![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]() Quote:
Actually it is incredible!!! Its almost as if the goethite and corrosion attacked everywhere except the blocked portion of the blade with the mark. Something like this makes me wonder if this might have some telling evidence concerning the application of these running wolf marks...perhaps the talismanic notions imbued had more to them? ![]() Naturally I would be looking more toward the metallurgic possibilities though. I am still puzzled by this pattern, which seems to defy all the usual European resources. With the pierced shell on the guard it seems possible to be a 'walloon' type cavalry sword, but the guard system seems to correspond more to later Continental forms (since we have a 1659 terminus post quem). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]()
While I haven't yet completed searching this swords hilt configuration strongly resembles a Dutch sword of the period shown in " European Weapons and Armour: From the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution" (E.Oakeshott, 1980, plate 20 'E').
It is described as similar to one seen in Rotius' painting "The Banner of Capt. Jan Simonsz Jongemasts" of the town guard of Hoorn (1652). While the pommel on the sword shown in Oakeshott has a 'dogs head' and the shell guard is somewhat different, its position, the guard system and the downward quillon are remarkably similar. I would feel comfortable in suggesting this pallasch may be Dutch and perhaps from that contingent at this battle despite the nominal variations in hilt elements, pending of course other findings. Again, it is important to note that many Continental swords of these times were produced in Germany, especially in the Netherlands. As discussed on other threads, the VOC (Dutch East India Co.) had many of their swords produced in Germany, as did the Dutch government. I am hoping that Jasper will step in here as his expertise in these weapons is pretty much legion around here. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | ||
Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 22
|
![]() Quote:
Quote:
I don't have a copy of that on me, but I'll be back in England in a couple of weeks. If I don't have a copy in my personal book stash there, the person I'm staying with will almost certainly have one. Many thanks for the info so far! |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,281
|
![]()
Meanwhile I have been poring through journals from Swedish Arms & Armour Society as well as Seitz (1955, Swedish Army Weapons) for some time and so far the closest thing I can find is illustrated in the Annual for 2008 ("Svenska Vapenhistoriska Sallskapets Skrifter", Vol. XXIII) p.28. in an article by the editor, Mr. Staffan Kinman.
It is a cavalry officers sword of c. 1640, captioned as probably from the Netherlands, and again similar guard system and with the single shell guard pierced similar to these guards on pappenheimers of the period. I believe this reinforces my idea that this is most likely a Dutch weapon. Still would like to find a more distinct match as so far we can only surmise the probable national association to which forces this cavalry officer probably belonged. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|