Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Jim McDougall · 25th February 2024, 07:20 PM

To give an idea of the complete apathy toward swords in general history references, the book "Dealing in Death:The Arms Trade and the British Civil Wars, 1638-52", Peter Edwards, 2000 (enticing title).......the meticulously detailed study describes everything BUT swords.
Guns, powder, bandoliers, and all manner of ordnance to equip armies are described even down to the unit cost etc................but swords?

NOT A WORD, even going through index, the word sword exists only to describe a person with that surname; cutler? not a word; blades, no.
So it would be presumed that swords were not important? Then why do we know of thousands being ordered? but this 'study of arms' dismisses the sword entirely.

Yet the theme of the book concerns the fact that the Netherlands were a global clearing house for arms for the armies of many nations.

For a remarkable, beautifully illustrated, and detailed reference on the swords of this period I recommend highly,
"British Military Swords 1600-1660" (Stuart Mowbray, 2013). While the detailed analysis of Hounslow & Shotley are not focused upon greatly, the basic details are well placed in the contexts of the period, and the illustrated sword examples are so clear it is as if holding the actual example in hand. For any serious study of the arms of the English civil wars a must.
The Thirty Years war (1618-48) had depleted the production capacity of Germany, primarily Solingen of course, which would seem to have been a mitigating factor for Charles I to bring over German swordsmiths to Hounslow (this was from OTHER sources) . These smiths were found in Holland. It has often been thought these smiths were fleeing Solingen because of religious persecution...............in essence yes.........but it was the WAR, and lack of ability to work that was a primary factor.

Pages 9-17 in "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" (Richard Bezdek, 2003) has a COMPREHENSIVE study of Hounslow is laid out in the chapter : THE SWORD AND BLADE MAKING CENTER OF HOUNSLOW HEATH".
It would seem that virtually all the questions asked here are remarkably well covered.

The blades inscribed are well noted in the text, and actually the names of presumably all the makers known are listed.
The use of the ME FECIT HOUNSLOW etc. is an inscribing convention taken from the well known Solingen phrase ME FECIT SOLINGEN. Often the word ANNO and date also occur (meaning made in date).
Naturally the smiths used their own manner of marking etc......Hounslow was a center of private shops, independent and there was no regulatory control, pattern books etc. so it would be presumed that they would mark their work as they wished.

Regarding the variance of hilts and blades, in "The Hounslow Swordsmiths" by John Tofts White(Hounslow Chronicle, Vol. 1, #2, 1978, pp21-24), the author notes at least two examples he is aware of ANTE dating the 1629 start of Hounslow. The blade is inscribed to William Hurst, by JOHN KINNDT HOUNSL 1634.....on a crab claw hilt likely Italian from the previous century.

The other with blade ION HOPPIE HONSLO ME FECIT HONSLO, on an English swept hilt of c. 1610.
Naturally this does not suggest Hounslow began prior to 1629, but that the blades of Hounslow were often refitted on other hilts, whether older or newer depending on circumstances.

f

25th February 2024, 07:20 PM	#12
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	To give an idea of the complete apathy toward swords in general history references, the book "Dealing in Death:The Arms Trade and the British Civil Wars, 1638-52", Peter Edwards, 2000 (enticing title).......the meticulously detailed study describes everything BUT swords. Guns, powder, bandoliers, and all manner of ordnance to equip armies are described even down to the unit cost etc................but swords? NOT A WORD, even going through index, the word sword exists only to describe a person with that surname; cutler? not a word; blades, no. So it would be presumed that swords were not important? Then why do we know of thousands being ordered? but this 'study of arms' dismisses the sword entirely. Yet the theme of the book concerns the fact that the Netherlands were a global clearing house for arms for the armies of many nations. For a remarkable, beautifully illustrated, and detailed reference on the swords of this period I recommend highly, "British Military Swords 1600-1660" (Stuart Mowbray, 2013). While the detailed analysis of Hounslow & Shotley are not focused upon greatly, the basic details are well placed in the contexts of the period, and the illustrated sword examples are so clear it is as if holding the actual example in hand. For any serious study of the arms of the English civil wars a must. The Thirty Years war (1618-48) had depleted the production capacity of Germany, primarily Solingen of course, which would seem to have been a mitigating factor for Charles I to bring over German swordsmiths to Hounslow (this was from OTHER sources) . These smiths were found in Holland. It has often been thought these smiths were fleeing Solingen because of religious persecution...............in essence yes.........but it was the WAR, and lack of ability to work that was a primary factor. Pages 9-17 in "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" (Richard Bezdek, 2003) has a COMPREHENSIVE study of Hounslow is laid out in the chapter : THE SWORD AND BLADE MAKING CENTER OF HOUNSLOW HEATH". It would seem that virtually all the questions asked here are remarkably well covered. The blades inscribed are well noted in the text, and actually the names of presumably all the makers known are listed. The use of the ME FECIT HOUNSLOW etc. is an inscribing convention taken from the well known Solingen phrase ME FECIT SOLINGEN. Often the word ANNO and date also occur (meaning made in date). Naturally the smiths used their own manner of marking etc......Hounslow was a center of private shops, independent and there was no regulatory control, pattern books etc. so it would be presumed that they would mark their work as they wished. Regarding the variance of hilts and blades, in "The Hounslow Swordsmiths" by John Tofts White(Hounslow Chronicle, Vol. 1, #2, 1978, pp21-24), the author notes at least two examples he is aware of ANTE dating the 1629 start of Hounslow. The blade is inscribed to William Hurst, by JOHN KINNDT HOUNSL 1634.....on a crab claw hilt likely Italian from the previous century. The other with blade ION HOPPIE HONSLO ME FECIT HONSLO, on an English swept hilt of c. 1610. Naturally this does not suggest Hounslow began prior to 1629, but that the blades of Hounslow were often refitted on other hilts, whether older or newer depending on circumstances. f Last edited by Jim McDougall; 25th February 2024 at 08:17 PM.