![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]() Quote:
History, for many of us....is ADDICTING! ![]() In history, war, battles etc. there are no fine lines, rules or categories in 'sides' in conflicts. During the English civil wars (a comprehensive term to describe not only the primary conflict, but many rebellions and insurgences before, after and during.........weapons were obtained by any means. The well known Hounslow shops producing swords were taken over by Cromwell, and many of the makers left to go with the Royalists at shops in Oxford and London, many remained at Hounslow (though Cromwell turned the mills into powder mills). While the 'Royalists' were regarded as 'dandies', cavaliers, they were of course inclined to more elegant rapiers etc. while the Cromwellians were more pragmatic and munitions grade arms and armor. The so called 'mortuary' ( a misnomer) was used thoroughly on both sides. Naturally basket hilts (which are not entirely Scottish) found use by most everyone. Actually the Scottish basket hilt was termed the 'Irish hilt' into Victorian times. In border regions between England and Scotland, you might look into the groups known as 'Border Reivers'. These groups might be on 'one side' or the other, depending on the situation or times, and here the amalgam of weapon forms, styles etc. was completely catch as catch can. Through these channels weapons filtered through to any and ALL sides, and through all the many conflicts and actions. The notion of 'regulation' patterns is in many regards, a kind of myth, though obviously such administrative protocols do of course exist, mostly from 19th century on. The commanders of units chose, commissioned and bought the arms they supplied thier troops with....it was entirely thier choice. However, obviously the favored forms being bought by others were easier to concede to, so some uniformity prevailed. Officers were typically of high station or gentry, often nobility, so clearly the choice of weapons for them was carte blanche. However, often for battle or campaign, they used 'fighting weapons' which were in many cases similar to the forms used in other ranks. While the ranks had weapons 'issued' from the racks, officers often had a 'stable' of swords to choose from. In actuality, many officers would take their dress type swords into battle as they were not expected to participate in combat....but direct troops and actions, so the sword was more used in that capacity. Naturally that often changed as situations developed. I am hoping to hear more on the 1627 sword soon. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|