![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]()
Rick, I'm not so certain you are right. There is a theory that 'form' followed function. That the dagger used by the knight to attack a 'felled' opponent in the groin area became known as a bollock knife ...and that later the spherical guard design came later. ( I suppose to advertise it's use
![]() Regards David |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Vikingsword Staff
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,347
|
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,503
|
![]()
The only example of a target-specific weapon I know is a Kubikiri: a Japanese knife to behead the dead enemy.
Felled knights were usually finished off with a Misericordia. Its thin blade (a spike, actually) was designed to stick it into the seam of sectional armor. The best place was, of course, the neck but one can easily imagine a particularly sadistic victor using... inguinal area as a target. It would be difficult to imagine a warrior carrying a panoply of implements for each particular area of the body: one for the wrist, another for the armpit, yet another one for ... bollocks. Battlefield is not a kitchen where the chef has paring knives, boning knives, slicers, dicers etc. This is the reason I doubt the theory of the bollock knife being used for a particular function first and appropriately decorated later. Daggers and swords always had somewhat phallic connotations; the addition of ovoid protrusions to the base of the hilt just reinforced the idea. See: http://www.answers.com/topic/bollock-dagger |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,048
|
![]()
European daggers are a wee bit outside my area of expertise, however it has always been my understanding that the ballock dagger was the dagger which replaced the basilard, and was primarily a civilian dagger, as was the basilard.
There were instances of it being carried for a military application, but the dagger used by knights to despatch fallen opponents was not the ballock dagger, nor the basilard, but the misericorde.If it had used against an active battlefield opponent, in place of a main gauche, it would have been mightily unsuited to such application, probably being more dangerous to the user than to his opponent. I was under the impression that it was universally accepted that the name of the ballock dagger arose from its form, not because it was used to inflict damage to the groin. When you come to think of it, since it enjoyed such popularity as a civilian weapon, the people of that time would have had to have had an obsession with inflicting damage on one another's noble parts for it to have been named for the mode of use. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]()
I remember seeing a series of programmes hosted by an Ancient weapons expert, unfortunately his name escapes me. He, using very old training manuscripts, books etc. has been able to 're-create' the Martial arts of earlier periods.
The swordplay of Knights is not quite the chivalrous acts of battle the 'films' would have us believe. Every part of the sword is potentually used to strike an opponent,(even holding the tip end and striking with the cross guard.. a la 'war hammer') as are elbows, knees, feet, head and fists. The dagger was a secondary weapon often used with the technique of getting your opponent to the ground. Because, of the limitations of 'moveable' armour plate in the groin area (because of the natural range of leg movement in that area would be restricated by armour) it was a natural target area when the opponent was forced to the ground. Easier, than trying to force a dagger into the gaps in the armour elsewear. There are two main arteries (femoral) that supply blood to the legs, this main artery was the intended target in the groin area, causing rapid blood loss. Last edited by katana; 22nd February 2007 at 02:30 PM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]() Quote:
I am not saying that the bollock knife was used exclusively to attack the groin....more of a 'nick name' ...that stuck. As to names ...the humble 'pen knife' was originally used to re-point a writing quill......that function is no longer necessary.....but the name 'stuck' and is still in common useage. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101, Glos. UK
Posts: 4,238
|
![]()
it'd be a lot easier to shove one of these thru an eye slit in a helmet than thru the mail at the groin if the opponent was down.(my knife)
![]() the ballock grip looks a bit like a Scottish dirk taken to it's suggestive extreme, i understand the raunchy Elizabethans wore these on the front rather that on the hip or small of the back to emphasize the phallic connotation. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,048
|
![]()
In respect of the ballock dagger, as with many other things, we can all believe what we will.
As I have already said, this is outside my area of expertise, but through long association with other collectors who do have expertise in this field, I acquired the opinions which I have already stated. This morning, after reading Katana's further posts I pulled out Ewart Oakeshott's "Archaeology of Weapons". If my opinion is incorrect, then it appears Mr. Oakeshott is also incorrect. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,459
|
![]()
It is extremely interesting to review the terminology used in classifying weapons, especially the folklore, etymology and often 'urban legend' that produce the terms applied colloquially to many forms. Actually the term ch'hura does appear in the index of the original "Illustrated Handbook of Indian Arms" by Lord Egerton (1880) , and it interestingly describes three knives with ivory handles fitting one into another (#380) as ch'hura. It would seem here that the term 'next' or 'another' might apply nicely (these are noted from Ulwar).
In the entry for #483, a dagger termed ch'hura kati is described as short straight blade with ivory hilt, and 'presented' by the Rajah of Vizianagram. This would suggest to me that the term may not be derisively used, at least in Hindu parlance. It is unclear exactly how the term ch'hura, or choora as more commonly described, may be applied in northern regions, especially the Khyber regions where these are typically associated with the Mahsud (Stone, p.180). Getting into the arcane terminology of European weapons, the so called 'ballock' knife worn by civilians in the 14th c. was worn on a lowslung belt in Low Countries, Germany and in Britain (where it became known as a 'dudgeon dagger' for the box-root often used for the hilts). These often hung between the thighs, and the phallic handle and dual rounded lobes obviously brought the colloquial term, 'ballock knife'. In Victorian times, the prudish collectors desperately attempted renaming these 'kidney daggers'. (information from "The Lore of Arms", William Reid, 1976, p.49). In studying weapons there are so many examples of transliteration, semantics, collectors terms (especially many coined during Victorian times) and local colloquialisms that one becomes extremely wary of relying on terms alone in weapon descriptions. The terms however often add colorful dimension to the study of these weapons, and there may well be considerable elements of fact involved in the lore surrounding the terms. All the best, Jim |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]() Quote:
I think you have misunderstood my view point. This is NOT my opinion ...it is the view of others....I only mentioned it, because it illustrates the point that accepted names of weapons and the origins of that name are not always widely accepted. AFAIK this 'alternative' view of the 'bollock' knife has not been refuted. If the more widely accepted view is fact, then it should easily survive 'attacks' from differing views? I am no expert....but I do allow myself to be 'open minded', open to plausible 'alternative' view points. The early Victorian 'researchers' were, to an extent, 'bogged' down with 'social constraint's (many ancient works of Art were left in storage, unavailable for public viewing due to the nudity/sexual content of these pieces) The 'romancism' that proliferated Victorian society had an impact in the 'research' of ancient weapons and warfare. A number of these facts, deduced by these 'researchers' and perpetuated by their published findings have since been disproved. For instance, it was believed that Knights were chivalrous in battle.....untrue ...they fought in any manner they could to survive and if a stab in the back would 'despatch' an enemy ..the opportunity would be taken. Armour was so heavy that knights were winched onto their large horses (shire houses ?) and that if they fell, they would be unable to get up...(like a turtle on its back)...all complete fallacy. I am sure that many that oppose these published 'facts' were told they were incorrect in their assumptions ....until they were able to 'prove' conclusively that these 'facts' were incorrect. I say 'conclusively'.....because often, many would still believe 'the written word' and the common held belief that it created.(and of course, the situation that other authors use these 'facts' when they use them from 'references' to the original) There is always a danger that if 'published facts' (that are untrue, but not known to be incorrect at the time) are unchallenged they become 'gospel', and often,the longer they survive...the harder it is disprove....because it is so widely accepted ...people begin to believe that if the 'majority' say it is fact...then it must be. Not so long ago the masses believed that the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth.......they were wrong. Last edited by katana; 23rd February 2007 at 03:40 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|