Estoc sword of type XVII ?

[Foxbat]

Even though I agree with Roland that the typical estoc blade was triangular or square/diamond shape, I have seen estocs with fullers. Less common, yes.

Considering the rather long dimension, I would be inclined to put this nice sword in the same group - by application - as the more traditional estocs.

[Victrix]

I think it is a Reiterschwert with that blade length and width, and with the fuller reaching all the way down to tbe tip. The quillons and tbe pommel indicate this sword was made for fencing. Are the edges of the blade sharpened for cutting with? As far as I’m aware, estoc blades tend to be longer and thinner with very sharp and solid (fuller, if any, ends higher up the blade to increase strength) tips. They are made for thrust rather than cut. The steel had to be especially hardened for their purpose.

[Tordenskiold1721]

Its a very nice sword, Congratulations ! I agree that this sword is for use by the horse mounted carry or in German language "Reiterschwert", as some choose to use. In English, Reiterschwert = Riders sword.

The dating to the late 1400'hundreds also looks about right. We can say for sure that it is not an Estoc. The blade is not made for piercing plate armor or good quality mail of the period.

Definition of the Estoc:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc

The grip and handle on the sword could easily have been fitted with an Estoc blade but it is not. The length of the blade is also about the same as on an Estoc as the Estoc's is also made for the horse mounted man.

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Tordenskiold1721

We can say for sure that it is not an Estoc. The blade is not made for piercing plate armor or good quality mail of the period.

For clarity, estocs were not meant for piercing plate armor, or even good quality riveted mail for the simple reason that they were not capable of doing that. They were capable of defeating leather armor, gambesons and low quality mail, but not much more than this.

[Tordenskiold1721]

Originally Posted by Foxbat

For clarity, estocs were not meant for piercing plate armor, or even good quality riveted mail for the simple reason that they were not capable of doing that. They were capable of defeating leather armor, gambesons and low quality mail, but not much more than this.

Please provide your references ?

It is not the armor plate itself that is to be pierced but the small openings areas were the plate armor connects such as were the Paulerons, Vembrances, Rerebrace, Cuter, Tassets, etc. And yes a good Estoc will penetrate good mail. Chain mail primarily protects against cuts and slash but is vulnerable to trust, tightly connected mail rings(high quality) and lesser tightly connected rings(low quality). Thinner/ weaker blades such as the one shown here might break when driven between the Paulderons and breast plate.

Please see this very good definition of the Estoc again and its purpose again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoc

Its actually a good explanation made in short and clear.

Unfortunately I am traveling right now. So I can not show you photos of my own period armor's and chain mails and armor piercing and fighting weapons. Its a interesting subject in it self. Subject such as Estoc, armor piercing daggers, war hammers, pole arms, pole axes etc :-) The original items makes it easy to understand the connections regarding the aforementioned.



Hand and a half Estoc fighting during tournament. Note how the combatants are searching for the opening in the opponents plate armor

[Foxbat]

Originally Posted by Tordenskiold1721

Hand and a half Estoc fighting during tournament. Note how the combatants are searching for the opening in the opponents plate armor

That is correct, but searching for openings is very different from the common perception of piercing the armor - which is plain impossible.

On subject of mail - there have been many, many attempts at piercing it, so generally speaking, a very thin blade in most cases fails to split even one ring on a high quality riveted mail. In few cases when it was able to, it certainly did not produce anything even close to a disabling wound. In order to produce it it would have to split many, many rings - remember, usually there was a gambeson under the mail.

Fortunately for the estoc owner, great majority of fighters didn't have such armor. So estoc was potentially quite effective in the battle, but not because it was able to pierce the plate.

Just clarifying...

[Victrix]

I read Cerjak’s post again more carefully and the sword is very long with an overall length of 127.5cm and blade lenghth of 109cm. This seems to suggest that it could be described as a ”longsword” although the hilt is not that big? Cerjak describes it as ”well balanced” and it weights only 1260g, which suggests that it was made for fencing with despite its considerable length. Are the side edges sharp? Then we have the grip made from horn which is a material more common for hunting equipment.

Cerjak also posted a picture of the sword from the Metropolitan museum with gilded pommel and quillons and silk covered grip, which seems to be made for tournaments. Then Tordensiöld posted the fascinating picture of combatants with huge estocs, equiped with special grip supports on the blades. I wonder if Cerjak’s sword could be a special duel/tournament sword?

The estoc changed its shape and form over the centuries that it remained in use. The sword pictured below is a much later Hungarian estoc/panzerstecher/koncerz from the end of the 17thC. These were used mainly for penetrating chainmail, which which were still in use by the Ottomans at the time. The sword is overall 120cm long, blade length 109cm, width at forte 2.4cm, width at ricasso 1.7cm. The blade is diamond shape in cross-section with a sharply pointed tip but the edges are not sharp. The blade is rigid stiff. It has a fuller near the hilt but this is only 19.5cm long. These were used by mounted hussars who would charge the enemy at speed with the estocs. The idea was that the tip would enter a ring in the chainmail, and then the momentum of the charge would expand or collapse the ring, enabling the estoc to penetrate deeper.

[Tordenskiold1721]

Originally Posted by Victrix

The sword pictured below is a much later Hungarian estoc/panzerstecher/koncerz from the end of the 17thC. These were used mainly for penetrating chainmail, which which were still in use by the Ottomans at the time. The sword is overall 120cm long, blade length 109cm, width at forte 2.4cm, width at ricasso 1.7cm. The blade is diamond shape in cross-section with a sharply pointed tip but the edges are not sharp. The blade is rigid stiff. It has a fuller near the hilt but this is only 19.5cm long. These were used by mounted hussars who would charge the enemy at speed with the estocs. The idea was that the tip would enter a ring in the chainmail, and then the momentum of the charge would expand or collapse the ring, enabling the estoc to penetrate deeper.

Thanks for posting this important and very good Estoc Victrix !! It's a pleasure seeing it.

As you point out it is designed to penetrate mail armor, a job the sharp and strong tip would do with ease when trusted hard into mail. Mail of any quality does not hold up well against a good trust from a solid sharp tipped blade.

I found two of the old History channel documentaries that might be of interest to some. It is orientated around the development of armor from chain mail and how, when the mail armor was not strong enough to stand piercing weapons the plate armor started developing. Here we also see some tests of the weaknesses of mail against trusting weapons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98hRtOJqOYE&t=121s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syPjIZIrG7k

The plate armor was developed due to the weakness of the mail armor and especially the weakness the mail has against trusting weapons. The above two History Channel documentaries explains this development.

In the drawing below it seems as the mounted rider to the left is penetrating his enemy's mail with an "Estoc" type weapon rather than an lance: