Link from pappenheimer to boca-de-caballo hilt

[midelburgo]

Boca-de-caballo swords (known often as bilboes) are easier to build. Instead of a single forged piece, something difficult to make and that rarely you see in replicas even today, they have two pieces bound by screws.

Originally two screws, with the result of many hilts broken at the weakened union of the two shells. They were around before the 1728 model was defined. Later 4 screws.

Then from 1761 on the pieces with the four screws were made as a frame, much stronger. The 1728 model became completely standardized by a new ordonance that year, about the same time Toledo factory started working

Quillons are usually twisted because seated on horseback were easy to entangle in the horse furniture. Many swords have had their quillons straightened in later years by collectors.

So my Canary sword precedes the 1728 model, and it is an interesting step in its evolution. Spain lost most of its Italian territories, including Milan in 1706. Possibly Brescia weapons stopped being delivered then.

[cornelistromp]

here is another example of a Spanish 18th century cavalry bilbo, with a lion motif on the hemispherical cup. I think the rapier of post 1 has been modified a bit during its working life, guillons shortened and knuckleguard linked to the pommel.

best,

[midelburgo]

Originally Posted by cornelistromp

here is another example of a Spanish 18th century cavalry bilbo, with a lion motif on the hemispherical cup. I think the rapier of post 1 has been modified a bit during its working life, guillons shortened and knuckleguard linked to the pommel.

best,

Hello Cornelistromp.

Those hilts were typical of XVIIth century rapiers, that became obsolete in Spain after Felipe V enthroning in 1701.
The sword you show is from last third of the XVIIth century. It will not fit the Spanish 1728 military regulations, not any other after that. The 1762 engraving corresponds to the model 1728 in the last two pictures of my previous post. Notice that quillons are twisted as design.

[Jim McDougall]

I think Mark and Jasper presented a very viable suggestion thier earlier posts, that this is quite possibly a Spanish colonial version of a 'bilbo' from 18th c.. It seems quite likely that the Brescian designs may have been followed later in more a 'munitions' grade development.

In the Spanish colonies the use of obsolete equipment and the continued favor of much earlier designs was prevalent. This has been constantly noted in many references concerning these colonial times and Spanish contexts.

The M1728 was a designation for the style of arming rapier which became colloquially termed 'bilbo' by collectors, and boca de caballo by locals, as previously noted. It should be remembered that these, in variation, were probably in use for years before the regulation. In references on Spain's colonies I recall notes saying that, the administrative aspects of military regulation was notoriously slow, and commonly this type of situation occurred.

Midelburgo, thank you for the excellent notes and details in your posts on this and the swords of its type! very informative and helpful in better understanding development of these features.

[midelburgo]

I have found that obsesion with "colonial" and "caribbean" Spanish swords before. I will copy myself from a previous post:

About the colonial description, we have to think that what makes nowadays differences between Hispanic America and Spain is that they have evolved in different ways since the early XIXth century. Often Hispanic America has kept characteristics from XVI to XVIIIth centuries that were also common in Spain once. Language is full of those. So it is often not easy to say that something is Colonial about a piece from the XVIIth century, because it could have been just the same at both sides of the Atlantic at its proper time.


For example the University of Mexico started working in 1551, and soon there were book presses everywhere. Of course we cannot forget the native substrate, but while this was crucial on the arts and the everyday living, it influenced little the military matters.
The swords I have shown are mostly from European (Spanish) collections. I have never seen a real Brescia hilt coming from a South America country, although probably they could be found in archeological sites (underwater specially). Officers used to return with their belongings, or they could stay.

The fact is that we have plenty of documentary data on the shipments of weapons to America in the XVIIIth century. Remember, Spain was extremely burocratic, and the archives have been kept up today. In the book I include below, some of the contracts for swords have been studied next to letters from the presidios with the opinions on Barcelona or Toledo blades.

In XVIIIth century there was precisely an obsesion with uniforms and regulated weaponry. Standardization was cheaper. Most of colonial America could have obsolete material, but irregular material will be found only in extremely backguard and isolated areas (Phillipines, New Mexico). This changed with the napoleonic invasion of the metropoli. That is the starting point for local made hilts and salvaged blades.

While I have tried to support my affirmations with similar examples and documentation, I understand there is a shortage of literature in English on this subject. Norman has scarce information on Spanish swords, and Brinckerhoff, who is focused on colonial weapons, when he did not find them in America recurred to the Madrid Army museum to fill the gap. None of them has a single image with these Brescia swords. But they are not rare at all. The metropolitan museum at NY has at least one (Sorry not image here):

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collec...=80&pos=93

I give you now the catalogue of a Spanish collection at Sevilla. From page 128 to 143 and 163, 16 swords belong to this type. All of them are described as from the XVIIth century.

http://www.museosdeandalucia.es/docu...9-892f94075587

With that obsession on "colonial" you seem to give a greater relevance to the Apache, pirate or Araucanian guerrilla warfare, than to the continuous warfare going on in Europe between the Nine years War and the War of the Spanish Sucession (the period of use of the subject sword I estimate). Of course, that is what Holywood does. The first group consisted of fights with hundreds of soldiers involved, the second with tens of thousands.

The two swords included by M Eley have nothing to do with the one I have shown. The "espada ancha" is difficult to date, could be from the end of XVIIIth century, but the second one is a "chinaco" sword from the 1860s, used by the Mexican revolutionary partidas against emperor Maximilian.

[M ELEY]

The two swords I posted were for reference to the figural quillon downfacing from the hilt and of a form found in espadas and colonial broadswords. I made no definite conclusion to this, just a possible clue. Likewise, the second posting shows a cuphilt (albeit later period) with a flattened knucklebow EXACTLY like the one on the specimen being presented. Again, I'm no expert, but wanted tp point out this interesting characterization. The knucklebow near the hilt also bears some evidence of repair, as noted by others here. This type of repair often seen here in the Americas, but of course not exclusive. Most of the examples shown have the long straight quillons of classic Spanish cuphilts, while this example is, as noted, similar to the m1728. I guess what we get into here (and have before) is how to tell a beat-up, field repaired classic Spanish cavalry type with one that was assembled from different parts in provincial/colonial settings? The example shown has a replacement grip of plain wood core? The pommel, unlike almost all of the other examples presented, is devoid of all decoration, The quillons, once again, are like the classic bilbo, but lack grace, so replacements? Repairs?

So.....if this is a European fellow, it has definitely seen some hard times

[midelburgo]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

The two swords I posted were for reference to the figural quillon downfacing from the hilt and of a form found in espadas and colonial broadswords. I made no definite conclusion to this, just a possible clue. Likewise, the second posting shows a cuphilt (albeit later period) with a flattened knucklebow EXACTLY like the one on the specimen being presented. Again, I'm no expert, but wanted tp point out this interesting characterization. The knucklebow near the hilt also bears some evidence of repair, as noted by others here. This type of repair often seen here in the Americas, but of course not exclusive. Most of the examples shown have the long straight quillons of classic Spanish cuphilts, while this example is, as noted, similar to the m1728. I guess what we get into here (and have before) is how to tell a beat-up, field repaired classic Spanish cavalry type with one that was assembled from different parts in provincial/colonial settings? The example shown has a replacement grip of plain wood core? The pommel, unlike almost all of the other examples presented, is devoid of all decoration, The quillons, once again, are like the classic bilbo, but lack grace, so replacements? Repairs?

So.....if this is a European fellow, it has definitely seen some hard times

Yes, you pointed to the knuclebow reparation, but your examples could end being used for something else. What I get from this is that there are not so many ways of making a functional field reparation of the knuclebow. In XVIIth, XVIIIth, or XIXth centuries. In Europe or the Americas. I do not have the sword here, but what I see from the picture, the top end of the grip wood was cut, and a ring inserted and this piece was riveted to the remnants of knuclebow.
No brass welding here. It could have being made to continue the military use of the sword, or in XIXth century by a collector. This sort of afterworks have an antique and primitive look, but that can be deceiving.

The funny thing is that XVIIIth century bilboes are often mistaken for XVIIth century swords, because of the ricasso and the holding hand posture, with two fingers on the cross. But that these real XVIIth century swords become mistaken for XVIIIth century ones is new to me. The fact is that Spain abandoned the use of rapiers shortly after 1700, with the new Borbon dinasty, and therefore rapiers and their hilts shall be older than that.