|
Post by Afoo on Mar 20, 2016 19:59:55 GMT
A few days, I was discussing swords with one of my friends, and I used the term "Montmorency" to describe a particular type of blade - but what does that really mean? I knew that the french 1822 and US 1840/1860/1906 all have a Montmorency blade. As such, they all follow the scheme shown in A, where we have a curves blade with a fuller (1) and a second smaller fuller (2) right above it. After the fuller there is a reinforced point (3) to aid in the thrust. This is in contrast to the Wilkinson style (B), with a central fuller and a reinforced spear point, as well as the more traditional sabre blade ( C) as seen on the 1796 LC). I originally thought that all three elements were key to the Montmorency style. However, further research on the internet only point out 1 and 2 as being indicators of a Montmorency style blade. This seemed a bit odd to me - does that second small fuller really contribute that much to the sword performance and character to warrant naming the entire blade after it? This also raises the question as to how one would describe a blase shown in (D)? Here, we have a central fuller and a reinforced point, but no spear point like we see in the Wilkinson. We also lack the small sub-fuller seen in (A). Could I still call this a Montmorency style?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Mar 20, 2016 20:36:06 GMT
Montmorency's are "backswords" There is no real back blade although there is a false edge on the top of the foible. "D" could be considered "in the style " of a Montmorency if the mass of the backblade was right, but can't think off hand of a sabre that does so.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 21, 2016 4:39:33 GMT
I was thinking of the Princess of Wales sabre that we have - it looks very similar to the WIndlass 1906 except for the lack of mini fuller
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Mar 21, 2016 9:45:43 GMT
There is a lineage here. The polish originated coffin handles were used throughout europe in the 18th Century. Mass and distribution isn't quite the same in the blades, but the form is.
|
|