find some dealers are quick to find links between the two to add value.

I appreciate that transitional rapiers are a thing, they’re just not as common as some make out to be in my view.

Keith, i am the last person to advise you on this issue. My knowledge is extemely superficial. Besides, on what concerns Portuguese blades, i realize they are often hardly Portuguese, with eventual national inscriptions being done after import.
All i dare say is that the term rapier for these blades is hardly the correct one. Also i concur with Radboud in that the blades you show are naturally the ones that came with those swords.
If an example i have in my books is a reasonable approach for the case in discussion, here is a 'Espadim' used in civil (and eventualy military) gala uniform in a date span between 1792-1816. The hilt is in silver, and the blade measures with a 81 cms. length and 15 m/m width. It has an inscription of the Queen and his would be King son in either blade side in its slender blade. In the last three quarters the blade is what the autor calls 'estoque' type, to its four face cross section. It all points to this blade having being initially belonged to the hilt.


.

response
 

Thank-you Gentleman.
This may well explain why I am puzzled.
The reason I considered re-hilts was because of the length of the brass hilted version which has a 40" blade; obviously well beyond the common smallsword parameters.
The silver hilt, however, is 31" and as such is within said parameters but has an identical blade profile to the 40" one, so I assumed there was a category of sword of which I was unfamiliar.
Again, however... that brass hilt is actually very, very big, so it may well have been commissioned for a big fellow wanting a proportionate length to his weapon.
The other reason was the dating issue:
they are very late 1700s hilts are they not? If so, I was puzzled as to why they were fitted to blade styles I thought (and here you must pardon my inexperience and ignorance) had long since gone out of fashion after the arrival of the 'hollow' blades.
I look forward to corrections and augments.

Going by their style, I would agree that both these hilts are very late 18th Cent. or early 19th Cent. The brass one with the turned over guard especially, since by this stage the sword was worn almost entirely for dress or ceremonial reasons. That the blade is 40” is an outlier and I agree that it makes it much more likely to be a re-hilt with an earlier blade. Especially on a sword only worn for dress.

You’d need to examine the blade profile and taper to determine if it was cut down though.

Something to keep in mind, the style of smallsword fighting in the Iberian and Mediterranean region was different from that taught in France. This style retained some cuts and they used longer blades meaning they still ‘fingered the guard’ to retain point control. But 40” is long; by comparison, my largest smallsword is Spanish, and it has a 88cm blade with another 3cm between the guard and and the quillons.

To your other comment, while the trefoil blade was the most popular form for smallswords in Northern Europe and the UK, other profiles persisted and didn’t completely disappear.

ricasso
 

The ricasso on the silver hilt sword shows the maker mark in the squared ricasso cut in half (see attached).
The 40" one doesn't and the blade disappears into the hilt (again, see attached).
I find it hard to imagine that either sword has not been modified or chopped down at their ricassos.
There is definitely no indication of blade thinning on either sword.

These thin rapier blades were of course prevalent through the 17th century into the 18th. While they seem to have been contemporary to heavier arming blades through the 17th, the rapier and dueling swords were apparently maintained in the court and gentlemans swords. The so called transitional rapiers (a most nebulous area) seem to have been with these slender rapier blades in the small sword and court sword hilts in the 18th.

Attached is a Spanish rapier blade (though probably German made) which is believed from the Spanish nao Encarnacion which sank in storms off Panama Dec.3,1681. It had left Cartagena enroute to Porto Bello Panama, and among cargo had crates of sword blades.

This type of blade was of course known earlier in 17th c. As Toledo was in dire straits in the 17th century, Germany stepped in and produced blades as they were long well established as the key blade producers and continued as such well through the 19th c.

the mists of confusion are clearing
 

So: I am reminded Jim, of that Dutch duelling rapier/smallsword of the late 1600s... the one you have your eye on (see attached:).
I don't know why I didn't hop over to that conclusion.
Here is a virtually identical blade inasmuch as it is thing and sharp and reasonably long.
This must have been before the 'First Blood' rules appeared.
But, I am convinced that brass hilted sword of mine with the 40" blade was longer before it was hilted thusly so my obvious next question is "What sort of hilts did these blades have back closer to the end of the 1600s".
Has anybody seen a long narrow rapier blade hilted as per the end of the 17thC?
It is beginning to appear that the transition to smaller swords began earlier than I had imagined if the English civil war Cavalier rapiers are anything to go by.
Am I missing something here?

Swashbucklers
 

A swashbuckler is a genre of European adventure literature that focuses on a heroic protagonist stock character who is skilled in swordsmanship, acrobatics, guile and possesses chivalrous ideals. A "swashbuckler" protagonist is heroic, daring, and idealistic: he rescues damsels in distress, protects the downtrodden, and uses duels to defend his honor or that of a lady or to avenge a comrade.
Swashbucklers often engage in daring and romantic adventures with bravado or flamboyance. Swashbuckler heroes are gentleman adventurers who dress elegantly and flamboyantly in coats, waistcoats, tight breeches, large feathered hats, and high leather boots, and they are armed with the thin rapiers used by aristocrats.

battlefield and civilian
 

Am I right in realising that two styles of rapier existed contemporaneously?
The long, heavy, battlefield sword with cutting edges; and the not-so-long, narrow blades with no cutting edges for civilian wear.

I think our modern mindset likes to group everything into its own neat pockets, while the reality is that several types of swords co-existed simultaneously depending on the owners' location, fighting style, purpose, preference and wealth. Some of these swords we can easily group into a 'rapier' pocket, others into the 'smallsword' pocket. But many are just too grey.

So-call 'civilian rapiers' and smallswords were carried on the battlefield, while we also see soldiers in period art armed with complex hilted rapier style swords.

Maybe grouping swords by the fighting style rather than appearance would be easier. For example, rapier styles use both cuts (delivered from the wrist) and thrusts with a grip where you loop one or two fingers over the crossguard. Smallswords are thrust only with a grip that 'pinches' the quillon block. In contrast, broadswords and backswords are held in a hammer or handshake grip and used with sweeping, whole-body cuts.

Matt Easton has recently published a video with his criticism of the 'Military Rapier' term that raises some good points.

Closing in.
 

Thanks for that suggestion about Matt's recent video.
I think my issue returns again and again to the question of what sort of hilts would have been on those swords of mine originally, because I remain convinced they have been re-hilted.
Incidentally, my Shotley Bridge small-sword, from 1688, used a narrow broad-sword blade which is actually the same length as the SB horseman's sword, just having a lighter, fancier hilt and a more narrow blade. I don't think Scots and Northerners trusted the lightness and lack of cutting edge in the fashionable alternatives. Notice Graham's man (Tim Roth) in the Rob Roy film is using a transitional-ish rapier with a flat blade sharpened on both edges. I wonder who decided on that, and why?

What's in re-hilting ...
 

If you wish, you may take a look at what they say about the 1806 pattern Portuguese officer's sword, in what touches blade exceptions 'allowed' in their regulations ... something i guess would also take place in other nations.


.

It is difficult to take a pragmatic approach in assessing the two sword examples posted as there are so many variables as far as the intent in their present state. It seems pretty clear these are remounted with vintage rapier blades, which was why I posted the rapier blade from a Spanish shipwreck off Panama (1681) illustrating these blade forms, which were in use into 18th c. in some degree.

The Spaniards used a distinct style of fencing known as destreza, which by the 18th century was falling out of favor as the French school began to take over. With this, the style involved both cut and thrust and shorter (faster) blades.
English fencing followed primarily French (and Italian of course which often paralleled).
* the Tim Roth sword in "Rob Roy" was a dish type rapier (c.1640s) as known in England, and would have been quite dated by the period of 'Rob Roy' in the early 18thc. The contest between these dramatically different sword types would be as interesting as portrayed in the film, and the Scots, while relying on brute strength and cutting power were well versed in some fencing skills. There are numerous volumes on Scottish swordsmanship (Hope, McBane, Angelo, Sinclair et al).
The choice of the rapier of the English gentry vs. the Highlander with broadsword was obviously highly symbolic.

It must be remembered that dueling was much contended with concerns over blade lengths and long blades were often deemed illegal in many cases.

The use of the civilian rapier remained in many cases somewhat outdated in observance of tradition and heritage with the exception of course was the small sword and dueling. The Spaniards maintained use of their long outdated cup hilt rapiers for well over a century later and while often derided by other nationality swordsmen, they remained indeed most formidable opponents. As far as later use or contrary to popular present fashion as with Spain,it does not seem unusual that similar situations would follow in the courts and gentry of other nations, including England of course .

The silver hilt rapier (the term is of course loosely used for small swords and any light thrusting blade sword) is of a fashion of c. 1790s (as highly embellished diamente work) with tall urn pommel. The use of a vintage or heirloom rapier blade would be understandable in the status oriented context. It would be interesting to trace the makers mark at ricasso.

The brass hilt with the extraordinarily long 40" blade may have similar circumstance, and is more aligned with the court sword styles popular in Georgian period but recalling the down turned guard on earlier swords such as hirshfangers or cuttoes. Again, it is a matter of personal preference, but for dueling as well as for court wear, such a long blade would be detrimental as awkward.

In all, these are 'rapier' blades of notable vintage mounted in later hilts, as often the case, and reflect the personal preference of those who owned them. They do not reflect any particular classification or period type as personal preferences in blades and hilts dictated many variations in these sword forms which indeed existed contemporarily over long periods. The famed 'colichemarde' blade which focused on dueling remained in favor in the military long after falling out of favor in the civilian sector. Military heritage and tradition often is a factor which brings these kinds of anomalies into being it would seem.

As Jim says, for many officers or gentlemen, blade choice was a personal preference; there could be any number of reasons for an older blade to be mounted on a new hilt (reference the Andera Ferrara blades found on 19th-century hilts). Or for a newly made blade to follow an 'older' fashion.

As an example of the Colichmarde blade being used in the late 18th Century, this is a French m1767 Infantry Officers epee with one:

Attachment 230109

Such an example with a fairly precise date makes applying hard and fast rules difficult.

Here are some examples of smallswords made for the Spanish fencing style:

Attachment 230107

Attachment 230108

The first has an 88cm blade (from the cup), while the others all use so-called 'rapier' blades, probably dating from the mid-18th to late 18th Century. This goes some way to suggesting this type of blade was still being produced even that late. Going by the hilt style, the last two could be as late as the 1790 to 1810s.

Regarding the rules of duelling, a lot depends on the culture and time that the duel was set, and it would be difficult to infer anything from them without first accurately placing that sword in a specific time and place. I am reminded of the duel Abraham Lincon fought, where, as the challenged party, he got to set the rules of the duel. Because he had a significant height and reach advantage over his opponent, he stipulated that the duel be fought from each end of a plank. Negating his opponent's ability to hit him.

Not surprisingly, Abraham Lincon won the duel.

Rapier hilts
 

Gentlemen... thank-you, this has been a most enlightening endeavour.
I found my final answer on a dealer's website and I enclose it below.
These slim blade rapiers had the same hilts as 'Military' rapiers. Almost certainly as equally varied.
Have a fine weekend. I'm off to play with latest acquisition (a huge early Sterling on an equally huge Shotley Bridge broadsword blade).

Another interesting example of an 18th Century Spanish smallsword with a 900mm ‘rapier’ blade:

http://www.vicentetoledo.com/espada-...e-historico/19

naval small smallsword
 

Thank-you.
This supports another curiosity of mine:
I have a Gill-made 'short' smallsword, custom made for a naval officer that has been unique in my experience so far. Now I have sight of another. My blade is only 27" long yet the hilt is enormous. I had always presumed the short blade was a naval preference and now I have additional support for my presumption.
I also have sight of the use of an heirloom rapier blade in a smallsword.
Thanks again.

Say Keith, what do you think (or know) is the word/s in the blade spine, after "warranted"; not the usual "never to fail" ...

Gill
 

Hello Fernando.
It is a very unusual sword in more ways than one - to coin a saying from our vernacular.
I am enclosing a variety of pics of the sword.
The hilt is almost certainly from Matthew Boulton and is a work of art but much too fancy to suit active combat,
It also features a groove in the lower face of the blade which tells of a tale too lengthy for this thread.

ps
 

here's the last picture: this globe is at the top of a trumpet? in the figure's left hand;
apparently this figure is of some significance; anyone know what it represents? It's too early for Britannia Rules the Waves (1745).

Why do you say it's too early if 'Rule Britannia' is from 1740? Thomas Gill Snr was born around 1743 and died in 1801. He is first listed as a file cutter and maker of watchmaker tools in 1767. It isn't until 1788 that we have a listing of him as a sword maker (along with other things).

On the balance of the evidence it's reasonable to believe that Thomas Gill didn't start making swords until the mid-1780s, meaning the figure could well be an early representation of Britannia.

Mea Culpa
 

Yes Radboud, you are perfectly correct; I don't know what I was thinking about... not thinking ....more's the case.
We have strayed from the original topic somewhat, but I'm still learning as we go.
ps
There were at least three Thomas Gills, the first died soon after arriving from Lancashire and setting up a file shop for watchmakers.