French colichemarde

[urbanspaceman]

Thank-you for the info; I know nothing about military history in any of its manifestations.
I do know that if, while possibly engaged, I was choosing between a typical smallsword - be it colichemarde or not - or this sword of mine, I would not hesitate to choose the latter.

These early Shotley Bridge smallswords that I have are a perfect example of this weapon, even though they were forged in 1687/8. That said, I am now fully convinced this sword of mine is in fact a smallsword, and I don't know why I didn't assume that from the start.
With regard to the colichemarde grooves, my thinking has been this: according to the various professors of engineering at my local universities, a groove of this type would be more difficult to hand fashion than the typical hollow, so consequently, "why bother". Unless the weight and stiffness of the blade on a colichemarde is improved by the groove, which is possible. There is a thesis by a fellow member of the Arms and Armour Society, Maciej Pulaczewski, that may interest you. I can email you a pdf, it is an exemplary work.
ps. the blade length of my 'possible 1767 sword' is 34 inches (87cms) which puts it beyond the majority of smallswords by a significant margin including the maximum 1786 pattern of 78cms.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

With regard to the colichemarde grooves, my thinking has been this: according to the various professors of engineering at my local universities, a groove of this type would be more difficult to hand fashion than the typical hollow, so consequently, "why bother". Unless the weight and stiffness of the blade on a colichemarde is improved by the groove, which is possible.

Fantastic that you've been able to show and discuss these blades with expert engineers. A lot can be learned from specialists who are "outside our field".

I will add a couple of caveats, though.

1. They are looking back in time with the benefit of a better understanding of metallurgy and the technology to measure the impact of changes.
2. How familiar are they with the available technology of the time especially as it relates to blacksmithing?
3. They are engineers and not blacksmiths. I expect blacksmiths will have a more intimate knowledge of working steel.

When looking at choices made, maybe "because it looks good" is enough to answer the "why bother" question. Look to the different fuller combinations in late 18th-century and early 19th-century sabres. These would also have needed to be pressed out with a die. Also labour was comparatively inexpensive at the time. Take this spadroon hilt for example:



There is no reason for this level of faceting aside from how it looks, even the lanyard ring is faceted. Think of the man hours that took for no practical reason.

Back to the rolled blades, is the fuller even necessary for the manufacturing process? Is it unique to the process or were they imitating a specific look? Making a blade look more expensive to produce as a possible explaination?

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

ps. the blade length of my 'possible 1767 sword' is 34 inches (87cms) which puts it beyond the majority of smallswords by a significant margin including the maximum 1786 pattern of 78cms.

That is a very long blade for a smallsword, I'd almost go so far as to say that almost excludes it from being a French sword (French dismounted swords tend to be on the shorter side). In my modest collection of eight smallswords, only one has a 88cm blade and that's a Spanish cup hilt. From speaking with HEMA students, the Spanish smallsword system retained a lot from their rapier styles preferring longer blades and including more cuts than the French system.

[urbanspaceman]

We are blessed with a university that has an engineering department that was started and funded by Lord Armstrong (of Vickers Armstrong fame) and, believe it or not, they have there a professor of engineering and metallurgy who both fences and is an amateur bladesmith/blacksmith and with whom all the others (we have three universities within spitting distance) suggested I consult.
I took a regular hollow-blade smallsword and a colichemarde along to demonstrate the product. My question to all of them had been: "given the standard of technology available in the late 1600s, could this sword-blade have been fashioned with a one-pass machine". The story back then was of secret engines that dramatically reduced the cost of producing the hollows in the blade. Prohibitive tariffs made the 'legal' importation of those blades from Germany excessively expensive.
The unanimous response from the professors was that the regular, all sides reducing radius, blade was very unlikely (even today! as a 'drawing' process would set up stresses in the steel that would encourage warping down the production line) but the colichemarde groove could have been rolled, and a machine to achieve this was well within the capabilities of engineers back then. The slitting mill, for producing nail rods, invented by the Huguenots back in the early to mid 1600s, is a perfect example of how far technology had progressed (see a representation of one of our local ones here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_UPuImxut0 and it perfectly displays the comparative simplicity of the rolling machine for blades.
Also consider the tiny, ultra-hard, dry grind wheels seen in Mohll's mill in Shotley Bridge that would dramatically speed up the final finishing of the hollows (which could equally have facilitated regular hollow-blade production - and may have done!) and it appears to me that the groove was considered desirable. The groove is undeniably lighter and stiffer.
Machines were verboten in Solingen… and unnecessary - always were, while Germans in England had been attempting to establish them here to produce hollow blades for some considerable time, all through the Hounslow period for example.