Smallsword Duelling

[urbanspaceman]

Firstly, I must apologise for my statement about the number of colichemardes in Greenwich being the greatest number: Royal Armouries at Leeds have over a dozen.

In regard to the source of the name: I've read several dissertations regarding this business and am firmly convinced there was no relationship. However, if anyone has evidence to the contrary it would be of great interest to the smallsword cognoscenti.
Here is a link to a paper written recently that covers every aspect of the colichemarde in a detail that defies condensing:
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/34663/

I have also posted an image of a Dutch smallsword/duelling rapier from the second half of the 1600s in the hope that someone can confirm its purpose: was it a civilian carry or was it designed specifically for duelling?
The blade features a series of X type crosses on each side.
I find it hard to accept that anyone interested in self-defence would wear such a sword.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Firstly, I must apologise for my statement about the number of colichemardes in Greenwich being the greatest number: Royal Armouries at Leeds have over a dozen.

In regard to the source of the name: I've read several dissertations regarding this business and am firmly convinced there was no relationship. However, if anyone has evidence to the contrary it would be of great interest to the smallsword cognoscenti.
Here is a link to a paper written recently that covers every aspect of the colichemarde in a detail that defies condensing:
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/34663/

I have also posted an image of a Dutch smallsword/duelling rapier from the second half of the 1600s in the hope that someone can confirm its purpose: was it a civilian carry or was it designed specifically for duelling?
The blade features a series of X type crosses on each side.
I find it hard to accept that anyone interested in self-defence would wear such a sword.

It is hard to place hard numbers on sword type based on surviving examples or holdings in museums or collections, so estimating the actual presence of the colichemarde in circulation as discussed can only be speculative.
In references I have seen in discussion of sword blade types in the 18th century, of twelve forms presented, the colichemarde was not called by name and only 2 were included, as 'reinforced forte'.

The entire story of the form itself and term is of course apocryphal, and part of the ever lingering sea of lore surrounding sword history.

Regarding this example, as it is Dutch and in that period the Netherlands were largely under Spanish rule. The Spaniards were known for the excessive length of their rapier blades, which at times reached ridiculous lengths.
Quite possibly this example was somehow in accord with that situation?

It seems agreed in most references on 'fence' that the blade for a sword should be adjusted to the stature of the owner, with the most common length @ around 31" to perhaps 34". The key factor with length was of course thrust reach and accessibility to opponent, but speed, and long blades are anything but fast.

In dueling in most cases, they seem to have been more often affairs of a great deal of 'posturing' and circling, rather than pitched combat. In most cases actual exchange of blows and parry were hardly more than seconds and quickly ceased to return to posturing movement, unless any blood was drawn, which typically ended the event.

A very long sword blade, of course kept your opponent at distance, and in the event of a thrust, the riposte with long blade would of course be likely fatal. It seems the retreat with sudden stop at the opponents thrust was a deadly attack, but sort of in reverse.

Returning to the sword here, most small swords were in effect 'walking swords' or 'dress', and in these occasions any excessive length would be disruptive or 'difficult', obviously a long blade in close circumstances is impairing. Then it would seem, such a blade would be probably for the duel, or a situation where such confrontation would be imminent.

[urbanspaceman]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Returning to the sword here, most small swords were in effect 'walking swords' or 'dress', and in these occasions any excessive length would be disruptive or 'difficult', obviously a long blade in close circumstances is impairing. Then it would seem, such a blade would be probably for the duel, or a situation where such confrontation would be imminent.

Yes, that is something I had not considered, but in this instance it is only a 28inch blade; the slim profile makes it look much longer than it is: the widest part is only half an inch.

I have heard references made to the lack of a knuckle-bow being indicative of duelling rapier/smallswords.

As I said, it does not inspire confidence when possibly dealing with a brutal battlefield blade and I suspect there may even have been a pair originally.

[mariusgmioc]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOBTFfHJjV8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2KWTEhyVX8

[urbanspaceman]

Considering the swords they use in those two clips - both with knuckle-bows - it still seems likely mine is a duelling piece due to the blade. I've been a fan of this film since its first release. I've read endless criticisms, both positive and negative but I remain captivated.

Carradine didn't lose half a leg and a whole arm and still keep going, just a little puncture wound and he was out for the count. Realism is so refreshing sometimes.

I read that, during the Peninsular War, British medics remarked on the invariable deaths of British soldiers compared to the survival rate of the French, and postulated that the thrust was invariably more deadly than the cut. This doesn't compute for me as the British would be using the 1796 pattern, right?
I am out of my depth here. Any help gratefully accepted.

p.s. Ridley Scott is a Tyneside lad like me.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Considering the swords they use in those two clips - both with knuckle-bows - it still seems likely mine is a duelling piece due to the blade. I've been a fan of this film since its first release. I've read endless criticisms, both positive and negative but I remain captivated.

Carradine didn't lose half a leg and a whole arm and still keep going, just a little puncture wound and he was out for the count. Realism is so refreshing sometimes.

I read that, during the Peninsular War, British medics remarked on the invariable deaths of British soldiers compared to the survival rate of the French, and postulated that the thrust was invariably more deadly than the cut. This doesn't compute for me as the British would be using the 1796 pattern, right?
I am out of my depth here. Any help gratefully accepted.

p.s. Ridley Scott is a Tyneside lad like me.

The cut vs. thrust note was quite accurate and the thrust invariably did result in fatality mostly as the puncture of organs, hemorrhaging and peritonitis resulted. Napoleon was said to have called to his men riding into battle, "give point!, thrust".
While clearly his cuirassiers used straight thrusting blades, the light cavalry also had means of thrusting with saber from a high tierce posture and thrusting downward.
The British indeed had the M1796 saber which had a broadly radiused 'hatchet point' which was obviously useless for anything but chopping, hence many references referring to them 'chopping wood'. Napoleon however declared them barbarous, for the ghastly wounding power they had.

The thrust was eventually determined to have the most combative power and potential for fatal wounds, which was what brought the discussion of the M1913 Patton sword (despite its outlier circumstance chronologically here) to the fore. It was the culmination of well over a century of debate and trial over which was best, cut vs. thrust, thus the proper close to the combat sword in actual use.

Thanks for the note on the Dutch sword length, and I see what you mean.
On a duelling epee, there is no need for knuckleguard.

[Hotspur]

https://smallswordproject.files.word...ie_26_1780.pdf

A worthwhile free read/download, albeit in French.

The paperback folio book is an inexpensive find and worthy of any shelf for swords.


https://www.biblio.com/book/fabrique...t/d/1357685623

Cheers
GC

[Jim McDougall]

Just viewed the movie scenes from "The Duelists" (1977), which was a fantastic movie! one of my favorites. Actually, I saw it in the theater in 1977 when it came out, and I was actually talking fencing classes at the time. I was so enthralled, I convinced the theater manager to give me one of the posters !!
I had it framed and it hung in my den for many years.

At the time it was being filmed I read many accounts of the movie being made and the difficulties and efforts toward the sword combat scenes' realism. It is not hard to see why the film in these respects was so well done.
I recall when the film ended (I was in Long Beach, Calif.) the audience not only clapped, but cheered! and I heard people in the crowd yelling, "way to go Ridley!!!". It was an experience I'll never forget.

It is easy to 'armchair' criticize a movie, but while fencing does not constitute experience in 'dueling' obviously, the dynamics and physical exertion are profoundly more apparent. It must be remembered that 'duels' were not exactly with equally paired opponents, and often a man called out, even if not as experienced, would be forced to respond to protect his honor. The film shows the inherent reluctance to go into such futile confrontation, but doing so as compelled by that driving force.

The movie was based on a book by Joseph Conrad (1908), and based on true events and figures in the Napoleonic armies who did carry out ongoing duels as shown in the film. The cover painting on the book is Gericaults "French Officer Charging" and I had a print of this next to the 'Duelist' poster.

In the scene where they duel on horseback, the high tierce position of the sabers is shown. The scene with Keitel vs. the civilian they are armed with dueling epee's.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

This doesn't compute for me as the British would be using the 1796 pattern, right?
I am out of my depth here.

Hi,
I think Jim may have picked you up wrongly. I take it you are referring to the P1796 Infantry Officers sword which would be suitable for the cut and thrust and not to the P1796 Light Cavalry sabre that Jim has referenced.
Regards,
Norman.

[batjka]

The movie "The Duelists", while interesting and entertaining, does not show correct fencing techniques. Here's a video of a real duel that occurred in Paris in 1900. And while this is about 100 years since the bouts shown in "The Duelists", swords are similar and so is their use. Enjoy the show:

https://youtu.be/p0MdJ6KTdDw

[mariusgmioc]

Originally Posted by batjka

The movie "The Duelists", while interesting and entertaining, does not show correct fencing techniques. Here's a video of a real duel that occurred in Paris in 1900. And while this is about 100 years since the bouts shown in "The Duelists", swords are similar and so is their use. Enjoy the show:

https://youtu.be/p0MdJ6KTdDw

The movie "The Duelists" is not about FENCING but about dueling. And not about épée (as a fencing tool) but about smallsword.

And more specifically about dueling TO THE DEATH.

One may say that the so called "duels" in your clip were real duels but they were nothing but sports fencing contests, like challenging an opponent to duel in a tennis match.
These "duels" were in fact sporting matches carried out with blunt fencing épées, like the ones used today in fencing sports. That's why you can clearly see that the "duels" concluded without anyone getting even slightly hurt, as the winner was simply the one who scored more points (touches of opponent's arms and torso).
However, on the rare occasions when the duels were carried out with sharp-point épées, then the purpose was to nick the arm of the opponent just to draw some blood.

Here is another, more choregraphed example of dueling with smallswords, done by well trained guys.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9SbU7YQYxA

PS: It must be noted that "épée" has different meanings in French and English. In French "épée" refers to generally any straight sword mainly used for thrusting (like rapiers and smallswords).
In English, the term is rather confusing and often misused, but the modern term refers to the tool used in fencing, that is heavier and bigger than the foil, like the swords in Batjka's video clip.

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Firstly, I must apologise for my statement about the number of colichemardes in Greenwich being the greatest number: Royal Armouries at Leeds have over a dozen.

In regard to the source of the name: I've read several dissertations regarding this business and am firmly convinced there was no relationship. However, if anyone has evidence to the contrary it would be of great interest to the smallsword cognoscenti.
Here is a link to a paper written recently that covers every aspect of the colichemarde in a detail that defies condensing:
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/34663/

I have also posted an image of a Dutch smallsword/duelling rapier from the second half of the 1600s in the hope that someone can confirm its purpose: was it a civilian carry or was it designed specifically for duelling?
The blade features a series of X type crosses on each side.
I find it hard to accept that anyone interested in self-defence would wear such a sword.

Hi,

Egerton Castle, in his Schools and Masters Of fencing (pg237-8) describes such a sword as a 'Flamberg", an intermediary between the transition rapier and the small sword. He also wrote that these gradually gained great favour with the expert fencers of the seventeenth century on account of their relative lightness, and adding that they were most commonly used in Germany. According to Castle, part of their appeal was the simplified hilt which permitted fencing with either hand, as taught by some of the masters of that era.

Cheers
Chris

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you Chris.

[M ELEY]

Fascinating information from all involved. I personally loved that movie 'The Duelist'. Just wanted to add that as far as fencing goes, the German academic schools also were heavily involved and it was quite popular to bare the scars provided by the matches, so much so that it became a Hollywood steriotype to show movie villains of the era with such scars-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dueling_scar

[urbanspaceman]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Fascinating information from all involved. I personally loved that movie 'The Duelist'. Just wanted to add that as far as fencing goes, the German academic schools also were heavily involved and it was quite popular to bare the scars provided by the matches, so much so that it became a Hollywood steriotype to show movie villains of the era with such scars-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dueling_scar

That is a truly fascinating article on scars - thank-you - which I would never have encountered if not for your post.

[M ELEY]

Glad you liked it, Keith. Admittedly, I'm a wuss and would rather have not been scarred up in this way!

[urbanspaceman]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Glad you liked it, Keith. Admittedly, I'm a wuss and would rather have not been scarred up in this way!

I only visit this planet occasionally, so I have to confess that the behaviour of the male species is sometimes even more perplexing than the female

[fernando]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Glad you liked it, Keith. Admittedly, I'm a wuss and would rather have not been scarred up in this way!

Common sense, Captain ...common sense. Many years ago (long before Internet) i watched a documentary in the TV where a bunch of these guys 'fought' for a scar; close to each other, wearing goggles, crossing swords at high speed (you can't call it fencing, nor duelling) and looking to get cut; indeed the willing to get themselves a scar was more their goal than inflicting one to their foes.
In a different scenary, who doesn't remember the movie Royal Flash, where Malcom MacDowel (Flashman) had to be scarred in his face to impersonate the Danish prince; but at least here there was some practical sense ... so to say.


.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Fernando,

Is this what you were referring to? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OSaFdDko_k

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Thank-you Chris.

And thank you for posting the link to that most informative paper on the Colichemarde.

Apropos to which, the conventional wisdom had it, as implied by Castle, that its demise was due to that whilst it served well parrying against heavier swords it was at a disadvantage, on account of its weight, against the lighter and therefore nimbler uniformly tapering triangular blades that became normative in France.

Having said that, I remember seeing some years ago (for sale) a matched pair of 19th century dueling epees with Colichemarde style blades - As to what purpose the wider fortes could serve in a duel with evenly matched swords I am at a loss to understand. Perhaps they were made on special order to an eccentric customer!

Cheers
Chris