16th C European Trident (War Fork)?

[DavidFriedman]

Greetings fellow enthusiasts. I recently acquired this beautiful war fork from Europe. Titled War Fork 1600’s.

It appears similar to some documented examples, but not identical in form.

May I ask if anyone with experience in European polearms has any insight on this piece?

Cheers and thanks.

[fernando]

Most interesting David ... but, are you sure this is European ?
Any marks ?

[DavidFriedman]

Hi Fernando,
I’m not 100 % sure it’s European, but I’ve never seen a trident like this design in any other region, personally. I’m pretty familiar with Indian and Chinese trident forms.


Any ideas of which region if not Europe?

Unfortunately there aren’t any markings I can see, but I’ll scour it more today and see if there’s any hidden away.

I attached an image that showed several European war forks.

[fernando]

So it is European, David; it is just that i had some doubts about the shape, like looking Asian ... but what do i know .
One thing is certain; it is a beautiful piece .

[DavidFriedman]

Hi Fernando,
It’s definitely a mystery piece for sure. Thanks, I love it’s form. I hope it’s as old as the ones in the illustration.

Thanks

[fernando]

Do you know where you got that illustration, David ?
I went through authors like George Snook and John Waldman and the only style of polearms resembling yours is the RUNKA. However the differences in shape and construction look visibly different.

.

[David R]

I suspect that old standby A Glossary of the Construction, Decoration, and Use of Arms and Armor in All Countries and in All Times by George Cameron Stone, is the source here.

[Philip]

Originally Posted by fernando

Do you know where you got that illustration, David ?
I went through authors like George Snook and John Waldman and the only style of polearms resembling yours is the RUNKA. However the differences in shape and construction look visibly different.

.

Nando,

I believe that the illustration posted by David is from Stone's GLOSSARY... under the entry "military fork". page 450. The transition between socket and central spike on his example is marked by a bulbous swelling or knuckle which is similar to Stone's no. 4 and 7 which are identified as French, 16th cent.

Thanks for posting your chart, but I think that the series of weapons that is highlighted is a different breed of cat from what we're seeing from David. This, based on the classifications and register of terminology compiled by polearm expert Mario Troso, published in his book Le Armi in Asta delle Infanterie Europee (1000-1500) (Instituto Geografico de Agostini, 1988):

1. In his system, the true war fork (forca di guerra, fourche de guerre) has only two tines which are straight heading out to the tips. There is a subtype for hunting (forca di caccia) which are curved like a modern dinner fork although still with only two points.

2. David's weapon falls into the category of tridente / Dreizack. There are, as the name suggests, 3 points, the center one is usually much longer than the smaller two lateral ones. There are also no edges, this is a piercing weapon with the side tines serving as grapplers.

3. The shape shown in the evolutionary chart, though similar in profile, has a bladed format and is put by Troso in a separate class, called variously a spetum, ranseur, brandistocco, or runka in his and other references. The fifteenth-century Spanish writer on military affairs and combat techniques, Pietro Monte, discussed the technique of using this weapon, which he was apparently quite a fan of, in his Exercitiorum atque artis militaris collectanea and in Jeffrey L Forgeng's (ex-Higgins Armory, now curator of arms and armor at the Worcester Art Museum) translation of same, it is consistently referred to as a spetum.

Filipe

[fernando]

Obrigado Filipe,

Now i can clearly see page 450 in my Stone copy.
My posting of the illustration from “Educational Charts” (Met 1917) was my (poor) way to exclude David's specimen from such typologies. It is obviously that it is not a fork (forquilha), as his seller claimed, with its three points as you well recall, but i fail to discern its category among all types of tridents pointed out. I can see your pertinent point in that Stone's examples #4 and #7 show us that bulbous swelling in the center spike basis but, all the rest configures (to me) a rather different approach. So different that, so far, i dare say that, David's trident variation is so distant from all seen as European than from the Jawa trisola... for one .

http://http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=3630&highlight=trisula


I am glad i am no specialist and so i can suggest nonsense things.

Fica bem.


.

[DavidFriedman]

Hi,
Sorry was busy for the last few days. I got the picture online when typing in war fork or some such key word. I will review my copy of Stones book. Just been so busy.

Originally Posted by fernando

Do you know where you got that illustration, David ?
I went through authors like George Snook and John Waldman and the only style of polearms resembling yours is the RUNKA. However the differences in shape and construction look visibly different.

.

[DavidFriedman]

Thanks again Philip for your remarkable references. I will look up Mario Troso as well. I looked up the Pierre Monte book, but it’s at around 75 shekels, so I have to wait until I have a little extra to splurge. I hope it has some fantastic maneuvers in it.

Thanks again.

Originally Posted by Philip

Nando,

I believe that the illustration posted by David is from Stone's GLOSSARY... under the entry "military fork". page 450. The transition between socket and central spike on his example is marked by a bulbous swelling or knuckle which is similar to Stone's no. 4 and 7 which are identified as French, 16th cent.

Thanks for posting your chart, but I think that the series of weapons that is highlighted is a different breed of cat from what we're seeing from David. This, based on the classifications and register of terminology compiled by polearm expert Mario Troso, published in his book Le Armi in Asta delle Infanterie Europee (1000-1500) (Instituto Geografico de Agostini, 1988):

1. In his system, the true war fork (forca di guerra, fourche de guerre) has only two tines which are straight heading out to the tips. There is a subtype for hunting (forca di caccia) which are curved like a modern dinner fork although still with only two points.

2. David's weapon falls into the category of tridente / Dreizack. There are, as the name suggests, 3 points, the center one is usually much longer than the smaller two lateral ones. There are also no edges, this is a piercing weapon with the side tines serving as grapplers.

3. The shape shown in the evolutionary chart, though similar in profile, has a bladed format and is put by Troso in a separate class, called variously a spetum, ranseur, brandistocco, or runka in his and other references. The fifteenth-century Spanish writer on military affairs and combat techniques, Pietro Monte, discussed the technique of using this weapon, which he was apparently quite a fan of, in his Exercitiorum atque artis militaris collectanea and in Jeffrey L Forgeng's (ex-Higgins Armory, now curator of arms and armor at the Worcester Art Museum) translation of same, it is consistently referred to as a spetum.

Filipe

[DavidFriedman]

I’ve just found a very similar version of my military fork, in the Met. Their one has cool faces etched on the sides.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/34318

[fernando]

Excelent, David. Now you have no doubts ... neither me .

[fernando]

And yours doesn't have that extra hook, right ? ... or did have and is now missing it ?


.