French colichemarde

[urbanspaceman]

Here we are with yet another question regarding colichemardes:
is anyone aware of a French hilted hollow-ground colichemarde smallsword.
Easy question.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Here we are with yet another question regarding colichemardes:
is anyone aware of a French hilted hollow-ground colichemarde smallsword.
Easy question.

Yes, I have one. An early model 1767 officers sword.

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you for that. Could you determine if the lower face is a hollow of gradually decreasing radius or a constant width groove please. I can't make it out from the photo.
ps
do you know where it came from (where did you acquire it, I mean)?
pps
1767 is the heyday for these swords over here.

[urbanspaceman]

Forgive me if I am mistaken, but is this not the French infantry officer's sword Regulation 25th April 1767:

ps
A superb sword

[Radboud]

From what I’ve read the m1767 regulation hilt was silver or silver plated. They can also be identified by the faux turks head knots on the grip. It’s quite common to see them now in their base metal (a copper alloy) with the plating worn away.

My sword came from a dealer in the UK, who in turn acquired it from Matt Easton.

[Radboud]

do these photos help?

[urbanspaceman]

This is a machine rolled fuller.

Actually, the word fuller was originally the name of the tool used to hammer in the hollow. Anyway, a steel roller under huge pressure bore down on hot stock wedged into a mold cut into the anvil top producing the two upper hollows (same way as they made estocs, then later on Brown Bess triangular bayonets.
Sorry, I am editing here as it is confusing, the upper pair of hollows (with a medial ridge) are on the bottom of the hot stock. They are known as the top of the blade, even though they are below in the en guard position... I think.
It was how they could produce a hollowed smallsword blade in a single pass, as a reducing radius hollow was impossible.
As far as I am aware - hence my question regarding colichemardes - all colichemardes have the groove, a product of the machine which was chased out of Solingen due to the guild's Luddite viewpoint.
The Mohll family owned it and brought it to Shotley Bridge to produce hollow blades at a reasonable price as there were tariffs and heavy taxes on German imports.
The conclusion I recently reached was that the French would not be buying from Shotley Bridge, hence my search for French hilted colichemardes. Even George Washington's colichemardes had to come from England.
All of the dealers and collectors I have consulted agree that there are none but it is not totally impossible.
Does your sword have a groove? Also, why do you think the hilt is French?

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Does your sword have a groove? Also, why do you think the hilt is French?

Yes, there is a groove on the underside of the blade that terminates about where the blade begins to broaden out.

My sources for why my sword is a m1767 are other collectors and Michel Petard ‘Des Sabres et Des Epees’ Volume 3 pg 67.

[Radboud]

and Jean L’Host ‘Les Epees Porters en France des Origines a nostalgic Jours’ Pg 187 & 188

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you for your help with this issue, it is much appreciated.
There seems to have been a rather wide variety of hilt styles with this pattern: mine (shown earlier) is different again with the pronounced double quillons.
What is most unusual is to have that French hilt on a Shotley Bridge blade.
I suppose French cuttlers could have access to London merchants during that period; let's face it, business is business, regardless of all else.
Do you happen to know what Matt had to say about it?
Anyway, thanks again. Keith.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

There seems to have been a rather wide variety of hilt styles with this pattern: mine (shown earlier) is different again with the pronounced double quillons.

Hi Keith, why do you think the smallsword you posted has a m1767 hilt on it?

All the attributed examples I've seen follow a fairly uniform (for the time) pattern. As seen in the texts I've posted above.

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

What is most unusual is to have that French hilt on a Shotley Bridge blade.
I suppose French cuttlers could have access to London merchants during that period.

When I run my finger along the inside of the fuller/grove in the back of the blade, it isn't completely uniform. There is a noticable change in depth closer to the tip of the blade. This is different to my English smallsword which also has a grove (but no colichemarde), which is very uniform. Maybe the French blade was hand forged or not a Shotley Bridge supplied blade.

Re Matt Easton, I haven't asked him about my sword, I don't think he attributed any model to it when he had it.

[urbanspaceman]

Hello again. I was thinking the same thing. I bought it purely on the basis of "like the look of that" and it was some time later that I saw a sword that looked remarkably similar and was titled 1767 etc. I didn't do any thorough research because it fell outside of my Shotley Bridge quest at the time. It was only when you posted your example that I began to give it my attention.
I've never really considered it a smallsword but it is, isn't it? Albeit, a battlefield weapon rather than a civilian one. The blade is superb, just stiff enough for penetration AND razor sharp. It has a most curious cartouche with an even more puzzling motto that, so far, has defied translation. It is identical on both sides.

If it is not a pattern 1767 then I can't imagine what it is… maybe it is just a sword, custom made to suit. Regardless, I am very fond of it.
OK, enough of that, now the colichemarde: it is certainly a typical colichemarde blade but then again there are different versions of the groove. Here are four, from my friend Mel again (he has specialised in collecting smallswords ) and in one case you will see the roller traveled right up to the ricasso.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

I've never really considered it a smallsword but it is, isn't it? Albeit, a battlefield weapon rather than a civilian one. The blade is superb, just stiff enough for penetration AND razor sharp.

Hi Keith,

It's a lovely sword. What more reason do we need aside from "I like the look"? I've applied the same thinking to all my smallswords, and of the two that I have managed to identify as actual patterns (which, if you think about it, should be the minority of smallswords), it was only after I had them in hand and luck.

Without the benefit of having your sword in hand, I would certainly classify it as a smallsword.

And to be honest, we need to take a step back from being a "battlefield weapon rather than a civilian one". The distinction is just too nuanced to make. Officers weren't meant to fight hand to hand, so their sword was more a symbol of status and a backup weapon.

In the late 18th Century, an officer of the line would have carried a spontoon as his "weapon" and badge of rank and used primarily for directing his troops in battle. As a gentleman, his sidearm would have been a smallsword or a hunting sword-style hanger if permitted by the regiment. And unless there were a regimental pattern, the smallsword carried would have been a private purchase to the officers' specifications.

This changed throughout the American Revolution, where spontoons were unofficially discarded in favour of smallswords, spadroons and hangers. For example, George Washington was known to carry a smallsword on campaign (in addition to other swords).

Even into the late Victorian era, we have photos of officers in the field with their 1831 Pattern General officers swords (most of which are more dress than practical).

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

OK, enough of that, now the colichemarde: it is certainly a typical colichemarde blade but then again there are different versions of the groove. Here are four, from my friend Mel again (he has specialised in collecting smallswords ) and in one case you will see the roller traveled right up to the ricasso.

Are all grooves in the back of tri-foil blades assumed to have been produced in a roller press? Surely some could have been produced with a regular die like fullers were produced for other swords?

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you for the info; I know nothing about military history in any of its manifestations.
I do know that if, while possibly engaged, I was choosing between a typical smallsword - be it colichemarde or not - or this sword of mine, I would not hesitate to choose the latter.

These early Shotley Bridge smallswords that I have are a perfect example of this weapon, even though they were forged in 1687/8. That said, I am now fully convinced this sword of mine is in fact a smallsword, and I don't know why I didn't assume that from the start.
With regard to the colichemarde grooves, my thinking has been this: according to the various professors of engineering at my local universities, a groove of this type would be more difficult to hand fashion than the typical hollow, so consequently, "why bother". Unless the weight and stiffness of the blade on a colichemarde is improved by the groove, which is possible. There is a thesis by a fellow member of the Arms and Armour Society, Maciej Pulaczewski, that may interest you. I can email you a pdf, it is an exemplary work.
ps. the blade length of my 'possible 1767 sword' is 34 inches (87cms) which puts it beyond the majority of smallswords by a significant margin including the maximum 1786 pattern of 78cms.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Thank-you for your help with this issue, it is much appreciated.
There seems to have been a rather wide variety of hilt styles with this pattern: mine (shown earlier) is different again with the pronounced double quillons.
What is most unusual is to have that French hilt on a Shotley Bridge blade.
I suppose French cuttlers could have access to London merchants during that period; let's face it, business is business, regardless of all else.
Do you happen to know what Matt had to say about it?
Anyway, thanks again. Keith.

Hi Keith,
While not able to add a lot here, I still follow as most interesting as always, Your command of Shotley and all related is unsurpassed.
Regarding the 'French connection' , there were always cross influences and diffusion between England and France AFIK. I know that during the Jacobite matters from late 17th through Culloden there was of course a great deal of 'staging' for the cause in France.
It seems there were many cases of blades with fleur de lis marks, and that at some location there was a 'fluer de lis' street in England where cutlers would acquire bundles of blades. I unfortunately cannot locate the source again (perhaps Aylward?).
I have seen blades with fluer de lis in British hilts pre Culloden, and there are suggestions this was a mark used in England...also suggested as the mark for the Paris arsenal.

What Im getting to is, would it be likely that French hilts, as a matter of fashion, would be mounted with Shotley blades?

While of course out of context, in the Spanish colonies in the Americas through the 18th century, it was not uncommon to see Toledo blades mounted in French hilts in the 'espadin' (small sword).

[Jim McDougall]

In rereading this thread, there is attention to the French M1767 regulation sword, In my understanding, the character of most 'regulation' swords in many if not most cases, is an official recognition of a standard pattern in use in a certain capacity by regular military forces. Often these simply record the forms already in use and simply record this and note as 'officially' sanctioned.

For example, with the British hangers of mid 18th century, these regarded as 'official' patterns were actually recognizing the two ubiquitous German style forms in use as depicted in two paintings for illustration of uniforms. The 'pattern' years were taken from the dates of the paintings.

With the colichemarde blade type, it seems to me that while evolved in the 17th century surrounded by a certain amount of 'lore' , it was intended primarily with the intent more pragmatically to respond to dueling or combat. According to some sources, these had fallen out of favor in the private sector by the latter part of first half of 18th c. and generally the trefoil blade had become more standard.

Meanwhile, the military with typical adherence to tradition and the attention to fashion and degree of flamboyance of officers, the colichemarde type blades remained popular with officers well through the 18th century.
The notion of its associations with dueling and robust character naturally appealed to most officers in the expected hubris oriented associations.

Military officers of course privately acquired their weapons, and nominally adhered to regulations in degree, but often notable variations occurred.

PS Radboud, thank you so much for adding these pages from these rather hard to acquire references!!!

[urbanspaceman]

Hi Jim. Here is a Google translation of the text in those pages; unfortunately not in order but easily discerned. I can send you them by email if you wish.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

With regard to the colichemarde grooves, my thinking has been this: according to the various professors of engineering at my local universities, a groove of this type would be more difficult to hand fashion than the typical hollow, so consequently, "why bother". Unless the weight and stiffness of the blade on a colichemarde is improved by the groove, which is possible.

Fantastic that you've been able to show and discuss these blades with expert engineers. A lot can be learned from specialists who are "outside our field".

I will add a couple of caveats, though.

1. They are looking back in time with the benefit of a better understanding of metallurgy and the technology to measure the impact of changes.
2. How familiar are they with the available technology of the time especially as it relates to blacksmithing?
3. They are engineers and not blacksmiths. I expect blacksmiths will have a more intimate knowledge of working steel.

When looking at choices made, maybe "because it looks good" is enough to answer the "why bother" question. Look to the different fuller combinations in late 18th-century and early 19th-century sabres. These would also have needed to be pressed out with a die. Also labour was comparatively inexpensive at the time. Take this spadroon hilt for example:



There is no reason for this level of faceting aside from how it looks, even the lanyard ring is faceted. Think of the man hours that took for no practical reason.

Back to the rolled blades, is the fuller even necessary for the manufacturing process? Is it unique to the process or were they imitating a specific look? Making a blade look more expensive to produce as a possible explaination?

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

ps. the blade length of my 'possible 1767 sword' is 34 inches (87cms) which puts it beyond the majority of smallswords by a significant margin including the maximum 1786 pattern of 78cms.

That is a very long blade for a smallsword, I'd almost go so far as to say that almost excludes it from being a French sword (French dismounted swords tend to be on the shorter side). In my modest collection of eight smallswords, only one has a 88cm blade and that's a Spanish cup hilt. From speaking with HEMA students, the Spanish smallsword system retained a lot from their rapier styles preferring longer blades and including more cuts than the French system.