A 17 th century military rapier.

Cerjak · 11th April 2017, 04:31 PM

A 17 TH century military rapier.
Any comment on it would be welcome
Best

Cerjak

Cerjak · 11th April 2017, 04:36 PM

one more

fernando · 11th April 2017, 04:45 PM

Very nice.
Why is it military ?
Any marks ?

Foxbat · 11th April 2017, 05:28 PM

An honest good piece, all "together". I agree, it could be the military one, with its heavy hilt construction and lack of fancy details.

Jim McDougall · 11th April 2017, 08:59 PM

Foxbat,
Just wanted to see I have truly enjoyed your entries on these various threads, and your input and astute observations are outstanding! Thank you for these comments and for sharing your clearly experience oriented knowledge here. Most of my information is through references, and having insight from hands on experience and handling of weapons to augment such data is most valuable, and helps us all learn together.

I agree this is likely military, an arming sword, and its austere character though with wrapped grip with turks heads suggests probably a fighting example for officers?

Foxbat · 13th April 2017, 07:08 PM

Thank you for your kind comments, Jim.

As far as this particular piece, first of all, I would date it slightly earlier, the end of 16th century. Unfortunately I have not seen any clear documentation as far as the trooper versus officer styles of weapons - unlike those from, say, the 19th century. However, the wire wrap and turk heads were the norm, rather than the enhancement at that time, so, considering the overall stout but plain nature of the beast I would be inclined to consider it the standard issue arm.

Jim McDougall · 13th April 2017, 08:59 PM

My pleasure Foxbat!

Actually in thinking about it, in those earlier times, swords weren't standard 'issue' items as far as I know. It was only officers and the 'upper echelon' who could afford swords, though perhaps they would purchase more austere forms for field or campaign. Other ranks 'issue' weapons taken from armoury as required were polearms and probably firearms.

These 'arming' swords were produced by swordsmiths as sturdy and combat durable, but less decorated or embellished weapons which were carried by armourers to supply these men of means along with other arms and armor.

I am not sure either as far as actual issuance of weapons, once there were more semblance of standing armies, but later, in late 18th into 19th c. there seem to be many instances of officers 'fighting swords' and undress versions.

Philip · 21st April 2017, 08:06 AM

I agree, Jim. The workmanship on that hilt is above that of mere "munition quality", to me it looks more like a sword privately-purchased by an officer for battlefield use.

Also, weren't rapiers in general more associated with those in leadership roles (officers, noblemen, the "upper crust") by virtue of the training needed to use them effectively in the point-centered fencing techniques that were maturing during the 16th cent. onward? One would think that the rank and file (except perhaps in some elite guards units) would tend to be schooled in more conservative cut-oriented techniques using weapons like the backsword and broadsword, holdovers from late medieval traditions, and thus be equipped accordingly.

Jim McDougall · 21st April 2017, 06:49 PM

[QUOTE=Philip]I agree, Jim. The workmanship on that hilt is above that of mere "munition quality", to me it looks more like a sword privately-purchased by an officer for battlefield use.

Also, weren't rapiers in general more associated with those in leadership roles (officers, noblemen, the "upper crust") by virtue of the training needed to use them effectively in the point-centered fencing techniques that were maturing during the 16th cent. onward? One would think that the rank and file (except perhaps in some elite guards units) would tend to be schooled in more conservative cut-oriented techniques using weapons like the backsword and broadsword, holdovers from late medieval traditions, and thus be equipped accordingly.[/QUOTE

Thank you Philip, that's an excellent point! The officers and gentry were indeed well trained in fencing techniques, and would be more inclined toward swords more in accord with their station. While maintaining their fashionable rapier style hilts, the heavier 'arming' blades were more suitable for the shock and impact of combat.
Troops in other ranks were trained for more sequenced movements which were chopping and cutting actions for the heavy blades of these munition grade, issued weapons.

I recall reading once of an incident recalled by a British cavalryman at Balaklava in 1854, who was outraged at a Russian cavalryman who apparently when engaging him made a stroke with his sabre; the British officer responded......but then noted, then the fool gave me a cut #7 (clearly not the proper return in sequence), so I hit him with (cannot recall) and knocked him off his horse!

Such were the levels of combat protocol in other ranks sword training, and note that the sword moves were in numbered 'cuts' (I believe there were 8 and directionally applied from different angles).

11th April 2017, 04:31 PM	#1
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,064	A 17 th century military rapier. A 17 TH century military rapier. Any comment on it would be welcome Best Cerjak Attached Images

11th April 2017, 04:36 PM	#2
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,064	one more pic one more Attached Images

21st April 2017, 08:06 AM	#8
Philip Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: California Posts: 1,036	unadorned but still high quality I agree, Jim. The workmanship on that hilt is above that of mere "munition quality", to me it looks more like a sword privately-purchased by an officer for battlefield use. Also, weren't rapiers in general more associated with those in leadership roles (officers, noblemen, the "upper crust") by virtue of the training needed to use them effectively in the point-centered fencing techniques that were maturing during the 16th cent. onward? One would think that the rank and file (except perhaps in some elite guards units) would tend to be schooled in more conservative cut-oriented techniques using weapons like the backsword and broadsword, holdovers from late medieval traditions, and thus be equipped accordingly.

11th April 2017, 04:45 PM	#3
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,641	Very nice. Why is it military ? Any marks ?

11th April 2017, 05:28 PM	#4
Foxbat Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 69	An honest good piece, all "together". I agree, it could be the military one, with its heavy hilt construction and lack of fancy details.

11th April 2017, 08:59 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	Foxbat, Just wanted to see I have truly enjoyed your entries on these various threads, and your input and astute observations are outstanding! Thank you for these comments and for sharing your clearly experience oriented knowledge here. Most of my information is through references, and having insight from hands on experience and handling of weapons to augment such data is most valuable, and helps us all learn together. I agree this is likely military, an arming sword, and its austere character though with wrapped grip with turks heads suggests probably a fighting example for officers?

13th April 2017, 07:08 PM	#6
Foxbat Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 69	Thank you for your kind comments, Jim. As far as this particular piece, first of all, I would date it slightly earlier, the end of 16th century. Unfortunately I have not seen any clear documentation as far as the trooper versus officer styles of weapons - unlike those from, say, the 19th century. However, the wire wrap and turk heads were the norm, rather than the enhancement at that time, so, considering the overall stout but plain nature of the beast I would be inclined to consider it the standard issue arm.

13th April 2017, 08:59 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	My pleasure Foxbat! Actually in thinking about it, in those earlier times, swords weren't standard 'issue' items as far as I know. It was only officers and the 'upper echelon' who could afford swords, though perhaps they would purchase more austere forms for field or campaign. Other ranks 'issue' weapons taken from armoury as required were polearms and probably firearms. These 'arming' swords were produced by swordsmiths as sturdy and combat durable, but less decorated or embellished weapons which were carried by armourers to supply these men of means along with other arms and armor. I am not sure either as far as actual issuance of weapons, once there were more semblance of standing armies, but later, in late 18th into 19th c. there seem to be many instances of officers 'fighting swords' and undress versions.

21st April 2017, 06:49 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,738	[QUOTE=Philip]I agree, Jim. The workmanship on that hilt is above that of mere "munition quality", to me it looks more like a sword privately-purchased by an officer for battlefield use. Also, weren't rapiers in general more associated with those in leadership roles (officers, noblemen, the "upper crust") by virtue of the training needed to use them effectively in the point-centered fencing techniques that were maturing during the 16th cent. onward? One would think that the rank and file (except perhaps in some elite guards units) would tend to be schooled in more conservative cut-oriented techniques using weapons like the backsword and broadsword, holdovers from late medieval traditions, and thus be equipped accordingly.[/QUOTE Thank you Philip, that's an excellent point! The officers and gentry were indeed well trained in fencing techniques, and would be more inclined toward swords more in accord with their station. While maintaining their fashionable rapier style hilts, the heavier 'arming' blades were more suitable for the shock and impact of combat. Troops in other ranks were trained for more sequenced movements which were chopping and cutting actions for the heavy blades of these munition grade, issued weapons. I recall reading once of an incident recalled by a British cavalryman at Balaklava in 1854, who was outraged at a Russian cavalryman who apparently when engaging him made a stroke with his sabre; the British officer responded......but then noted, then the fool gave me a cut #7 (clearly not the proper return in sequence), so I hit him with (cannot recall) and knocked him off his horse! Such were the levels of combat protocol in other ranks sword training, and note that the sword moves were in numbered 'cuts' (I believe there were 8 and directionally applied from different angles).