![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]()
'well there ya go' , as they say in these parts
![]() Exactly, but of course we are often on different frequencies saying basically the same thing. In my comments toward colonial 'styling' or lack thereof, I used the words 'simplicity OFTEN associated with colonial weapons'. It does seem that words so often can carry so many meanings beyond what was intended, which is why my entries are 'often' so complex, as I try to qualify and explain my comments. While it does seem we are deviating from the OP, actually, these observations are key to properly classifying these swords (or reliably attempting to). There are no 'cut and dry' solutions, as 'colonial' weapons may have been put together in rural or remote locations without the supply, artisans and materials available to makers in Continental or Peninsular cities. By the same token, many swords may have been put together in locations equally remote on the Continent etc. as well. Again, it is important to remember that while officers and gentry would privately commission appropriately high end swords, the 'munitions' or 'issue' weapons would have been produced in accord with skills of the maker as well as the costs involved. Many units, especially cavalry, were elite, and deemed extensions of the officers themselves so well appointed, while many units were simply 'field forces' whose weapons need by sturdy but not necessarily stylish. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,156
|
![]()
Excellent arguments, gentlemen. All very important points either way. It really doesn't matter, though, as this piece is hardly a put-together or blacksmith rendition. The 'could be' might never be fully answered, but this sword is so magnificent, who cares at this point! I have never looked down on colonial pieces (NOT saying this is one) as they are an important and integral part of the big historical picture.
Going back to the screw-tang, did we ever determine when this practice was started? Obviously, screws have been around since the Middle Ages and many components of armor possess said attachments. I know Scottish basket hilts with 'screw' pommels started appearing in the last quarter of the 18th century. Many of the Dutch pieces circa 1700 had the off-set screw/nut attachment for the knucklebow. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
EAAF Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Upstate New York, USA
Posts: 937
|
![]() Quote:
I will present a British sword dated to within a few decades of 1600 that employs a threaded tang in these forums soon - once pictures are prepared. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,156
|
![]()
Thank you, Lee. I'd love to see pictures of this early example of a threaded tang for reference. Didn't know for sure how long the practice of threading was going on for-
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 264
|
![]()
Very nice sword Fernando.
I believe these swords were the Spanish (Portugal) current infantry soldier swords between 1660-1710. Kept longer in the Americas. In a similar function to infantry Waloon types in northern countries. The introduction of the Borbon dinasty probably eliminated them. The first picture is of a soldier of the Guardia Chamberga (1669-1676). It is possible to identify an evolution for the hilts differentiated from the blades. Similar hilts have different blades, sometimes in flamigerous shape. And similar blades appear with different hilts. They often have brass pieces of horn or exotic wood grips, something not common in the European counterparts of that period. I think it is not possible to distinguish between naval and colonial weapons (the so-called Caribbean rapiers), because the troops could be moved around, and the navy was often the source of weapons for the colonies. Some of them have survived with a coat of thick black paint, possibly made with coal and hooves, for rust resistance. Some are even tinned with that aim. This was convenient both for the navy and Caribbean coasts. Lamina 79 from the Naval Album of Marquis de la Victoria, represents the armament carried by the crew of a Spanish man of war of around c1725s-1735s. There are no cup hilts there, but possibly it is a late period for that. https://docplayer.es/42280723-Analis...nal-naval.html PS. I have just found out that the guard print is a 1828 copy of the uniforms in a previous one of 1670. I am searching for the original. PS2. The original is page 30 of https://archive.org/stream/teatrodel...e/n29/mode/1up But I do not see cuphilts there. Last edited by midelburgo; 3rd June 2020 at 06:01 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]() Quote:
Thank you for this well placed and nicely supported overview as we examine the character and forms of potentially 'colonial' sword forms. As has been pointed out, while those 'mounted' in colonial context MAY have somewhat more austere components, if indeed fashioned by blacksmiths or metal workers in these 'New World' regions. It must be remembered that there were not any great number of armorers or skilled sword slippers (as termed in 17th-18thc) in colonial settings. While occasionally they did exist in the larger cities and metropolitan areas, most locations were relatively remote and such work was typically in effect, the work of field armorers and blacksmiths. Also, in the 'colonies', many presume that the military presence in many locations suggested predominance of current types of arms and armor. Actually, from the earliest exploration times, most individuals were not necesarily 'military', in fact private and with commercial or personal interests such as syndicated investors, and adventurers. These individuals were of course privately outfitted and armed themselves often with heirloom,surplus and otherwise collected items. This is why many weapons and forms long obsolete in Continental and Peninsular context remained in use for not only generations, but centuries, in the New World. As these arms became damaged or otherwise unserviceable, their components were of course recycled and put to use as possible in newly fabricated weaponry. There were no facilities for the fancy wire wrap, Turks heads, and other other finer touches of the beautifully produced weaponry of the European world. Materials that were available were of course, soft yellow metals (which also did not rust) and various animal hides ( the galuchat described earlier simulated rayskin using horse hide etc and seeds). The blades, unless broken, were the most durable and available components for these colonial makers, in fact the well known 'Spanish motto' dragoon blades were exported from Solingen to them in large volume. I have personal knowledge of this from one well known collector who had acquired a large bundle of them (featured in "Spanish Military Arms in Colonial America 1700-1821"). Also I knew individuals who had found a bundle of Solingen produced rapier blades on a Spanish shipwreck off a Central American coast. Also as noted previously, japanning (black paint) and russeting (using a browning method) were commonly practiced on these arms to withstand the damp tropical climates in the new world. This made these weapons MOST serviceable aboard vessels as well. This fact was a notable factor in the support of the Scottish basket hilt finding its place as a maritime sword in degree, as thier hilts were typically treated in this fashion due to the damp Scottish climate. Naturally, the long use of many sword types entirely, or thier components brought together many otherwise notably incongruent pairings. For example broadsword blades on saber hilts, broad arming sword blades on cup hilts etc. In these often unusually contrived weapons, it is surprising to see such things as crossguard quillons mounted UNDER a cup guard ( entirely vestigial and redundant). I have (somewhere) a colonial cut down Spanish motto blade, mounted with a brass briquet hilt, and a three bar saber guard. This is no logical reason for this 'frankenstein' ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,156
|
![]()
"In these often unusually contrived weapons, it is surprising to see such things as crossguard quillons mounted UNDER a cup guard ( entirely vestigial and redundant)."
Not to take away from 'Nando's thread, but the tie-in with colonial weapons and the information being presented here is great! Jim, you mention this contrived assemblage on swords and I have personally seen several 'Frankenstein-type' Spanish swords with this exact pattern listed in a catalog as "pirate"! interesting that others have come across these. Also, thank you for that term I have been long searching for. "Russeting" is the process whereby swords are primered with a brown paint or substance to retard rusting. You might recall that old 1660's hanger I had with VOC connections that had a 'browned' blade for sea service. Anyway, back to this amazing cup hilt! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 264
|
![]()
I would take Enrique Coel as a sort of Runkel, 80-100 years in advance, and along 80 years. However it is possible to group the graphics and caligraphies. For example, the blades in the 1728 model come in two flavours, although that only shows that they shared the model the engraver used.
Last edited by midelburgo; 9th June 2020 at 06:50 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 465
|
![]()
Jim, regarding your note above in post 35:
The technique of making imitation shagreen (from Persian shagri or wild donkey hide) as you detail it, originated in Iran long before the 18th century. The skill was probably learned by Europeans who were posted there at about that time, as were other artistic techniques (and vice versa.) Regarding the cuphilt shown, the skin is absolutely from a ray, it is not galuchat. Incidentally, shagri reputedly only came from the back of a wild donkey, thus it was quite rare. In addition to its attractive texture, it was originally prized for its toughness. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]()
Hi Oliver,
Thank you so much for the clarification, I could not tell the difference of course but suggested the galuchat possibility more in consideration of the possible colonial context. When I first learned of the faux ray skin some time ago, it was it seems described in Caribbean settings, in turn of course from European. It is not only interesting but expected that this technique would have come from the east , and popularized in Europe. Good to hear from you!!! and thank you again for the response ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|