View Single Post
Old 11th June 2021, 06:22 PM   #4
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanspaceman View Post
Firstly, I must apologise for my statement about the number of colichemardes in Greenwich being the greatest number: Royal Armouries at Leeds have over a dozen.

In regard to the source of the name: I've read several dissertations regarding this business and am firmly convinced there was no relationship. However, if anyone has evidence to the contrary it would be of great interest to the smallsword cognoscenti.
Here is a link to a paper written recently that covers every aspect of the colichemarde in a detail that defies condensing:
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/34663/

I have also posted an image of a Dutch smallsword/duelling rapier from the second half of the 1600s in the hope that someone can confirm its purpose: was it a civilian carry or was it designed specifically for duelling?
The blade features a series of X type crosses on each side.
I find it hard to accept that anyone interested in self-defence would wear such a sword.

It is hard to place hard numbers on sword type based on surviving examples or holdings in museums or collections, so estimating the actual presence of the colichemarde in circulation as discussed can only be speculative.
In references I have seen in discussion of sword blade types in the 18th century, of twelve forms presented, the colichemarde was not called by name and only 2 were included, as 'reinforced forte'.

The entire story of the form itself and term is of course apocryphal, and part of the ever lingering sea of lore surrounding sword history.

Regarding this example, as it is Dutch and in that period the Netherlands were largely under Spanish rule. The Spaniards were known for the excessive length of their rapier blades, which at times reached ridiculous lengths.
Quite possibly this example was somehow in accord with that situation?

It seems agreed in most references on 'fence' that the blade for a sword should be adjusted to the stature of the owner, with the most common length @ around 31" to perhaps 34". The key factor with length was of course thrust reach and accessibility to opponent, but speed, and long blades are anything but fast.

In dueling in most cases, they seem to have been more often affairs of a great deal of 'posturing' and circling, rather than pitched combat. In most cases actual exchange of blows and parry were hardly more than seconds and quickly ceased to return to posturing movement, unless any blood was drawn, which typically ended the event.

A very long sword blade, of course kept your opponent at distance, and in the event of a thrust, the riposte with long blade would of course be likely fatal. It seems the retreat with sudden stop at the opponents thrust was a deadly attack, but sort of in reverse.

Returning to the sword here, most small swords were in effect 'walking swords' or 'dress', and in these occasions any excessive length would be disruptive or 'difficult', obviously a long blade in close circumstances is impairing. Then it would seem, such a blade would be probably for the duel, or a situation where such confrontation would be imminent.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote