Very Old Firangi with Rapier blade in need of restoration.

fernando · 1st December 2007, 11:04 PM

Hi David

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

... The blade has a short central fuller, the blade 17mm wide, 5mm thick at the forte. Distally tapered thickness from 5mm - 1mm at the tip. Flattened hexagonal in cross section and double edged ...
... I believe that there is a very strong possibillity that the damage occured during combat. I think that the sword was being used two handed (using the but spike) and after a powerful strike (perhaps against a hard object) the tang sheared ...losing the pommel spike and pommel dome ...
... I have found that the pommel 'dome' is small enough not to interfere with wrist movement, which suggests to me that this could be used as a Rapier....cut and thrust style.

Extremely narrow rapier blade ... quite long and with an "estoc" cross section; good ( or almost only good ) for thrusting. Maybe much lighter than a classic Khanda blade ... maybe not even needing the suport of the butt spike for both counter balance and two hand striking. Maybe when the owner mounts this blade on a sword, he knows before hand what the options are; meanning that he might have deliberately cut off the butt spike, seeing no use for it, ready for the rapier actual technique ... fencing and thrusting ?!
As if i knew what i am talking about

Fernando

William.m · 1st December 2007, 11:47 PM

Ah wonderful! I was watching this sword with interest on ebay but decided not to put a great deal of money on it. Lovely sword. The only think I would consider would be to perhaps wrap some material around the grip.

William

katana · 2nd December 2007, 03:53 PM

Hi Fernando and William .M, thank you for your input

The Rapier 'evolved' very rapidly from the 16th C, having a thick, long blade with cutting edges and a sharp point. By the late 17thC most of the blades had become much thinner, lighter and with the sharp point were designed for the thrust only. The blade on this Firangi fits this description. The origin of the blade is difficult to find, as the blade shape and cross section was common to English, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese made blades of the mid to late 17thC.

Hi Fernando, you are correct. As the blade was designed to 'thrust' it is unlikely the sword was used two handed to strike (cut) by using the pommel 'spike'. However, I still believe, that originally, this sword had one. I have read that sometimes European swordsman would hold a rapier by the pommel, effectively 'lenghening' the reach of the blade tip. Done quickly and covertly an opponent that was safe in the knowledge that he was just 'out of reach' ...suddenly wasn't

The pommel spike would 'add' this advantage. Also, you could argue that if the sword was used two handed the force of the thrust would be much greater.Stone in 'A Glossary .....Arms and Armour...' shows a Firangi with a thin, long Rapier blade with the pommel spike.

Rapiers were 'hilt' heavy, to allow greater control of the tip of the blade, the pommel spike would also enhance this necessary 'balance'.

The effectiveness of the Rapier in battle conditions is debateable. Writers of the time (16th-17thC) had varying views on the subject. Used from horseback seems the most 'popular', presumably because of its greater blade length. However, the Rapier would be ineffective against full armour.

As Rapier blades were lighter than many swords of the time ( and not strong enough, to directly parry a heavy blade) a 'companion' was used in the left hand to parry blows from an opponents sword. In Europe the 'main gauche' (dagger), a buckler (small shield) or a cloak (wrapped around the arm to cushion the blow or waved about to confuse and deceive your assailant) were used.
Common sense suggests that the Indian swordsman that used this Firangi probably used a dagger or a Dhal in the opposite hand. Traditionally a Dhal would be used with a Talwar or similar, and would imagine that the dhal would be the favoured choice.

Rapier use tends to be skilled, relying on accurate, lethal thrusts to major organs and the head. Apparently a thrust to a depth of a few inches in specific bodily areas would be 'fatal'. It was not unheard of that two combatants 'charging' at each other would 'run each other through' (ouch!!

) .. a depth of a few inches could easily be achieved, thin and flexable enough to penetrate the rib cage (deflecting around bone in certain situations)

http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm
http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/blades.html

How was this sword used in India...... why would the Indians adopt a totally alien sword? Did it find a niche/function in the armoury that the other weapons could not fulfil ..... or was it just that it was 'different' ?

Any thoughts?

Kind Regards David

Jens Nordlunde · 2nd December 2007, 10:55 PM

Hi David,

How many Indian firangis have you seen with a rapier blade?

If you have not seen many, what gives you the thought that the Indians had adopted the rapier?

I don’t think they had, and if a few Indians, maybe, had learned to fight with a blade like that, does not mean that they could/would have used this skill when it came to a battle, where all the others fought in another way. Until further I would think it is a sword for show, more than a fighting sword.

Jens

Jim McDougall · 3rd December 2007, 02:46 AM

Is it possible that a Portuguese official might have chosen to adopt a native hilt to his rapier blade. In colonial situations many occupying forces, and officials involved either as diplomats or merchants seem to have adopted the elements of costume and weapons of the local population. This was often prevalent during the British Raj, and even English diplomats from the 17th century trading with Morocco can be seen in portraits wearing the nimcha.

fernando · 3rd December 2007, 02:13 PM

Hi David ... Jens ... Jim,

Amazing thing

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Is it possible that a Portuguese official might have chosen to adopt a native hilt to his rapier blade.

.

Last night ( over here ) i was rehearsing my english for posting such hypothesis, but i have given it up as not consistent, coming from my layman knowledge

.
Obviously it sounds more plausible, coming from Jim. It is indeed a strong possibility. Remember that rapier fencing requires a lot of school.
Talking about rapiers, this is a name that covers quite a lot of diverse sword stuff, just because blades are narrow, or the hilt is worked up. Even being an actual rapier, there are distinct versions of it.
Tell me David, is the blade on your firangi a stiff one ? It must be, with is flattened hexagonal cross section. I would say it is decidedly a thrusting device, not currently within the habits of India peoples. And you don't learn these fencing techniques overnight ... right Jens ?
But then, tell me another thing, David: Is the grip large enough to acomodate an European hand ? You know the usual problem with this subject.
Fernando

Jim McDougall · 4th December 2007, 04:43 AM

Hi Fernando
I'm glad you were thinking the same thing. The more I think of it, indeed the skill of rapier technique required lengthy and intense training, and it would be unlikely for someone unskilled to use one. In actuality, the Mahrattas and certainly other groups in degree were against the use of the thrust, favoring slashing cuts.
This interesting hybrid seems likely to have been either for a civil official or as noted an influental merchant, but hard to determine whether Indian or possibly European. As you have noted, the often discussed observation on hilt size would seem to have some indication, despite the often noted suggestion that even Europeans were smaller then. In either case, this sword was likely a weapon intended as an element of prestige, not necessarily for combat use.

All very best,
Jim

2nd December 2007, 03:53 PM	#3
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	Hi Fernando and William .M, thank you for your input The Rapier 'evolved' very rapidly from the 16th C, having a thick, long blade with cutting edges and a sharp point. By the late 17thC most of the blades had become much thinner, lighter and with the sharp point were designed for the thrust only. The blade on this Firangi fits this description. The origin of the blade is difficult to find, as the blade shape and cross section was common to English, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese made blades of the mid to late 17thC. Hi Fernando, you are correct. As the blade was designed to 'thrust' it is unlikely the sword was used two handed to strike (cut) by using the pommel 'spike'. However, I still believe, that originally, this sword had one. I have read that sometimes European swordsman would hold a rapier by the pommel, effectively 'lenghening' the reach of the blade tip. Done quickly and covertly an opponent that was safe in the knowledge that he was just 'out of reach' ...suddenly wasn't The pommel spike would 'add' this advantage. Also, you could argue that if the sword was used two handed the force of the thrust would be much greater.Stone in 'A Glossary .....Arms and Armour...' shows a Firangi with a thin, long Rapier blade with the pommel spike. Rapiers were 'hilt' heavy, to allow greater control of the tip of the blade, the pommel spike would also enhance this necessary 'balance'. The effectiveness of the Rapier in battle conditions is debateable. Writers of the time (16th-17thC) had varying views on the subject. Used from horseback seems the most 'popular', presumably because of its greater blade length. However, the Rapier would be ineffective against full armour. As Rapier blades were lighter than many swords of the time ( and not strong enough, to directly parry a heavy blade) a 'companion' was used in the left hand to parry blows from an opponents sword. In Europe the 'main gauche' (dagger), a buckler (small shield) or a cloak (wrapped around the arm to cushion the blow or waved about to confuse and deceive your assailant) were used. Common sense suggests that the Indian swordsman that used this Firangi probably used a dagger or a Dhal in the opposite hand. Traditionally a Dhal would be used with a Talwar or similar, and would imagine that the dhal would be the favoured choice. Rapier use tends to be skilled, relying on accurate, lethal thrusts to major organs and the head. Apparently a thrust to a depth of a few inches in specific bodily areas would be 'fatal'. It was not unheard of that two combatants 'charging' at each other would 'run each other through' (ouch!! ) .. a depth of a few inches could easily be achieved, thin and flexable enough to penetrate the rib cage (deflecting around bone in certain situations) http://www.thearma.org/Youth/rapieroutline.htm http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~wew/fencing/blades.html How was this sword used in India...... why would the Indians adopt a totally alien sword? Did it find a niche/function in the armoury that the other weapons could not fulfil ..... or was it just that it was 'different' ? Any thoughts? Kind Regards David Last edited by katana; 2nd December 2007 at 04:25 PM.

1st December 2007, 11:47 PM	#2
William.m Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: England Posts: 104	Ah wonderful! I was watching this sword with interest on ebay but decided not to put a great deal of money on it. Lovely sword. The only think I would consider would be to perhaps wrap some material around the grip. William

2nd December 2007, 10:55 PM	#4
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi David, How many Indian firangis have you seen with a rapier blade? If you have not seen many, what gives you the thought that the Indians had adopted the rapier? I don’t think they had, and if a few Indians, maybe, had learned to fight with a blade like that, does not mean that they could/would have used this skill when it came to a battle, where all the others fought in another way. Until further I would think it is a sword for show, more than a fighting sword. Jens

3rd December 2007, 02:46 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,733	Is it possible that a Portuguese official might have chosen to adopt a native hilt to his rapier blade. In colonial situations many occupying forces, and officials involved either as diplomats or merchants seem to have adopted the elements of costume and weapons of the local population. This was often prevalent during the British Raj, and even English diplomats from the 17th century trading with Morocco can be seen in portraits wearing the nimcha.

4th December 2007, 04:43 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,733	Hi Fernando I'm glad you were thinking the same thing. The more I think of it, indeed the skill of rapier technique required lengthy and intense training, and it would be unlikely for someone unskilled to use one. In actuality, the Mahrattas and certainly other groups in degree were against the use of the thrust, favoring slashing cuts. This interesting hybrid seems likely to have been either for a civil official or as noted an influental merchant, but hard to determine whether Indian or possibly European. As you have noted, the often discussed observation on hilt size would seem to have some indication, despite the often noted suggestion that even Europeans were smaller then. In either case, this sword was likely a weapon intended as an element of prestige, not necessarily for combat use. All very best, Jim