Michael, now THERES a sword breaker, catcher, etc etc! It looks like there might have been an ancestor of James Bond's 'Q' working in the armouries! Thats excellent, thank you for posting that, and looking forward to the example you're searching for...if anybody knows thier way through these museums you do
!
Manolo, your contributions and observations are always well placed and astute, and I cannot imagine anything you add not being of interest!
Its good to have perspective and opinion on items being discussed as we try to locate support either for or against the actual use of these items. I was not even aware of the Japanese items that Fearn brought up, so at this point they bring in interesting dimension to the discussion, even though the main focus is on these European left hand versions.
Kisak, excellent note on the expanding triple blade form, and I must admit I had forgotten to include that type as I was intent on the deeply toothed example. In the references I looked at, those were indeed mentioned, and included as a 'rare' type blade, just as the toothed version (Peterson).
Thank you for the confirmation on my thoughts on the compromising of blade strength on these toothed blades.
What brought that to mind was the blades from China and India which had pierced channels in the blade carrying movable 'pearls' (actually usually bearings) which caused noisemaking effect. It seems that Philip Tom had noted that these were likely parade or ceremonial swords or daggers as the 'worked' blades would have had thier strength compromised, so would not be advisable for combat.
I burst out laughing on the comments on flintlock cutlery!!!
then as I read down...here you have posted some!!! LOL!! That 'Q' !! Relatives everywhere!
I have always been intrigued by combination weapons, and always recalled a book I had in my younger years titled appropriately "Firearms Curiosa" by Winant. It does seem of course that armourers and weapons makers often exercised thier innovative imaginations to the max!! In many, if not most cases, these were just as labeled...curiosities, and that was the reason I posted this thread, to discover the feasability of these 'swordbreakers'.
It does seem that if one of these blades, in which your very life hung in the balance in its quality, could be snapped with a flick of the wrist, that bladesmith would definitely have questions to be answered. If my understanding is correct, one of the purposes of bladesmiths marks, was to guarantee the quality of his work. The guilds monitored this, while of course the marks were used for other bureaucratic purposes as well, and presumably held these makers somewhat accountable.
It would be interesting to research town or guild records, in which bladesmiths had disclaimers posted against failure of thier blades caused by the 'foul play' of use of one of these devisive daggers.
Again, as far as is known, no corroborative contemporary mention is made of the use of these or any other device for breaking the blade of an opponent.
The existence of only a couple of these, and the question of thier veracity since the 19th century by well established authorities on arms, compells me to believe these.....along with considerable of weapons curiosa, whether ethnographic or European....are likely the works of earlier 'Q's, and inadvertantly intended to drive we later weapons historians mad!!!
Thanks so much guys!! Great observations and discussion,
All the best,
Jim