Danish Pallask

[E Farrell]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It would seem our example most corresponds to #47 in the plates you show, with single punch plate, similar quillon and what seems to be close to the guard configuration. It is a bit too distorted to be sure. The pommel is of course different and I cannot tell if there was a thumb ring.

In my research as I noted earlier, I kept finding later hits of similar system but they seemed typically of later period, as you note here. Also, I had always regarded these as cavalry swords but I am thinking of the bilobate shells and typical Walloons.

As I mentioned, the most difficult aspects of identifying this sword and its form are that Solingen was such a prolific producer of these and their variations over a long period and for many countries. I think the best thing going in this case is the apparent provenance from being excavated in this battlefield context, however the long lapse from its excavation and the reliability of records and its custody must be considered. It could be a weapon from later period and lost in the battlefield context long after the actual battle and therefore collateral rather than associated, but these things are left to speculation.

Just missed your post. I would not particularly trust the 1659 date. All I have from the record is that it was found in the area of the Battle of Nyborg; I do not have a good, dated archaeological context. Obviously I would like for it to be from the battle, but it isn't even close to a certainty. Because I am working off a single line from a poor record from 1939, I have no idea if 'area of the Battle of Nyborg' means it was found on the actual battlefield, or found down a well shaft a couple kilometers away. Looking purely at the records, either could be true, so if comparable examples to this sword are only really found later, it would not be unreasonable to assume the sword post-dates the battle.


There is a thumb ring in the guard. I've attached a couple more photos to this post. If there are additional areas/angles of which a photo would be helpful, please let me know.

[cornelistromp]

a few small side notes;

at the excavated hilt were two side rings with plates! now 1 pierced plate is missing So No 49 corresponds better than No 47.

date between 1675 and 1725 is quite firm and given by JP Puype in his publication Mauritz to Munster. earlier than in 1659 does not seem likely.

actually the site of a weapon never gives such information, not on the date of a weapon, not where it is made, or by whom it is used, besides it is (almost Always) impossible to link to a certain battle.

it only says that it is lost there.


best,
Jasper

[VANDERNOTTE]

bonjour to everybody
question?
is this sword a pallask
is 40 inch long and it carrie no mark and no proof
regards
jacques

[cornelistromp]

Bonjour+beautiful example, thanks for posting.


The Pallasch (Hungary: Pallos= broadsword) is a cut and thrust weapon with a straight blade. Originally, the pallasch was a saber with an almost straight blade and a basket with center bar as hand protection. used by the heavy cavalry.
so the answer is yes, some call this type of back and broadsword indeed Pallasch.
I myself see the Pallasch later appear in the 18th century in Austria, England and Denmark. See an example of typical Pallasch swords.


your sword:
It has a single edged blade therefor it is called a backword. ( if it has a double edged blade , a broadsword. )

The development with the decorated ebossed convex plates previously started around the mid of the 17th century with the so-called half hilts swords.

best,
Jasper

[VANDERNOTTE]

is a broadsword
tanks for your time jasper
regard
jacques