A cup hilted sword rapier for coments

[fernando]

This one will be home for Christmas.
Blade 98 cms (38 1/2").Total length 114 cms (45"), which makes it almost two inches "off mark" :eek: , as the allowance was five palms (110 cms=43").
Blade width 20 mm (3/4") which, together with the particularity of the knuckle bow not being fixed to the pommel, makes it fall into the civilian rapier typology.
The huge cup bowl is 16 cms (6.3") wide, which is the largest cup this seller ever sold.
Attributed date around 1700.
Slightly faded inscription on the blade reads in one side VIVA EL REY and on the other DE PORTUGAL. However the (Spanish) seller opines that this sword was made in Spain, for a Portuguese order. I am asking him on what he is based to think so.
Maybe we end up with the Iberian interpretation :shrug:
Fernando

.

[Atlantia]

Its a fabulous sword Fernando,
And a four posted grip like my rapier! Length seems fine to me, great condition!
I'd have placed it a little earlier than 1700! Its certainly another fine beauty for your collection! Have you won the lottery recently? ;-)

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Fernando,
I agree with Gene, this is truly a beauty! and I would think of it probably c.1680 to about 1700. It is exactly the kind of weapon I like, more of an arming type sword, and I'm inclined to think these more austere examples were quite possibly military, usually infantry if I am not mistaken. I always look forward to Marc's comments on these :) In Norman, the author notes that he is not aware of any military portraiture with the cuphilt being worn, which is primarily the basis for the observation that these were not used by the military.

The wrapped wire grip held by four vertical posts I had always thought were more an 18th century military feature, however in going through the Wallace Collection reference, I found several Spanish cuphilts of c.1650 all with this feature. These were quite ornate, and of course seemed more civilian, which says to me that this four posted feature was not only earlier, mid 17th century, but civilian as well.

In looking at A.V.B. Norman ("The Rapier and Smallsword") this cuphilt form is shown as #100, and as c.1630 to 1700 or later. The pommel on your sword is the same oblate shape seen on this form, but without the prominant capstan. In Norman, #101 is also cuphilt, but with deeper cup, without apparant rompepuntas or rolled edge on the cup and the quillons are without finished terminals nor central bulb on the knucklebow.This form seems to have existed contemporarily in the same periods, and it would seem this example is rather between the two.

I'm curious what indicator tells that this was made in Spain for export to Portugal, other than the inscription, which seems like it could have been made in Portugal as well. It is curious there would be no makers mark, just the inscription.

Fantastic piece Fernando!!! A perfect Christmas gift!!

All the best,
Jim

[fernando]

Hi Gene

Its a fabulous sword Fernando,
And a four posted grip like my rapier! Length seems fine to me, great condition!
I'd have placed it a little earlier than 1700! Its certainly another fine beauty for your collection! ...

Thank you so much for your impressions :) .



... Have you won the lottery recently? ;-)

Shhhhhut. My wife doesn't even dream i went into this adventure :o .

Fernando

[fernando]

Hi Jim, thank you my friend,
As allways, a treatise on the weapon focused on the topic.
Do i well understand your words when you say that Norman is not aware of cuphilts being used by military ? If so, that would be a bit confusing to me :confused: .
I would like to quote a Portuguese specialist, Eduardo Nobre, who mentions is has made a comparison study on several hundred cuphilted swords, both in public as in private collections, having concluded that the fixation of the knuckleguard to the pommel, was more common in military swords. In the case of cuphilted swords with a narrow blade, the so called rapiers, this fixation was rather unvulgar, as even in some cases, resulted from later adaptations.
Also in my humble conclusion, despite this sword has a very plain aspect, its blade length and narrowness, apart from the knucklebow fixation problematic, indicates that this is certainly a civilian sword, a rapier designed for fencing.
I am still expecting the seller to explain his point of view on what concerns this being a Portuguese or a Spanish production sword. If it were made in an earlier period, it could easy be Spanish or in the least be called a Peninsular sword, for what matters. However having been made after the 1640 revolution, and with that kind of nationalist inscription on the balde, it has serious possibilities of being indeed Portuguese. But the seller is surely more qualified in these things than me, so let's see what the man says.
I also wish Marc came around, to drop a line on this subject :cool: .
Fernando

[Gonzalo G]

A beauty. It remembers me the style of rapier Marc uses on his avatar. Yes, a portuguese model, but no security about where was it made. Just look at this entrance on the catalog in the Museo of Lázaro Galdiano:

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7414

does it recalls you something? Tough, the hilt is different.
Un abrazo

Gonzalo

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Gonzalo: Excellent detective work.

Fernando: Congratulations, a wonderful piece - I have been looking at that sword since it was put up for sale and was taken by it, especially its truly oversize cup hilt.

Here are three photos of broad bladed swords fitted with cup hilts. I believe that some of these were clearly military, from the 1600s on, towards the late 1700s.

We have to keep in mind, that before the adoption of regulation patterns towards the end of the 18th century, there was relatively little uniformity in side arms in most European armies and that anything could have seen service, whether from choice or necessity, as in the English Civil War when civilian rapiers were pressed into use Also, that many swords were re-hilted over the years and it can be a devilishly difficult task to assign a definite identity to some.

Cheers
Chris
Photos: Sala Antiguedades - Armas Antiguas

[fernando]

Hi Gonzalo,
Thans a lot for your words, the picture and the excelent link. I didn't even know about the existance of this museum. I will have to go through all 509 items relative to Armas y Armaduras.
You have surely noticed that there is a misspell in the legend the museum quotes to be engraved on that blade; they write VIVA EL REY DI PORTUGAL, whereas it should be DE. Maybe the misspell is not in their tag but on the blade itself; this sort of errors was often found on blade inscriptions, specialy if they were imported. Actualy Portugal could also be found written with a V instead of an U, which happens to be the case of my example; i only noticed that when i had a second look to the pictures, as the seller has wrongly spelled it with a U.

Saludos cordiales
Fernando

[fernando]

Hi Chris, thank you for your kind words.
So you were also watching this piece?! I thaught i had to make a quick decision, as usualy this type of swords gets acquired in no time, at least in this web site. Actualy the other day i saw one of this kind and when i contacted the guy to start negotiations, the sword was already sold ... this within a couple days. Amazingly it was a specimen similar to the one you are posting here in the first picture ... or even the very one ?!.
Thank you for the pictures of three examples of broad bladed swords. It might be that they were military ... or not. I humbly agree that the definition of such and such sword being civilian or military is not an easy task, even after regulation took place, to a certain extent. But naturaly things are taken by their generic, or majority, or statistic aproach, to allow for some points of reference. We all know that the rapier, having been conceived for civilian purposes, like (street) fencing and so, was also used by military; i have read that, for instance, they were used in India and thereabouts by Portuguese rank (noble) soldiers... often en suite with the left hand dagger. But coming to a general manner, military ordnance swords had a broader blade, less or no decoration, and knuckle bows fixed to the pommel, to increase their strenght in battle.
Within this reasoning, the sword in the third (last) picture might have belonged to some civilian aristocrat; could even be Portuguese, or for a Portuguese customer ... who knows ? Besides that fine decoration (and the loose knuckle bow), the legend engraved on the blade, PUGNO PRO PATRIA, was (at least also) often seen in Portuguese swords, in allegory to national independence achieved in 1640, after the Spanish Philips period domain.
Forgive me if i said too much nonsense; i was sort of think aloud :o .
Fernando

[Chris Evans]

Hi Fernando,

You did well to act decisively - It is a fine sword. I often look in there as he often gets some very nice pieces.

Whether rapiers did or did not find a military application has become a can of worms, principally because the term "rapier' is essentially and English one, dating back to Elizabethan times, used to designate a civilian mostly thrusting sword . To be sure, the term had distant counterparts on the continent, though as the sword historian Castle tells us, with very different connotations. But with the passage of time, by the 19th century it was applied by some, such as Burton, to any sharp thrusting sword suitable for fencing.

With the advent and spread of the historical European martial arts (HEMA) movement the term attained a kind of universality that wasn't there historically. As a result it is now very difficult to define the breed satisfactorily. This is compounded by that many military swords were fitted, often retro-fitted with the complex hilts commonly associated with civilian rapiers. It has been recorded that during the Napoleonic wars, British soldiers reported that the Spaniards were using rapiers, whereas in all probability what they saw were military broadswords fitted with cup hilts and variants thereof.

My own take on the matter is that the proper use of the term in the English language is the historical one, as used during the renaissance in England, and as such the weapon was totally unsuited for war, notwithstanding that occasionally it did find its way to the battlefields. just as in a later era the small sword did too, despite being equally unsuited. As for the cup hilt, from those photos that I provided, it would seem that they did find some favour with the military, probably on account of offering good protection to the hands. After all, during the 17th century complex hilted military swords were all the rage for that very reason, as exemplified by the sword of Gustavus Adolphus, so why not cup hilts further on?

As an aside, to my mind, much more problematic is the differentiation between the rapier proper and the later transition rapier, which IMO can only be done on the basis of function - And again this is the source of much confusion and never ending debate in some circles, as it impacts on the fence possible with the rapier proper.

Again congratulations and

Cheers
Chris

[fernando]

Hi Chris,
Thanks a lot for your coments (lecture), which i will not have the presumption (or the capacity) to counterpose :o .
I will just try and find the book i have read where the rapier was used by Portuguese in the discoveries period ... just to check what typology was it about.

... and thanks for your congratulations :) .
Fernando

[Gonzalo G]

Hi Gonzalo,
Thans a lot for your words, the picture and the excelent link. I didn't even know about the existance of this museum. I will have to go through all 509 items relative to Armas y Armaduras.
You have surely noticed that there is a misspell in the legend the museum quotes to be engraved on that blade; they write VIVA EL REY DI PORTUGAL, whereas it should be DE. Maybe the misspell is not in their tag but on the blade itself; this sort of errors was often found on blade inscriptions, specialy if they were imported. Actualy Portugal could also be found written with a V instead of an U, which happens to be the case of my example; i only noticed that when i had a second look to the pictures, as the seller has wrongly spelled it with a U.

Saludos cordiales
Fernando

Well Fernando, you are aware that the use of the V instead an U was common on the old writting. You can find this feature on many antique manuscripts. But it is true what you say, also. Yes, I noticed the i in di, as in italian, but you can writte to Beraiz to find out. Maybe you can find his email adress on Gladius web page. He is a very accessible person. And for the museum: you know, I´m very far from Europe, and in any case from any rapier, so I must search. I´m glad the link opened a new avenue for you.
Un abrazo

Gonzalo

[Gonzalo G]

Whether rapiers did or did not find a military application has become a can of worms, principally because the term "rapier' is essentially and English one, dating back to Elizabethan times, used to designate a civilian mostly thrusting sword.

Chris, I did not made a detective work. I have all those entrances on my computer, as I use them to study the rapier and other swords. What it seems is a can of worms for some people, is the origin of the term "rapier", which is clearly from french origin. Oh, I know William the Conqueror and all the normans were french spoken, but that was five centures back. Neverthless, the world is full of personal certainties, as Fernando Pessoa, the great portuguese poet, once wrotte in a poem titled "Tabaquería":

Não, não creio em mim.
Em todos os manicômios há doidos malucos com tantas certezas!
Eu, que não tenho nenhuma certeza, sou mais certo ou menos
certo?

Is this HEMA movement another english invention? I don´t have many references about it.
Regards

Gonzalo

[celtan]

I though everyone knew that rapier, while being a french word, derives from "ropera", or "espada ropera"ie. Sword of Clothes.

The ropera was characterized by a flimsier, lighter and faster type of blade, catalogued as a estoque, or piercing blade. The kind of damage it caused was far more lethal, if much less ghastly in appearance than the slashing common to the purely military blade, although the latter was sturdier. The psychological effect of the slashing wounds caused by the military blades was nothing to be ignored, either.

M

BTW: Fernan's "entrances" comes from "entradas", or the data deposited in the CPU's memory to be used subsequently as needed...

BTW, Fernan

En este mundo traidor
Nada es verdad ni mentira
Todo depende del color
Del cristal con que se mira...





Chris, I did not made a detective work. I have all those entrances on my computer, as I use them to study the rapier and other swords. What it seems is a can of worms for some people, is the origin of the term "rapier", which is clearly from french origin. Oh, I know William the Conqueror and all the normans were french spoken, but that was five centures back. Neverthless, the world is full of personal certainties, as Fernando Pessoa, the great portuguese poet, once wrotte in a poem titled "Tabaquería":



Não, não creio em mim.
Em todos os manicômios há doidos malucos com tantas certezas!
Eu, que não tenho nenhuma certeza, sou mais certo ou menos
certo?

Is this HEMA movement another english invention? I don´t have many references about it.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Chris Evans]

Hi Gonzalo,


Chris, I did not made a detective work. I have all those entrances on my computer, as I use them to study the rapier and other swords.

I meant that as a sincere compliment and in the very best sense of the word (detective) as one who detects or investigates. I very much admire your systematic and comprehensive approach to hoplology, which sets an example to all of us - After all, providing that link to that sword, if I may say so, was akin to finding a needle in the proverbial haystack.

What it seems is a can of worms for some people, is the origin of the term "rapier", which is clearly from french origin.

Well, I am glad that you are clear about it - Can you provide some evidence for its Gaelic provenance?

For my part:

The term can have any number of origins, as is the case with many words. What is important is its unambiguous usage, and here we are doing so in English.

Castle, who in the opinion of many wrote the near definitive history of post medieval swordsmanship, a century ago, at least in the English language, argued convincingly, that in the late 1500s the French called their weapon the `espee', the English sword, but both, when referring to the Spaniard's sword called it a `rapier'. He went on to say that in France the word rapier soon became a term of contempt, signifying a sword of disproportionate length, the weapon of a bully. However, in England, ever since the adoption of the term, it always meant in his words "...a sword especially convenient for thrusting.." and went on to say that then it was synonymous with the Spanish thrusting sword, on account of the many dignitaries and officials of that nation who visited the royal court of the day. He further held that the then nearest French term for a thrusting sword was `estoc' which was Anglicized to `tucke' and variations thereof. In the English of bygone days, the terms `rapier' and `tucke' were at times used interchangeably when talking about thrusting swords.

Again, it is held by some that `rapier' was derived from the Spanish `espada ropera' (dress sword). The problem with this interpretation is that we are told that during the halcyon days of the rapier in Spain it was not used and in any event the expression `espada ropera' was already evident by the mid 1400s, well before the rapier made its appearance. The Spanish renaissance linguists that I consulted confirmed that this is probably right; So, to uphold this origin of `rapier', it is incumbent on those who propose it, to come forth with some period fencing manual, in which the expression is used as such.

Now, the reason that I made that reference to the can of worms is because over the years many, including curators, wrongly come to identify the rapier with its complex hilt, rather than function, which was determined by the blade and hilt, and such hilts were also fitted to the better military broadswords of that era.

Judging by your remarks, it would appear that the distinction is easy to make, but to do so, you'll have to define what a rapier is to the satisfaction of the majority, which I can assure you is no easy task. However, until something better comes along I shall adhere to the old English usage of the word, and where this does not suffice, by function, otherwise we open the doors to endless confusion and needless debate.

Is this HEMA movement another english invention? I don´t have many references about it.

Another? Well, besides the industrial revolution..... No, just kidding.

BTW. At the end of the 19th century in England there was a resurgence of interest in old sword play, and Egerton Castle, Alfred Hutton and Richard Burton formed a trio of gentleman fencer/scholars who studied the older weapons, but this gradually lost momentum, though not before writing some excellent works on the subject - With the advent of the SCA (see link below) there was a resurgence of interest in the old ways, including earlier swordsmanship, and later a more serious movement emerged, that of the study of Historical European Martial Arts, HEMA in short. My perception is that despite having an international following, it was and remains a US driven activity - Their exponents mostly focus on medieval and renaissance sword arts and try to reconstruct the relevant techniques from the old surviving manuals - In so doing, much new valuable material emerged, but also many contentious issues, along with considerable historical revisionism of dubious validity, much of which have muddied the waters for us collectors.

For the origins of the SCA search in Google, or see http://history.westkingdom.org/Year0/index.htm

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

I though everyone knew that rapier, while being a french word, derives from "ropera", or "espada ropera"ie. Sword of Clothes.

The ropera was characterized by a flimsier, lighter and faster type of blade, catalogued as a estoque, or piercing blade. The kind of damage it caused was far more lethal, if much less ghastly in appearance than the slashing common to the purely military blade, although the latter was sturdier. The psychological effect of the slashing wounds caused by the military blades was nothing to be ignored, either.

M

BTW: Fernan's "entrances" comes from "entradas", or the data deposited in the CPU's memory to be used subsequently as needed...

BTW, Fernan

En este mundo traidor
Nada es verdad ni mentira
Todo depende del color
Del cristal con que se mira...

I completely agree, Manuel. By the way, you must understand portuguese very well, as it is almost the same languaje spoken in old times on Galicia.
Un abrazo

Gonzalo

[Gonzalo G]

Hi Gonzalo,

I meant that as a sincere compliment and in the very best sense of the word (detective) as one who detects or investigates. I very much admire your systematic and comprehensive approach to hoplology, which sets an example to all of us - After all, providing that link to that sword, if I may say so, was akin to finding a needle in the proverbial haystack.Again, it is held by some that `rapier' was derived from the Spanish `espada ropera' (dress sword). The problem with this interpretation is that we are told that during the halcyon days of the rapier in Spain it was not used and in any event the expression `espada ropera' was already evident by the mid 1400s, well before the rapier made its appearance. The Spanish renaissance linguists that I consulted confirmed that this is probably right; So, to uphold this origin of `rapier', it is incumbent on those who propose it, to come forth with some period fencing manual, in which the expression is used as such.

Now, the reason that I made that reference to the can of worms is because over the years many, including curators, wrongly come to identify the rapier with its complex hilt, rather than function, which was determined by the blade and hilt, and such hilts were also fitted to the better military broadswords of that era.

Chris

Chris, I understood your meaning. What I tried to say, is that it was not as hard to find this reference, because I already had it and studied it. It was easy to remember, and there were no need to search for it. What it is VERY difficult to remember, is where are my car keys. :D I thank you for your compliment, but my merit is very small.

I have an objection to the use of the expression "thrusting sword", because the ropera was a sword which sometimes was used to cut. There are some atacks in spanish style fencing with the use of the edge of the ropera, althought it is mainly a thrusting weapon. Marc can say much more than I about spanish fencing.

Yes, the term "ropera" appear for the first time in an inventory of the belongings from the Duke Alvaro de Zúñiga in 1468, according with the article "La Espada Ropera Española en los Siglos XVI y XVII" by José María Pelaez Valle in Gladius (pag. 147). In french, the first reference is from 1474.

Neverthless, we must clarify an important point. The term is referred not only to the late slender blade made to thrust, with a cup hilt guard. The ropera has evolved form a more broaded sword made also to cut in the the 15th Century. You know, many complex weapons do not just appear already defined in their ultimate characterisitics, unless adopted or imposed from other cultures. Since Spain is the original source of the espada ropera, it´s evolution began there, and it took some time and several transformations.

It is very difficult, at the sight of the early and very late roperas, when it began or ended to be a ropera. Even the classic model had important diferences on the guard, as it evolved from the lasso to the cup hilt with very long quillons, apart from national and period variations. We can´t say, without being reductionists, that the ropera or rapieris are only one of these models, overlooking the historical changes. Concepts are only structures created to help us understand reality, and we must use them in a flexible manner. "Epee" in french, means only sword, and it is not aplied only to the classic model designated as such. The same apply to words as shamshir, saif and kiliç, which only means "sword", and do not designate the conceptual models created by the occidental scholars and collectionists, IMHO.

I agree with you, Chris, when you mention the can of worms. It is a real problem to make distinctions, in many cases. Some criteria must be established, but history must be taken on account. It is not an abstract excercise of logics. And thank you for your reference to the HEMA.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Marc]

Indeed the "rapier" term is, if not anything else, a foothold for a good discussion... :)

Chris and Gonzalo have summed it up very nicely, I can barely add a few things, including my opinions :)

The term "espada ropera" or even "espada propera" is known in Spanish since the early 15th c., being the first reference we know of it (so far...) in the work of Juan de Mena (1411-1456) "Coplas de la Panadera"
(...)
Di Panadera.
Un miércoles que partiera
el Príncipe don Enrique
a buscar algún buen pique
para su espada ropera,
saliera sin otra espera
de Olmedo tan gran compaña
que con mui fermosa maña
al Puerto se retrujera.
(...)

It's Old Spanish, I leave it here as is for the documentation's sake. My limited linguistic abilities would only be able to do a half-assed translation of what is essentially a humorous little poem about a young quarrelsome nobleman who ends up having to shamefully face the consequences of his hot head. The relevant fact here is that it does docuemt the term "espada ropera" even earlier than the so often quoted inventory of Duke Alvaro de Zuñiga. As already mentioned, the term is later on documented in French (“rapière”) and more later on in English (“rapier”). It was also used by Germans (“rappier”). I can confirm what’s been said by Chris about the term “ropera” not being used in Spanish since the 16th c. on. I’m not sure about French, although I understand it went through a similar process of abandoning, but this would need confirmation. In German was in use at least to the end of the 16th c. (Joachim Meyer uses it in his fencing manual Gründtliche Beschreibung der kunst des Fechten, published in 1570).Anyway, where it really sticks is in English, where it seems to start describing a sword worn in everyday dress (which seems to be the original meaning of the word) and ends a describing a more or less specific typology of sword, indeed worn in - let’s say - “civilian” dress but also with a long and slender blade and with an associated style of fencing where thrusts were emphasized above cuts. The term survived in English and has indeed been re-taken recently with the spreading and internationalization of HEMA, which started as a consequence of medievalism and romanticism at the end of the 19th c. and was re-taken with renovated strength at the end of the 20th c. when the new systems of communication allowed for scholars and practitioners to share their interest and exchange information. But it was already being in use worldwide by Arms collectors, aficionados, antiquaries and scholars before that

So, Chris’ points about the actual meaning of the term are very pertinent. It was used for more than 500 years, and meant different things in different periods and different geographical locations, so it’s important to define what we do NOW understand as a rapier. And it must be defined from a modern perspective, because it’s US who are using it now to define something. To anyone familiar with the antique arms community or the HEMA world is somewhat intuitive what a rapier is: a sword supposed to be carried in civilian dress, with a more or less complex hilt (this includes cup-hilts) and with a blade somewhat “ligther” than to ones used in a military context in the same period. A sword, as some have defined it, designed to be used for “carry, duel and self-defence” (“carry”, here, would incorporate some elements of “show”). This should be enough for the majority of us, but the problems arise when we step into hardcore taxonomy, and start to try to define if it’s the blade or the hilt what defines a rapier, if it’s the intended use or the appearance, etc. I won’t go into that, after all, unless there is an agreement between the people that can be considered “authorities”, it’s all a matter of opinion, and I just have my own, as do everyone else :).



Now, trying to steer this back to the original subject, Fernando’s nice Christmas Present :) … I would put it also at the end of the 17th c, beginning of the 18th. I would also say it’s civilian, but that’s because of the morphology of the blade, long and slender, not as much as because of the knucklebow. There is an 18th c. typology of cup-hilt swords, which, at least here, are considered Portugese and military, with broad blades, bare wood grips, plain decorations, and the quillions directly welded to the cup, which usually also features a “rompepuntas” rim. Many of these present a knucklebow attached to the pommel (usually with a transversal screw that also fixes the tang), but not all of them. In fact I’ve seen some of those swords with a long and slender blade of “rapier” (here we go again… :D ) type, but these could easily be officer’s swords, or “civil” swords imitating the “military” style. Anyway, in the exemplar we’re discussing here, the shape of the pommel, the style of the grip, the length of the quillions, and the type of attachment of the cup to the quillion block, all point to a “Spanish” construction. Specially in contrast with the “Portuguese” style of construction of the cup hilt that I’ve described above. But I think this would be a bit of a simplification… The legend in the blade makes this a sword clearly for a Portuguese costumer. Cup-hilts developed in Spain after a particular style of fencing (the so-called “Verdadera Destreza”). I won’t go in detail into this, but let’s say that the morphology of these hilts and their variants are adapted to it. We know that this style of fencing became quite popular in Portugal, also, so a Portuguese-made sword suited to it wouldn’t be strange, but fact is that the general style of the hilt is quite “Spanish”. The problem is that we don’t know if by that time (end 17th-befinning 18thc) there was a “Portuguese” typology of hilts that was different from the “Spanish” one. We know there was one later on (the one described above) for “military” swords, but truth is that we can’t be sure if the sword is “Spanish” made for a Portuguese, Portuguese made for a Portuguese in a “Spanish” style, or if there was no distinction at that time between “Spanish” and “Portuguese” styles of cup-hilts for “civilian” rapiers. Hence, as Fernando suggested, we maybe could speak of a “Peninsular” style in this particular case…



I don’t know if I clarified anything or muddied things even more… In any event, it’s a very nice rapier, Fernando, I’m envious… again ;)

P.S. Notice that as I've put "Spanish" and "Portugese" in quotation marks because there might not be such a clear differentiation of styles in this case, I've also put the quotations marks in the terms "civilian" and "military", not only because they were terms that at the time were not as clearly differentiated as we like to think they are today, but because the distinction between them that we do right now regarding the swords of those periods is also consensual, and not always agreed upon.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Gonzalo,


I have an objection to the use of the expression "thrusting sword", because the ropera was a sword which sometimes was used to cut. There are some atacks in spanish style fencing with the use of the edge of the ropera, althought it is mainly a thrusting weapon. Marc can say much more than I about spanish fencing.

However that may be, in Elizabethan England, the term "rapier" was used to describe a predominantly thrusting sword that could be fenced with - And we are using here an English word, probably an Anglicized one, in the context of the English language and a historical time-frame; So I feel that it would serve us all well to keep to this convention - Otherwise any sword capable of thrusting, from a two handed estoc used in armoured combat to the Polish cavalry koncerz, will qualify for the term, a most unrewarding proposition I suggest.

I emphasize that I am not arguing here about the origin of the word rapier, or whether they could or could not cut, rather am attempting to reduce confusion as to what was meant by rapiers in English at the time that they were used in earnest. And this in turn was prompted by questions re possible military usage of the breed.

Yes, the term "ropera" appear for the first time in an inventory of the belongings from the Duke Alvaro de Zúñiga in 1468, according with the article "La Espada Ropera Española en los Siglos XVI y XVII" by José María Pelaez Valle in Gladius (pag. 147). In french, the first reference is from 1474.

No. The Expression `espada ropera' was already used in "Coplas de la Panadera', generally attributed to Juan de Mena and written around 1445. But Mena's Coplas and both those dates that you quote predate the appearance of the kind of sword that the English recognized as a rapier.

Rapiers require skill and very specific techniques for their usage, so where are the manuals of the 1400's? Caranza wrote his famous manual in 1569, and his is considered to be the first significant substantiated Spanish treatise on fencing with the point. Though according to Castle there were supposedly three unsubstantiated manuals that predated Carnza, all mentioned by other historical treatises, but none that could be dated any earlier than the late 1400s or early 1500s.

I don't know what an `espada ropera' of the 1400's was, but if you do, please let us know and direct us to reliably dated examples. Or alternatively, to period manuals that clearly describe the weapon.

Since Spain is the original source of the espada ropera, it´s evolution began there, and it took some time and several transformations.

It is true that many held and still hold that Spain is where point fencing originated. However, beyond the undisputed fact that there were schools of arms in Spain in the 15th century, as in other nations/states, Castle tells us that we have little else to substantiate this view. The Spaniards overran the Italian states in the 16th century and by this means may have introduced point fencing there, but it is equally possible that the said play was developed by the Italians and adopted by the Spanish - Or, both developed it more or less simultaneously. I fear that this is another can of worms.

Cheers
Chris

[celtan]

Hi Gonzal,

I'm sorry, but for some reason I mistook your comments as Fernando's. Both of you write very interesting posts.

Yep, Galicia and Portugal used to be the same Kingdom, long time ago.
If I recall correctly, Viriato was a celtic chieftain of the lusones tribe , wasn't he?

Galician and Portuguese languages have evolved a little bit differently though, albeit still being very, very similar. Which comes very handy when you want to enjoy a glass of "vino verde".

: )

Apertas

Manolo

I completely agree, Manuel. By the way, you must understand portuguese very well, as it is almost the same languaje spoken in old times on Galicia.
Un abrazo

Gonzalo

[Chris Evans]

Hi Marc,

I drafted my post referencing Las Coplas De La Panadera, before seeing your post, so please accept my apologies for not acknowledging your contribution.

Enjoyed reading your post, which expounds things very nicely. I can't add anything meaningful to it, other than to alert readers to a very comprehensive treatment of this subject by AVB Norman in his The Rapier and the Small-Sword, pages 19-28.

Cheers
Chris

[Marc]

Absolutely no need to apologize, Chris, please, it was evidently a question of cross-posting :)

Best,

Marc

[Gonzalo G]

Marc, yes, there is such reference to the use of the word "ropera" on the article from Germán Dueñas Beraiz, also published by Gladius, mentioning this earlier poem, but it seems to me that we must take a more serious source about the conventional and accepted use of this term in the ordinary daily languaje of the people related with the use of the swords, and not from a poem where the languaje obeys to poetic licences.

Neverthless, the discussion was not about the obvious fact that the word, in several languajes and not only in english, had different meanings throught the time, but about the statement that "the term "rapier' is essentially and English one ", being the proper and correct, if I understood correctly. Which also, can have another implications. It is this statement that I found very questionable, and althought Chris has made a clarification about this point, still remains the fact about what can be properly named "rapier".

Another point is to say that we (whatever that "we" means), define the meaning of this word. In that case, we can also say that all the machetes mentioned in the spanish sources, in fact they are not machetes, because they do not correspond with the actual meaning of this word, and for that case, with the modern morphology of the machete. They even do not correspond with the meaning of the word, as used on the spanish army throught the 19th Century, as it´s morphology had several and drastical modifications in this period of time (short blades, long blades; straigh double edged, curved single edged, and so on). The machete has the same problem to define as a type, with fixed and invariable characteristics. This also happens with other historic swords. Of course, we can say otherwise. But that will not change, fortunately or unfortunately, the fact that the scholars, sword specialists and researchers, will continue to use this term aplied to the distinct variants produced on the evolution of the rapier, the ropera, or their equivalents in other languajes. I belive in the need to fix some parameters to each type of sword, but with the understanding of their historical evolution and uses, or we fall, as I said, in a reductionist and excesively formalist posture. The recongnition of the difficulty in diferentiating military and civil swords, portuguese and spanish, rapiers or not, makes evident the problem of making a valid "hardcore taxonomy", as proposed.


!Oh, I know!...people find very easy to learn and memorize fixed classifications, but classifications do not sustitute real knowledge, which is knowledge about the singular objects, and about their construction, variations and uses, not always reductible to be classified in a specific existing type, as they can contain features not foreseen by the people who makes such classifications. Classifications are only a tool, to be used within it´s limits, and to be discarded when not adecuated to a certain objects.

[fernando]

Magnificent input, Gentlemen.
I am still trying to emerge from such ocean of knowledge, to thank you all for the comprehensive posting exchange.
When the sword arrives, i will tell 'her' how deeply discussed 'she' has been in the Forum :) .
Thanks again; i will now take some time to extract the most possible from such authentic lectures ... including the poems, which make me feel how ignorant i am :shrug: .

Fernando

[Marc]

Agreed.


Taxonomy is a tool, not the end, something that seems to be frequently forgotten. It makes things easier, helps in classification, allows for a more flexible and useful data treatment and contributes (ideally) in building a common language through which all those dealing with the subject can better understand each other. But, as so many things, it also works in layers. So, "rapier" is enough to evoke among those who are aware of the terminology an object specific enough to communicate the meaning. From there, we can start to add information to be as precise as necessary, and there’s where taxonomy and the consensual language it brings starts to be useful. So, for example, we can start to talk about a swept-hilt, a cup-hilt, number of branches, an urn, onion or cylindrical pommel, length, shape and section of quillions, characteristics of their finials, morphology of the knuckleguard, the grip, the ricasso, the channels, marks, inscriptions, edges, point, style of decoration, chronology, geographical area, etc… So, yes, “rapier” applied to this kind of swords is modern. So are we (some more than others :) ). It’s also useful, that’s why it’s used. I don’t think we should spend much time talking about if the term is “proper” or not, we should instead check if we agree or not in its use, and then we can start discussing about the object itself, instead of about the terms we use to describe it. :D

[Chris Evans]

Hi Marc,

...and contributes (ideally) in building a common language through which all those dealing with the subject can better understand each other.

This I think hits the nail on the head - And when it comes to swords, the therm `Rapier' has to be probably the most open to miscommunication.

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

Good points, Marc. I think Chris and you made excellent inputs on this matter. I would like the read you more often, in relation with the ropera or the rapier, as I know you have a very valuable direct experience in the handling, study and use of this sword.

Thank you very much, gentleman.
Regards

Gonzalo

[M ELEY]

Alas, I was outbid... Very nice and affordable, too. :(

eBay #170278679255. I was wondering if someone could post the pics of this one for me? I'm clueless when it comes to posting pics.

While not as nice or in the same catagory as that sweet example you picked up, Fernando ( :mad: )(Envy!!), I like these Caribbean/ Spanish Main type swords. They border on a form of "folk art" in a lot of ways. One very similar is pictured in Brinckerhoff's "Spanish Military Weapons", plate 125/126. Guide says ca 1700, but I'm thinking more mid-18th for this example? You will note the crescent moon-shaped markings on the grip. I've seen this on some of the Brazilian espada cutlasses before and other Colonial Spanish pieces.

Jim, I think we'd talked about this crescent design in the past as far as the connection with various Spanish ports of call, such as the Brazilian coast and Salee, but perhaps my mind is wandering?? :shrug: These same markings turn up on Berber sabers as well, and as I know Morocco had many connections with Moorish Spain and Spanish shipping, I wonder if there is a connection. In any case, I'm in a state of mourning from missing out on this sword...

[fernando]

Here Mark.

.

[M ELEY]

Thanks so much, Fernando, and congrats on your Christmas gift! ;)

[Gonzalo G]

Caribbean?

[M ELEY]

Hello Gonzalo,
Yes, I think you are right. The plain wood/horn grips, plain construction and -shaped pommel point at a Caribbean origin. I've always like these just because of their 'colorful' background associations with piracy (I know most of these were not naval, but some undoubtedly made it to sea on privateers).

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding discussion gentlemen on the development of fencing schools, and the term 'rapier', which clearly has been, and will likely remain, a point of contention. It really is great to see such well informed exchange, and carried out in such constructive manner, thank you guys!!!

Mark, I'm sorry you missed that rapier, which I agree has that Caribbean feel to it, and without more research, I am thinking this might be Brazilian. The ribbed vertical edges on the grip, the crescents (reminiscent of the so called sickle marks on blades) which we have indeed often discussed, as well as what appears to be one of the 18th century 'dragoon' blades. The pirate association as we have also discussed, deals with the continued preying on ships through the 18th century on the "Spanish Main" between South America and New Spains other colonial regions.

Returning to another point of discussion:

Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands, one must search in portraits of civilians from these areas, particularly in court dress. As far as I am aware, it is never illustrated in military dress in the 17th century". (pp.175-76).

With this, and as Mr. Norman's brilliant study uses works of art in establishing the typology and development of varied types of hilts, it can be presumed that through the 17th century, the cuphilt was primarily a civilian weapon.It is known however that this rule of thumb may not apply in provincial regions and in the colonies of New Spain, and the distanced and developing ad hoc officials from military ranks may well have adopted these rapiers as uniform accoutrements.
We know that the military broadswords with cuphilts were used well into the 18th century, and perhaps concurrently with the more developed hilt military swords termed 'bilbo'. It does seem however that even the very thin rapier blades of the late 17th century were shipped to the colonies to be hilted, much as the broadsword blades which were sent in such volume later in the 18th century into the 19th. I have seen such rapier blades found in the wreck of a Spanish ship in the Panama region some years ago. There were about 30 or 40 of these rapier blades and the wreck must have been from end of the 17th to early part of 18th century.

All very best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Hi Jim,

... Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands ...

I hate to think that a scholar like Mr. Norman is includable in that sort of people who thinks that Portugal was/is one more province of the Spanish Kingdom, therefore not worth to mention as also a country under Spanish domain at the period in question (1580-1640). This omission, together with that of not mentioning that cuphilts were also largely used in Portugal, both in this period as also long afterwards, denote a considerable gap in his work ... says i, within my ignorance :o .

End of catharsis :eek:
Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim,



I hate to think that a scholar like Mr. Norman is includable in that sort of people who thinks that Portugal was/is one more province of the Spanish Kingdom, therefore not worth to mention as also a country under Spanish domain at the period in question (1580-1640). This omission, together with that of not mentioning that cuphilts were also largely used in Portugal, both in this period as also long afterwards, denote a considerable gap in his work ... says i, within my ignorance :o .

End of catharsis :eek:
Fernando


Hi Fernando,
This appears to be one of those times when it would have been preferable to paraphrase rather than quote, and as the late Mr. Norman was a truly great scholar whom I respected deeply, I doubt any oversight in his comments concerning the cuphilt was intentional. I think it is an altogether unfortunate case where his thoughts were likely focused on geographic situation, and perhaps in terms that the link between Spain and Portugal were presumed known by the reader.
Thanks to you I have learned to be very cautious in qualifying such comments and have, as I have often mentioned, learned how extremely important Portugal has been in exploration,colonization and trade, completely independant of Spain. As a very thorough scholar, as I knew him to be, I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to correct this unfortunately worded sentence.
Please accept my apologies for my own oversight in not properly vetting the quote I used.

All very best regards,
Jim

[Gonzalo G]

Mark, Jim, thank you very much for your valuable inputs. Very interesting points.
My best regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

... Please accept my apologies for my own oversight in not properly vetting the quote I used ...

... C'mon Jim ... don't embarass me :o
As my father used to say to my mum: Olha se tens saúde = just see if you're healthy ;) .
Fernando

[M ELEY]

Thanks, Jim, for confirming my suspicions on that piece possibly being Brazilian. Just had to include this one because it reminds us of the other provinces as well. Maybe someday, that crescent patterning seen on New Spain swords will become more positively identified.

Sorry to have barged in on this thread! :eek: Didn't mean to interrupt the conversation concerning civilian vs military dress. I am greatly appreciating this topic and will read on with interest!

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Concerning whether the 'cuphilt' was civilian or military, or both, this is addressed in degree in "The Rapier and Smallsword 1460-1820" by A.V.B.Norman, 1980, "...since the cuphilt is apparantly confined to Spain and lands under Spanish influence, that is southern Italy and the Spanish Netherlands, one must search in portraits of civilians from these areas, particularly in court dress. As far as I am aware, it is never illustrated in military dress in the 17th century". (pp.175-76).

I must agree with Fernando. This was a case of Norman not choosing his words carefully enough - Perhaps he should have said something like "the widespread use of the CH in Spanish influenced...". In fact, the cup hilt found its way to many parts of Europe that was not under Spanish influence, England for one. Swordplay was in a constant state of evolution and the CH addressed the emergent need for a more comprehensive protection of the hand in response to the ever `tighter' style of fencing. All I can say is that his otherwise excellent work must be read in conjunction with works like that of Castle to get around such minor slip-ups.

Additionally, looking at portraits is only a hint, because unless the scabbard is very narrow, we can't say what kind of blade the hilt is attached to. In other words, a cup, or any other complex hilt, a rapier does not make.

Cheers
Chris

[Jim McDougall]

OK Fernando :) but as Chris has further noted the quote I used, it seems even more clear that it would have been better paraphrased ....and the content of the wording affected you from the omission of Portugal, while Chris notes possibilities of other areas where cuphilts might have appeared in limited instance. I believe I have even heard of an example or two in Germany, though I cannot support that with examples, but would not be surprised as they often produced swords intended for other countries.

Regardless, Mr. Norman was in my opinion addressing the widely held perspective on the regions typically associated with these cuphilt forms in general, and truly did not propose an in depth study of the type nor related fencing theory. His focus was on hilts alone, and his wording seems to lean toward keeping more to that, with brevity probably leading to the questionable wording. Had he been writing with other focus than simply identifying the hilts, perhaps his statement would have been more qualified.

The cuphilt seems to be essentially a deeper and more protective version of the shallow saucer or dish type guards on earlier similar type swords (intentionally avoiding the term rapier), but in identification the term cuphilt basically refers to the type hilt pictured here in the thread.

Mr. Norman's work was most innovative in using the classical art and portraiture for identifying hilt forms, which is why there is virtually no discussion of blades whatsoever in the book (actually offhand I cannot recall a single reference to blades).

In the study of weapons, I could not agree with Chris more, one should always cross check with any resource avaliable on the subject. I do not think however, that the type of blade was an issue with Norman's work, as the focus of his typology was on hilts identified to period through contemporary art, and had nothing to do with development of fencing theory or style.


Excellent points Chris and Fernando, and I dont mean to be too defensive of Mr. Norman, but his work remains to me an outstanding work of scholarship and I believe did what he set out to do. He had some difficulty with it at the time with publishing etc as I recall, and it really was well received when it was finally complete.

Mark, ya old scalawag!! I'm glad you barged in!!!:) You know we cant resist those beauties from the Spanish Main!!!


All very best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Firtsly, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to find a fellow enthusiast or arms and armour, who is so appreciative of the work of AVB Norman - His work reflected a curatorial approach and I suspect that he had scant knowledge of swordsmanship, but with all his faults, he made a huge practical contribution to our knowledge, though mostly of hilts as you say.

He did seem to have an awareness, albeit none too strong, of the significance of the blade, which he addresses in passing in chapter 2 "Rapiers and Small-swords", pgs19-28. For example: "...many so called swept hilts are found on relatively broad blades....which no modern collector would class as a rapier...."

As for the evolution of hilts, I feel we would do better to defer to Castle who dealt with this at some length. He draws our attention to that in the era when the sword was merely an offensive weapon, the simple cross guard, complemented by a mail gauntlet sufficed. However once blade on blade actions became normative greater hand protection was required and the complex hilts (CH), swept and baskets (on broad swords) were developed. In time, many of the loops were filled with solid or pierced plates for ever greater protection and eventually these solidified and morphed into the cup hilt and its variants, which appeared around 1630, maybe earlier, and in all likely hood in Spain. As the ponderous long rapier gave way to the nimbler transitional rapier the action of parrying with the blade became increasingly more frequent and there was less need for the larger complex hilts. The first radical departure from the CH was that of the Flamberg, a transitional rapier (TR) equiped with a simple small dish with quillons (cross bars). Other simplifications found on TRs included the retention of a light knuckle bow and quillons with pas d'ane (finger rings surrounding the ricassso) and the reduction of the cup into what these days we tend to call bilboate shells. With the advent of the small-sword and the attendant full parry-riposte play, hilts were further simplified with the gradual elimination of the pas d'ane, further shortening of the quillons, and reduction of the shell or dish and the retention of a largely ornamental knuckle bow, as by that time the risk to the hands was no longer posed by a cut, rather a thrust. Interestingly, the late 19th century dueling epee retained a cup hilt every bit as large as that of the earlier rapier, so this suggests that the much reduced hilt of the TR and the small-sword was as much about convenience as the reduced need for hand protection on account of a more evolved blade play.

Cheers
Chris

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim,

Firtsly, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to find a fellow enthusiast or arms and armour, who is so appreciative of the work of AVB Norman - His work reflected a curatorial approach and I suspect that he had scant knowledge of swordsmanship, but with all his faults, he made a huge practical contribution to our knowledge, though mostly of hilts as you say.

He did seem to have an awareness, albeit none too strong, of the significance of the blade, which he addresses in passing in chapter 2 "Rapiers and Small-swords", pgs19-28. For example: "...many so called swept hilts are found on relatively broad blades....which no modern collector would class as a rapier...."

As for the evolution of hilts, I feel we would do better to defer to Castle who dealt with this at some length. He draws our attention to that in the era when the sword was merely an offensive weapon, the simple cross guard, complemented by a mail gauntlet sufficed. However once blade on blade actions became normative greater hand protection was required and the complex hilts (CH), swept and baskets (on broad swords) were developed. In time, many of the loops were filled with solid or pierced plates for ever greater protection and eventually these solidified and morphed into the cup hilt and its variants, which appeared around 1630, maybe earlier, and in all likely hood in Spain. As the ponderous long rapier gave way to the nimbler transitional rapier the action of parrying with the blade became increasingly more frequent and there was less need for the larger complex hilts. The first radical departure from the CH was that of the Flamberg, a transitional rapier (TR) equiped with a simple small dish with quillons (cross bars). Other simplifications found on TRs included the retention of a light knuckle bow and quillons with pas d'ane (finger rings surrounding the ricassso) and the reduction of the cup into what these days we tend to call bilboate shells. With the advent of the small-sword and the attendant full parry-riposte play, hilts were further simplified with the gradual elimination of the pas d'ane, further shortening of the quillons, and reduction of the shell or dish and the retention of a largely ornamental knuckle bow, as by that time the risk to the hands was no longer posed by a cut, rather a thrust. Interestingly, the late 19th century dueling epee retained a cup hilt every bit as large as that of the earlier rapier, so this suggests that the much reduced hilt of the TR and the small-sword was as much about convenience as the reduced need for hand protection on account of a more evolved blade play.

Cheers
Chris



Chris, what an absolutely fantastic summary on the development of these hilts as associated with fencing style!!! and thank you for the gentle correction on that part of Mr. Norman's book, which I had completely overlooked. Indeed, his approach was curatorial and as mentioned, in 1978 his tremendous work encountered difficulty in publishing, at the time he was Master of the Armouries in London. The book was finally published in 1980.

In my studying on weapons some time ago, he always patiently and faithfully responded to my queries and openly shared his perspective in the most kind and friendly manner. In 1998, he informed me he would be coming to Dallas and suggested we meet, and you can imagine my excitement. A short time later he became ill, and I received his regrets of not being able to make the trip from his family. He passed several weeks later. Inserted in the pages of my copy of his book, which I treasure, are still the letters from this kind man, who was indeed an inspiration to me, and actually, still is.

With all very best regards,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Allow me to say that it is always a pleasure to read your posts, which reflect great scholarship and a gentlemanly approach.

I envy your good fortune in having corresponded with the late Mr Norman. IMHO, his wonderful work and that of Castle pretty much covers the evolution of the rapier to the small sword. I only wished that Castle would have dealt with some of the developments of the 19th century such as that of the Italian fencing sabre and the French dueling epee.

I feel that neither of these works will be improved upon in the foreseeable future, as they both covered all that could be within reason and little else will go beyond being mere commentaries, footnotes and minor corrections to these two foundational works.

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

Just for the record. I believe the rapier was some sort of "universal" weapon in west Europe, though I never checked how many countries have rapiers with cup hilts and crossguards. Unless proved the contrary, there are rapiers with cup hilts from the german states, not made for the external market. Some, very beautiful. Please see this examples:

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7408

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7413

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7395

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7255

http://www.flg.es/ficha.asp?ID=7248

among others. They belong to what among the spanish scholars is known as the "German School". It dreserves a mention that the germans were very affectionated to duelling in their civil life, maybe for centuries. An interestig comparative study could be made of the hilts and guards. The cup hilt has obvious advantages in the rapier style of fencing, and there were rapiers all over west Europe. Even probably the development of a more refinated style of fencing in the late 18th Century, can explain the bigger cup hilts seen on some rapiers of the period. This is an hypothesis expressed by some spanish erudites and swordsman as Juan José Pérez.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Chris Evans]

Hi Gonzalo,

Great links, thank you.

I wonder what distinguished those of the German school from other cup hilted rapiers - I wan under the impression that the Germans used the edge more, but these samples look very thrust oriented.

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi Folks,

Opps! Had a senior moment.

German hilts had often a thumb ring to augment control. The Mediterranean grip consisted of wraping the firest and second fingers around the ricasso under the quillon. The Germans liked to hook the thumb into a ring/loop on the LHS of the quillons on a RHS hilt.

Cheers
Chris

[celtan]

As long as it isn't

Olha se tens saúdade


BTW, my own take on the subject is that, evidently as every galego knows, Portugal could not have been a Spanish province, since Spain, Portugal, Nueva Espana, England etc... were all provinces of Galicia.

They just didn't know it.

: )


Now seriously: Unknown origin CH/bilobate sword, possibly north european.

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r371/runswithswords/17-18th%20C%20Cup%20Guard%20Sword/Euroshellcup6.jpg

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r371/runswithswords/17-18th%20C%20Cup%20Guard%20Sword/Euroshellcup8.jpg

http://i353.photobucket.com/albums/r371/runswithswords/17-18th%20C%20Cup%20Guard%20Sword/Euroshellcup10.jpg

Best

Manuel Luis

... C'mon Jim ... don't embarass me :o
As my father used to say to my mum: Olha se tens saúde = just see if you're healthy ;) .
Fernando

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

...... Portugal could not have been a Spanish province, since Spain, Portugal, Nueva Espana, England etc... were all provinces of Galicia.....

An interesting world-view. Ever considered a career in international relations? :D :D :D

Nice swords to have in any collection. Any chance of posting their principal dimensions, including weight and point of balance?

Cheers
Chris

[celtan]

Thanks, and yep, I did. I even had a motto: All bow to me.

Didn't pan out, however, My PR people said it was because the motto was too honest...
: )

Data, as requested:

Wt: 2.1 lb.
Total L: 42.5"
Blade L: 34.5"
W: 1"
CG: 32" from tip, 2.5" from guard.

Toots!

M

Hi,



An interesting world-view. Ever considered a career in international relations? :D :D :D

Nice swords to have in any collection. Any chance of posting their principal dimensions, including weight and point of balance?

Cheers
Chris

[Chris Evans]

Hi,

Greatly appreciated.

Sorry to trouble you again, but how far is the guard fom the cross?

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

German hilts had often a thumb ring to augment control. The Mediterranean grip consisted of wraping the firest and second fingers around the ricasso under the quillon. The Germans liked to hook the thumb into a ring/loop on the LHS of the quillons on a RHS hilt.

Furthermore, according to Germán Dueñaz Beraiz, in his article "Estudio Tipológico de las Espadas Españolas" (A Typologycal Study on the Spansih Swords), published on Gladius, Vol. XXIV - 2004, some authors distinguish the spanish hilts and guards of the rapiers made on Spain, by the following elements supposedly not found in other countries of origin:

* A shorter hilt, derved of the fact that the spanish grip used only three fingers to grasp the hilt, as the others went over the quillons.

* The spanish cup guards were less deep and with less diameter

* The pommels were more flattened and smaller.

* On the inner side and centered in the cup, the presence of an element called "dust keeper", a small plaque which reinforces structurally the cup and the union of this elements with the pas d´ane, the circular rings over the recasso.

* The presence of a point breaker on the cup.

Altough Dueñas Beraiz does not deny or accept this specific dictinctions, he says that is difficult to determine the place of origin of a swords only based on the hilt and guard elements, as the styles were a subject of constant intercouse among different countries.

There is another important element to be taken on account. Many rapier blades made on Spain were actually mounted in other countries, so there is no relation among blade and mounts (hilts and guards). So, those rapiers are not representative of the spanish ones, no matter they carry on the blade a stamp from a Toledo swordmaker.

Another intersting mention, this time to dissagraviate Fernando, is that there are references to a production of bilobate or shell guards and the mounting of hilts and guards in Portugal, though I still do not find references to rapiers or another kind of swords made entirely there in this period.

To the benefit of the statements of Jim, the german states were also under the dominion of Spain and in it´s area of influence on the first half of the 16th Century. I don´t know if this fact is related with the production of cup hilted rapiers there, but this point must be researched. Apparently, the production of swords was the result of an international cooperation in Europe during certain period of time. First, many sword blades were made on Toledo, and mounted on Italy, the german states (Germany did not exist as a single state until 1871) and the nordic countries. Latter, as a result of the more industrialized production of Solingen, their more cheap (but not necessarily better) blades, were used to be mounted in other countries.

I do not know of a comparative study of the blades from Toledo and Solingen, in relation with their pretended uses, as absolute parameters as hardness, thoughtness, impact resistance, etc., cannot be valid, and they instead must be related with the specific use of a specific type of sword. But it seems that I´m going out of thread subject.
Regards

Gonzalo

[Chris Evans]

Hi Gonzalo,


* A shorter hilt, derved of the fact that the spanish grip used only three fingers to grasp the hilt, as the others went over the quillons.

* The spanish cup guards were less deep and with less diameter

* The pommels were more flattened and smaller.

* On the inner side and centered in the cup, the presence of an element called "dust keeper", a small plaque which reinforces structurally the cup and the union of this elements with the pas d´ane, the circular rings over the recasso

Altough Dueñas Beraiz does not deny or accept this specific dictinctions, he says that is difficult to determine the place of origin of a swords only based on the hilt and guard elements, as the styles were a subject of constant intercouse among different countries.



Many thanks for all those valid observations.

That work of Beraiz is very good, as he makes quite a number of points not encountered elsewhere. Someone ought to translate it into English.

On the matter of smaller hilts, Castle tells us that towards the end of the 16th century hilts were short so as to rest against the palm of the hand. My take on this, is that to achieve such a grip, a small pommel was a requisite - And I often speculated on how this influenced the balance of the long rapier, shifting the POB towards the point. It would be nice if curators could be persuaded to compile the important attributes of swords in their collections as then we could gain a much better understanding as to their inherent traits and how they were used.

There is another important element to be taken on account. Many rapier blades made on Spain were actually mounted in other countries, so there is no relation among blade and mounts (hilts and guards). So, those rapiers are not representative of the Spanish ones, no matter they carry on the blade a stamp from a Toledo swordmaker.

Yes, sword production was then a truly a multi-regional industry and to make things worse, many blades were at a later date retro-fiited with hilts that differed from the originals. And to add more confusion, makers names and origins were widely falsified.

Cheers
Chris

[Gonzalo G]

Yes Chris. Specially the civil swords, as the rapier, being part of the indumentary, and it´s hilt the most visible portion, it was rehilted according to the changing tastes and fashions, among other reasons.
Regards

Gonzalo

[fernando]

Definitely, i lack the necessary profile to interpreter all opinions gathered, as well as the written material i can get hold of, to discern the differences between Spanish and Portuguese swords, in this case cup hilted ones, namely the (my) example posted here in the first place … as sell as others.
That is to admit that, to my view, specimens shown here and there, in confrontation to what i read about these swords typology, make the exception larger than the rule.
Again i say that it must be my limited focusing capacity, for lack of experience and or my inability to read the data provided with the necessary skill.
In addition to the comments posted by Marc, Chris, Gonzalo, Jim and Manolo, let me here transcribe the (translated) comments from the Spanish seller ( which i ‘promised’ to post but never did ), as well as the comments of Juan J. Perez, a well known connoisseur.

(From Lluc Sala)
Concerning your cuphilt sword, the details that make think it is a possible Spanish production, are the cup shallow profile and the short length of the grip (between the two ferrules). Such are details that usually occur in Spanish pieces. Nevertheless, old weapons are not an exact science and it is of common knowledge that between Spain and Portugal there were several similarities of styles and construction, some of them being almost identical.

(From Juan J. Perez)
Yes, there are differences. Some of them are subtle, while others aren't. For swords dating from 1670 upward, I think the most relevant (and evident!) difference is that Portuguese hilts usually lack their arms. I mean, the cup is soldered right to the quillons, there being no additional arms emerging from the quillon block, in order to secure the cup. This is specially true regarding military swords.
However, this particular feature may also be found on Spanish colonial pieces, but in my opinion it has a Portuguese origin.
The seller of this sword thought that the hilt may be Spanish, being the blade obviously Portuguese or made for the Portuguese market. It may well be.

I must say i am not that much short sighted (not too much sex :eek: ) as not to see a few remarks consistent in the typology quoted by the various sources. However and as i said, i seem to find as many exceptions around … be it cup bowl depth and diameter, quillons fixation, grip length, pommel shape and so on.
Indeed the “Peninsular” connotation suits better this Portuguese/Spanish (or Spanish/Portuguese) duality, on what touches hilt typology.
Blades appear to be a thematic with a different approach. German (and Italian) production was significantly poured into the Peninsula, to fulfil the immense demand, certainly aggravated by massive detachment to the colonies. Also here and with the due difference in either (Peninsular) country dimensions, also Portugal consumed some of this production; Solingen blades are found all over, be them real or fake … a phenomenon similar to Toledo specimens. I also realize that when a cup hilt sword has a German shape, including hilt, it would quicker be an example to be used in the Peninsula, than to be used in its country of origin. Maybe this is the reason why those few are found in the Madrid Museum, for one.

I will post here two interesting examples of cup hilt variations; one with a(often quoted) short grip, those where you could only fit three fingers; and another with a (also mentioned) dust keeper (guarda polvo). The first one, from the XVII century, with a short 83 cms waving blade and wide quillons, is quoted as civilian. The author considers that the legend IN SOLINGEN in the blade, could well be an original as well as an imitation. No origin (Spain/Portugal) precised. The second one, besides also placed in the XVII century, is stressed by the author as being from after 1640, and so tagged as Portuguese, once the legend in the blade reads VIVA PORTUGAL, an expression contextually used after or in course of liberation from the Spanish domination. In the perspective of this author, this is the (only ?) symptom that differentiates (Peninsular) cup hilt swords from being Spanish or Portuguese.
By this point of view, i would conclude that my specific sword is Portuguese; i don’t see a Portuguese client go order from a Spanish smith a sword with such a controversial nationalist motto. But that is only a theory … or not even so. On the other hand, we must not forget that this sword was at sale in Spain … mind you, after three hundred years; a theory not better than the first one.

Interesting also to note is that the first specimen has its quillons welded to the cup bowl, whereas the second one uses the screw method … but, important thing, the author quotes this variation as less common.

Enough of this nonsense talk.

Fernando

.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Fernando,

I tend to agree with Lluc, identifying these swords is not an exact science, not even remotely so, and the best we can do is to go with the most plausible account on the strength of what we know - And am inclined to think that his guess is as good as anybody's.

Cheers
Chris

[fernando]

My Christmas self gift has arrived,
I will attach here some more pictures of it, as well as some specifications, as advised by Chris, to help figure out the original purpose of this sword.


Total weight:1130 grs.
Length of blade as from the cross: 104 cms.
Overall length: 114 cms.
Point of balance as from the cross: 14 cms.
Length of quillons: 32 cms.
Cup bowl width:16 cms.
Blade width at forte: 20 mm.
Blade thickness at forte: 8,13 mm.
No aparent evidence of blade dents, repairs or sharpening.
Blade cross section of six tables, the last third practicaly lenticular.
Sharp (not acute) in both sides through all length.

I hope i've done it right ... Chris ?

I seem to notice that the grip copper wire wraping is quite old, probably from the period, which is a pleasant and major detail.
The pommel fixation looks fine too.
But you guys know a lot more than me about these things; tell me what you think ... please :)

Also i would like to know if anyone here recognizes those marks on the recazo, which certainly belong to the sword (blade) smith.

Fernando

.

[Chris Evans]

Hi Fernando,

Many thanks for having taken and posted the critical dimensions of your rapier - They are typical of fully evolved exemplars of the genre. That long blade must have a very good sectional density to obtain that balance with such a modest sized pommel.

It is a very nice weapon and look upon it with no little envy.

Cheers
Chris
Season's Greetings and a happy New Year to all

[Gonzalo G]

Fer, thank you very much for this numerical data. I think it is indispensable for the understanding of the edged weapons, as it gives much basic information about the making and use of them. It´s a pity many people only gives relevance to their visual appearance in photographs, because photographs have several limitations. A professional aproach to this subject always should be based in this data.
Un saludo

Gonzalo