17th Century Walloon swords
 

Hello all, I'm trying to find more history on the so-called 'Amsterdam Town Guards' Walloon sword.

Attachment 227869

Attachment 227870

Generally speaking, the term 'Walloon sword' is now applied to a broad range of swords typically characterised by its distinctive hilt, which features asymmetrical discs for the guard, a knuckle bow, spherical pommel, rear quillon and often one or two side branches to form a basket hilt.

The 'Amsterdam' swords vary from this type by having only the single knuckle guard, a distinctive perforated guard, where the holes are decorated to look like small stars or suns. It is believed that these swords date back to between 1650 and 1700 and are unique for the uniformity of their design. The bulk of these swords feature a 36-inch (92mm) broadsword blade and are believed to have been used by the cavalry. Occasionally swords with shorter blades do show up with claims that they were for infantry. But I have to wonder if the blades have not been shortened in the last 300 years. The same holds true for when these is a backsword on one of these hilts... How do we know this is the original blade?

Attachment 227873

Attachment 227874

Attachment 227875

Originally these swords were believed to have belonged to the Amsterdam city militia because they are almost universally marked with the Amsterdam Coat of Arms:

Attachment 227871

Attachment 227872

However, too many of this type have survived for them to have been exclusive to a city militia. Another theory goes that the French captured several 'walloon' swords in their war with the Dutch in 1672-1673 and called them epee wallone based on this design, French King Louis XIV in 1679 ordered that his cavalry be armed with a specific sword based on this type. If correct, it would represent the first official French pattern sword. The rationale behind the Amsterdam stamp, is that the order went through the cities' guilds when Solingen refused to deal with France at the time.

This argument is made in the French magazine; Gazette des armes No. 473 March 2015

Another possibility is that these swords were supplied to the standing army of the Province of Holland, of which Amsterdam was the economic capital. In the 17th Century, The Netherlands was a republic of seven Provinces. Rather than having one unified standing army, these provinces each would have supplied and maintained their own levies under their banner in times of war.

I think the presence of the Amsterdam stamp is key in this puzzle. Is it unique to these swords, meaning it could be a Pattern specific to the Holland provincial army. Or was the mark applied to other swords indicating that it was a commercial guild mark of the Amsterdam guilds (who wielded a lot of influence at the time).

Has anyone encounter the three XXXs on a crowned shield on any other type of blade?

(For cultural reference, to this day the XXX motif can be seen everywhere one looks in the city of Amsterdam.)

In the case of these types, Amsterdam was a major exporter of arms and armour, including items that they acted as middlemen for. The 'Sahagun' mark and Passau running wolf are generally considered to be a sign that the blade was made in Germany for onward export by the Dutch. The XXX Amsterdam control mark is often found under the hilt or overlapped by it, indicating assembly after inspection in Amsterdam, though there is some evidence of hilts also being made in Germany, such as at Koln (Cologne).
Vast amounts of arms and armour were imported from the continent by both sides in the English Civil War, including from Holland where they sent buyers and there is at least one Parliamentary record of an order for '200 swords with Dutch blades'.
The English 'Walloon' sword may predate these, and carries on into the late C17th. Similar style, but often with a cylindrical pommel, sometimes ribbed, with two side bars to the knucklebow and no thumb ring. The shell guards are smaller with piercings only in the middle part of the plate. I have one, that from the overall size, is probably for use on foot.

Thank you for adding your knowledge to this. Would you have any images of other blades with this Amsterdam mark? I’ve looked but not had a lot of luck.

Unfortunately this link is now defunct. Does anyone still have a working link or a copy that they would be willing to share?

Also, will leave a link Gabri's latest video on these here for those interested in the type.

I enjoyed Gabri's video, unfortunatly much the same theories about the origin of this type. I think we can all agree that the too many examples survive for it to have been a militia's sword. However that doesn't exclude them from having been for a state armory. We see plenty of examples from other European armories that housed masses of equipment.

The issue that I have with the other theory, the tripple X mark belonging to Dutch merchants or guild who onsold the swords, is that we only see this mark on this specific pattern of sword. If it was a merchants' mark we would see it on other types of swords.

Below are screen shots I took of the article. To be honest, from what I read through Google Translate, it doesn't add much to the discussion either. Looking at their example, it also has a number of variations to the typical examples you see in the digital catalogue of the Dutch Army Museum (search for "Waalse degen").

Thanks Radboud! Time to practice mon français (even if it does not resolve this particular discussion). :D

EDIT: Also, interesting that this one has a TOLEDO(?) inscription and simple holes iso stars in the guard plates.

Walloon
 

It has to do with economy and profit; these swords were easier to produce in large quantities and thus suitable for sale.
They were very versatile swords, practical and useful in many circumstances by both infantry and cavalry, etc. The Walloon sword remained in use for over 100 years, primarily in the Netherlands, Germany, and France, and also has many variants. Many have withstood the test of time, but in most, the plates in the guard rings have disappeared.

English? walloon?
 

Thank you guys for this valuable discussion.
I have this example which has been neglected in research for decades, and have always simply presumed it was English, and probably of c. 1690s.
In reading these entries, I am curious if my presumption was anywhere near correct.
I hope with the knowledge apparent here for either confirmation or more informed observations.
Its rough, I know, but I tend to leave examples unrestored.

walloon
 

Hi Jim ,
not saying it could not be Englisch, but the type style and form are typical French between 1750 and 1780

Thank you Dirk! Then perhaps even tenuous possibility of Culloden (1746) association in degree (by type) as there were some French contingents there as Jacobites. Were turks heads used on grips that late?

Closest mark I found in the book 1000 Marks of European Bladesmiths, page 113.

There is a theory that lots of swords not unlike this - date of origin unknown - were captured from the Dutch in the field and in their armouries during the Rampjaar or 'disaster year' of 1672, and that's when they were adopted by the French as a pattern sword, with subsequent French production leading to the 1679.

Turkish knots were still in use on some officers swords, on troopers mostly wire or solid brass hilts, here is a French model 1734. The first French model with a brass hilt is as early as 1680 but it has a single guard plate.
There was a cross-pollination between the Jacobins and the French, in the 18th century the French King had Jacobins in his personal guard with typical Scottish Basket hilt swords with some a blade with "Vive Le Roy"

Are there any confirmed French made examples of the M1679? If so, how do they differ from the Amsterdam town guard Walloons, if at all? I've been looking for pictures.

There are several other subtle flaws with this example that lead me to suspect it's been restored. As you observe, the pattern of the piercings plus the missing star detail on the holes makes it likely that the plates are replacements.

Furthermore, the pommel shape is off, and it's missing some of the finer details again. Plus, the point where the knuckle bow is joined to the pommel is recessed, something I haven't seen on any originals.

On the TOL inscription, this isn't surprising; a lot of these and other swords for this region have spurious Spanish markings (the most obvious being the Sahagum) and given the history Spain has here, you'd expect their sword smiths to be associated with quality, much like Andreara Ferrara in the British Isles.

This is the problem: I'm not aware of any evidence that there even was a m1679 pattern sword. All we have is a single quote from King Louis XIV wanting an improved sword for the cavalry...

I believe that the French author Christian Aries was the first to connect the 'Amsterdam' sword with that quote, and subsequent authors just followed along without adding any evidence of their own.

Most definitely, the French Epee d’officier d’infanterie m1767 has a faux Turks head on the grip, and I have a French silver hilted smallsword with them that's hallmarked to 1760.

all with turkisch knots :the first is French Model 1734 , the second Louis XV 1750 and the third is ca 1770