Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M ELEY
Beautifully sculped hilts on these types. I've always wanted to have one to hang above the mantle. Very nice pics, Barry.
Jim, you out-did yourself with that dissertation. Wish I had half the knowledge as you, my friend! Not to get off-topic, but I remember the days of the Forum when this item would still be considered Ethnographic in a manner of speaking. After all, it's not like these were generic models issued from an armoury. Each one of these appears unique in their own form and is due the respect they deserve. My point is that it's too bad we've become so rigid that we can't discuss (on occasion) A Scottish baskethilt over on the Ethno forum or a Malay pirate sword here- 
Back on topic with probably a really dumb question. If this form of sword served the Dalmations, is the supposition that they came from there, or were crafted in Venice for them? |
Thank you so much for those kind words Mark! Actually though, I wish I were as knowledgable as noted, its mostly just a lot of digging through references and simply relaying the knowledge of many outstanding arms authors. In the references I have gone through on this topic, the work done by Nathan Robinson (founder of MyArmoury forum) is beautifully done and he does an excellent job of catogorizing some the the many variations as well as a great synopsis of the history on the schiavona.
The reason I have tried to list as many reference sources as possible here is for the benefit of others wishing to continue research on these swords and presenting a benchmark bibliography for study. There are of course likely countless other references passim in the huge corpus of arms literature, and I hope others will respond in kind by adding them here as well.
It is indeed an excellent question you ask, and exactly the kind I always hope for in these discussions. The schiavona itself has become a distinctly recognizable style of hilt which has become most commonly associated with the forementioned bodyguards of the Doge of Venice. It is presumed that the earlier versions, such of some 300 swords in the armoury of the Doges palace in Venice listed in the 1548 inventory as 'spada schiavonesche' (Norman, p.65) were likely to have been with the more basic, undeveloped hilt style. Norman, p.101, notes "...by the third quarter of the 18th c. the basket hilt of the schiavona had been completed". In Blair (1967, op.cit. p.454) , he states that "...it seems probable that swords of this type were introduced to Italy from Hungary, perhaps Dalmatia, and they very likely to have been called 'Slavonic swords'.
Since Hungary is contiguous to the borders of Dalmatia and was under its control until the early 15th century, the influence of the war swords of Germany and into Hungary easily were transmitted via mercenary troops and constant interaction from trade and colonization to warfare into these regions.
Wagner (1967, p.173) notes, "...by the end of the 16th century sword baskets began more variety on form above all due to Italian influence. The sword of Dalmatian Slava acquired a deep basket made up of connecting bars and perforated plate . About the year 1580, this weapon due to trade with Brescia and Saravelle, won unusually wide popularity in other armies as well. The schiavona fitted with a longer blade was also introduced into the cavalry, and under Emperor Ferdinand II even among the cuirassiers".
In my opinion, while there were of course many North Italian swordmakers in Genoa, Milan, Lucca and others as well as Venice, there were many blades imported from Germany and Spain. The Brescians seem to have been among the greatest artisans for hilts, and these baskethilts are basically in greater regard in accord with the diagonal movement of swept hilt rapiers of these times. I would suspect that in large degree these more developed 'trellis type' hilts were Italian produced for the Dalmatian troops following the addition of these guards to the established simple war sword forms of the earlier type which had come from Dalmatian/Hungarian and German ancestry.
Naturally, this is suggested broadly as the developing hilts were appearing across Europe through the constant diffusion of influences and geopolitical flux. The amount of variation which understandably ensued allows only circumstancial assignment of a certain hilt form to a region or period by preponderance of distinctly provenanced examples.
Regarding the separation of forums, it really is not a matter of being 'rigid' as described, as there are many instances of European versions of ethnographic swords and vice versa. These I find personally fascinating as they reflect so much history from colonial and developmental views, but they are very much exceptions. The reason I encouraged the forming of the 'European Armoury' was to place distinctly 'other' than ethnographic type weapons in thier own context to limit the amount of 'explanatory' dialogue in reasoning thier presence in category and focus on constructive examination of the weapons themselves.
Nando, you are of course most astute!! and I do very much 'paternally'
and proudly want everybody to know about our 'European Armoury' .
One of the most common 'reasons' I hear from those who lurk for thier reluctance to participate is that they 'do not know enough about the topic'. For me, the goal is to learn, and for everybody to join in on the research, and then add thoughts, observations, questions and additional information.
A European weapon with no connection to anything the regular vistors are familiar with, placed in the wrong area will simply drop off into oblivion, which
happens too much as it is.
Thank you so much guys!! I hope we can keep this thread going and bring together a compehensive study to date on these swords.
All the best,
Jim