Swordbreakers: A Myth ?

[Jim McDougall]

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

[cornelistromp]

Hi Jim,

very interesting thread. I found 4 different types.
1. Spanish main gauche with short sword catchers.
2. the saw teeth with locker (cf Boccia see pic and wallace coll.)
3. the saw teeth without locker (see bannerman 1926 and my pic)
4. the massive eastern type. (my pic)

regards from Amsterdam

[Matchlock]

Great job, Cornelis, thank you!

Now let's add the Dresden piece which, as well as one of your Spanish items, clearly shows signs of hard employment as a broken tooth has been repaired by copper soldering. It was made in Italy in about 1585 and given to Christian I, Elector of Saxony, in 1587.

Please note that all these multifunctional items are actually combination weapons. In the case of the Dresden combined blade catcher and breaker, you can see little riveted swivelling stops at the entrances beween the teeth: once the opponent's blade was caught between two teeth the stop would immediately prevent it from been withdrawn, and it could be broken.

I add more of these combined edged weapons from various museums; they are all united in a highly recommendable book:

Heinz-Werner Lewerken: Kombinationswaffen des 15.-19. Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1989, ISBN 3-327-00516-8.

Don't worry about the text being in German; the huge and detailed photos, as well as the datings and exact measurements, will be perfectly understood by everyone!
It comprises important items from the Met, The Royal Armouries Leeds, the German Historic Museum (DHM) Berlin and of course the Dresden museums.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

Here's a link where to purchase numerous cheap copies of Kombinationswaffen at abebooks.com:

http://www.abebooks.de/servlet/Searc...waffen&x=0&y=0

Michael

[fernando]

A pity they are all in 'alemão' .



Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

Absolutely fantastic you guys!!!!
This is exactly the kind of discussion and analysis I had hoped for

Questions like these have often been on my mind in years gone by. However, using the only resources typically at hand, as I have cited in my original post the results were at best, inconclusive. Any sort of sound analysis was unlikely without field study, clearly out of reach, or the opinions of many arms writers who often perpetuate those of earlier writers left only unresolved questions.

Finally, here we have international expertise with fantastic resources compiled into a wonderfully comprehensive forensic study of our topic!
The examples shared here by Michael and Cornelius from thier files are amazing and most of these I have never seen before.
Thank you both so much for posting all of these, and Michael, for such great detail, as well as the link to the combination weapons book.

Fernando, you are far too modest, and as I have always noted, you always come up with references from Portuguese resources, which have too often not been adequately represented in international historical exchange in altogether too many studies. You have always represented the key importance of Portugal well in your outstanding contributions, as well as your keen insight into the weapons.
Just as you have mentioned, the 'rompepuntas' is yet another fanciful interpretation devised by romantic writers it would seem, and a good example of this kind of perspective with weapons. I was not aware of the Portuguese influence noted with the trident type parrying weapon, but seems to make perfect sense.

I must say however, that with the numerous examples presented here by Cornelius and Michael, the evidence for at least some degree of actual use of these 'swordbreakers' seems compelling, especially with the evidence of damage in one or more. This of course admittedly may be the result of curious 'testing' or 'horseplay' with these in later years, but I note that here only as a matter of consideration.
The best evidence will be in finding contemporary records advocating or discussing the use of these in actual sword combat.

Thank you again guys, very very much!

All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

Hi Jim,

Fun thread!

I keep being reminded of the episode of Mythbusters where they attempted to cut a sword with a sword, and proved how difficult that feat was (basically, those movie shots of people cutting others' rapiers in half wouldn't work). Given that brute-force, edge on hacking of two swords against each other was insufficient in most cases to break either blade, I'd be real surprised if either the European or eastern sword-breakers actually lived up to their names. Rather, I think they're for grabbing and temporarily holding blades. That would give a small advantage to the person with the sword-breaker, and might justify the use of the weapon. It would also explain the damage seen.

Just a thought,

F

[Paul Macdonald]

Hi Folks,

A good topic.

If I may shed some light on the practical potential and effective use of these weapons...

The legend of `swordbreakers` is one that has been repeated and accepted in history every bit as much as `blood-grooves`!

Let us first look to the blades that these daggers are supposed to break. The `swordbreaking` daggers predominately date from the C17th, and are designed to be used in conjunction with and be facing the civilian rapier in single combat.
Rapier blades of the C17th do vary in section, width and thickness, largely depending upon the fencing style it is designed for, or down to personal preference in size and weight.

Regardless of width and thickness though, one essential standard prevails - that of quality of temper required for any rapier blade of practical use.

The thickness of any one well made and tempered rapier blade will vary from forte to foible with distal taper, becoming thinner towards the point, but in a different manner to a broadsword blade.

A broad or backsword blade is designed primarily to cut effectively and be light and fast in doing so. The distal taper therefore is pronounced, with many original blades tapering to a fraction of 1mm thick near the point. I have handled many originals where the blade steel tapers to the thickness no more than that of heavy paper or thin card. Steel this thin is effective for a cutting blade.

A rapier blade is designed primarily to thrust and pierce. It is designed to be used for two combative scenarios - the pre-arranged duel and the street fight. In the street fight, that piercing blade must pierce the body efficiently through whatever clothing the opponent wears. A blade too thin here would be a liability. Some thickness of steel and hardness of temper is therefore required for a good rapier blade to pierce without overly flexing.

Any well tempered and hardened blade is difficult to break without large amounts of leverage and pressure. Effective mechanical leverage relies upon some distance between point of contact (fulcrum) and the point where force is applied.

For dagger examples where the quillions turn towards the point, then yes, these can effectively catch an opponents blade, but there is minimal distance from point of force (hand) and fulcrum.
This combined with the fact that pommels and quillions are traditionally crafted in a softer working material than the weapon blade gives us combined elements of insufficient force of leverage and weaker material of construction. These do not give us practical dynamics with which to physically break a blade.

Also martially speaking, there is no great advantage gained to breaking an opponents blade. A broken blade is never a blunt blade, but a sharp and jagged ended blade that is just as easily stuck through face or belly all the same.

Advantage can be gained however, in restricting the opponents movement in terms of footwork or bladework. Simply trapping the opponents blade for a second or a fraction thereof is all that may be required for a successfully placed thrust, all the while secure from your opponents offence.
Downturned dagger quillions firstly act as a check to stop the opponents blade sliding or bouncing off onto your own target at the moment of defence. Once the blade has entered here, a turn of the dagger in the hand can also momentarily lock the blade in place while your own attack is made.

I hope that this helps regarding practical function of main gauche dagger forms

Macdonald
www.macdonaldarms.com
http://www.historicalfencing.org/Mac...mory/index.htm

[fearn]

Gotta admit, I'm thinking that some of these (like that lantern shield) should be cross-posted in the "10 weirdest blades" thread....

F