Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Yesterday, 08:40 PM   #1
urbanspaceman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Tyneside. North-East England
Posts: 636
Default Peter Munsten and family

Name:  ice_screenshot_20170915-143346.jpeg
Views: 45
Size:  160.4 KB

When the English civil war began, Benjamin Stone (principle mill owner in Hounslow) relocated to Oxford to serve the King; Cromwell then commandeered 'SOME' of the Hounslow mills and converted them to powder mills. Along with Stone there were various German smiths in Oxford e.g. Peter Munsten (the younger) and Heinrich Hoppie (senior). Two others were Heinrich Hoppie (the younger) and Peter Henekells, who returned to Hounslow, then left with Dell for Shotley Bridge in 1685.
It has been stated by various chroniclers that Hoppie (Sr) and Munsten - in an attempt to return to work at their mills in Hounslow – had petitioned the Crown and the Cutlers Guild but were rejected by both: this is not the case.
Ref. Tom Girtin: The Mark of the Sword (A narrative history of the Cutlers Company)
"As early as 1674 the King (Charles II) had declared that England should once again have its own sword manufactory; the Cutlers Guild had concurrently approached the Master of the King's Great Ordnance of the Tower with a view to establishing a manufactory and had also approached Munsten and Hoppie seeking their involvement.
Despite such favourable beginnings, nothing came of it; here was one of those schemes that simply did not come to fruition. Hoppie and Munsten subsequently sent this petition directly to the King, and yet again it was without result."
"In 1629 they were brought over to England by William Heyden and the late King (Charles 1st) and set up their manufacturies at Hounslow; that in the wars they followed his majesty to Oxford, for which Cromwell took their mills from them and converted them into powder mills; that they only remain who know the Art and foreign workmen are hard to obtain, as they are obliged to swear, on leaving the trade, not to discover it on the pain of death; that his majesty ordered the late Colonel to see them provided for, which he doubtless would have done had he lived; and that his majesty desire of setting up the said manufacture in England may be performed by the instructions of the said Hoppie and Munsten, if they receive his majesty’s encouragement."
(KF) We now know that the Crown had developed other plans for an English sword manufactory – out of reach of the City of London, the Cutler's Guild and Parliament. Also, at that time, import agents had brought in huge quantities of very low priced blades which had saturated the London market; nothing new there then.
urbanspaceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 12:46 AM   #2
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,336
Default

This family of Solingen swordsmiths is one of the more complex it would seem, mostly from their movements as well as having same names.
The Bezdek entry focused on the name change to Peter English and the convention of using Peter Munsten the elder, and Peter Munsten the younger adds to this with the name change.

I think James Mann ("Wallace Collection", 1962) confuses things with the comment, 'this Peter Munsten who went to London could not be the one who was mayor of Solingen'........
Also unclear is exactly when Hounslow began, noting the date span 1620-1634.

Peter Munsten the ELDER (1552-1628) who was indeed mayor of Solingen for a period, actually did go to London for a short period due to the troubles of the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) but returned to Solingen.
Munsten worked in Solingen along with Johannes Hoppe, who used the mark of a wildman, and for a time Munsten did as well. They along with others went to Hounslow (it is confusing as London is noted, and Munsten did have a very few swords marked with his name and ME FECIT LONDON).


He is the MUNSTEN associated with the RUNNING WOLF incorporated with his name on a rapier and ME FECIT SOLINGEN.

His son, Peter Munsten the YOUNGER (1580-1629) also was noted in Solingen, and apparently for a time used a Madonna and Child mark, but used the MOORS HEAD as well. This Moors Head had apparently been a family mark used by his father, as well as his grandfather ANDREAS MUNSTEN. He also spelled his name PETHER, as seen on some blades.
He also went to Hounslow and stayed .

He was the one who changed his name to PETER ENGLISH in Hounslow.

The grandfather ANDREAS MUNSTEN was the progenitor and in Solingen used marks with crown and AM 1547-1587......1587 -1610 he worked in TOLEDO, where he used the moors head as well as an A in a shield.

The pages shown are from "The Wallace Collection", James Mann, 1962,

and "European Makers of Edged Weapons, Their Marks" , Staffan Kinman, 2015.

It would seem that the elder Munsten did use the running wolf in accord with his name and me fecit Solingen, which is where the association came in.

I thought my geneology was bad!! yikes!
Attached Images
  
Jim McDougall is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 12:09 PM   #3
urbanspaceman
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Tyneside. North-East England
Posts: 636
Default London versus Hounslow

One of the potential issues, that has had me wondering, is the perceived differentiation between London and Hounslow; it is like Solingen (pronounced zolling by the natives incidentally) and Remscheid.
Did the immigrants consider Hounslow as London?
Apparently Greenwich remained active well into the Civil War (did it go beyond?).
Hounslow, a mere dozen miles away, was still essentially rural, so I have always assumed London to mean Greenwich.
Name:  dell signature and Hanger.jpg
Views: 4
Size:  51.0 KB
Johannes Dell, for example, did his apprenticeship in London and marked his blades as such. This was during his first nine years over here (1640 – '49) and before he moved to Hounslow during the Civil War to fill the spaces left by the Royalist armourers up in Oxford.
The reason I emphasized 'some' of the mills being converted earlier was because surely, no way was Cromwell so stupid as to destroy entirely such a valuable source of high class weaponry; in fact, he had an army permanently barracked on the Heath after the war. Guns…? Yes! But not to the exclusion of fine blades. Again, I mention this because it has, too often, been claimed that Cromwell destroyed all of Hounslow's facilities to make gunpowder. So, was Greenwich able to supply as much as needed and was Hounslow not needed… I doubt it.
So when Munsten and Hoppe couldn't get their Hounslow mills back did they begin working in Greenwich.
One of the reasons I have focused on this issue is because I don't understand why Munsten and Hoppe went to Greenwich. Why didn't they work in one of the mills of Cook, Risby or Kindt? All three were still active and I am certain any of them would have welcomed such smiths. Hence the question: did they lump London and Hounslow together. Also, are their any blades marked 'Greenwich' out there? And when are they dated? Or is the entire output always labelled 'London'? I certainly don't know, so I am fielding the issue to the cognoscenti. I don't actually know anything about blade output from Greenwich, focussing, as everyone does, on the likes of Halder et al.
urbanspaceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 02:33 PM   #4
Triarii
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Bristol
Posts: 129
Default

I've always through that one of the reasons for Hounslow being set up was that it was outside of London and hence outside of the control of the London Cutlers Guild. The LCG did have a role in quality but was also a bit of a closed shop. Set up some indigenous competition and you could bring prices down. James I got Thomas Murrey a patent as a producer of sword and rapier blades to try and expand production but the LCG said they weren't good enough.

London also didn't produce blades, it hilted and [forgotten the word for the trade of assembling - is it slipped?] added the other components to imported blades. That's why Stone was keen to get Charles to ban imported blades so he could obtain the monopoly.

On the mills being converted to gunpowder, I think this is about the realities of mid C17th warfare. A sword, unless you were cavalry, was a secondary weapon, whereas the ratio of muskeeters to pike had been increasing throughout the wars, so there was a great demand for gunpowder (which was also lifed, as it would separate into its component parts and need to be reconstituated). As Parliament controlled the navy, and had done so since 1642, it could fairly easily import swords.

The other problem was that the Germans at Hounslow wouldn't teach anyone else had to forge the blades. I think it was Jencks who said early on that 'never an Englishman can use the profession' (or similar) and promised to train up others, but it doesn't seem to have happened.

On Hounslow v London, I have a Wilhelm Tessche bladed mortuary sword which has 'Weirsburgh' on the blade, which is a suburb of Solingen. Not sure why the distinction, unless he was working for the Weyersberg family, one of whom was important enough to become mayor of Solingen.
Triarii is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.