Unknown picture

[Andreas Ahammer]

Hello!

I found this picture on the web:



The only thing i could find out is, that it was on your Page once. Can anyone tell me where this picture is from? i would be very happy!!! According to the Quality it must be scanned from a book? does anyone know the titel?

greetings from Europe,
Andreas

[Gene Tausk]

Log off and sign in with your full name, first and last, as clearly demanded by our Forum rules.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Andreas Ahammer]

oh, i overread this... By the way: In Austria we say "Please" and "Hello"...

Do you have an answear now?

[Jeffrey Hull]

Unfortunately I do not have a direct answer to your question.

However, I would remark that those weapons -- what we may term kampfschwerter, tucks, estocs -- are somewhat similar to ones portrayed in Das Solothurner Fechtbuch

http://www.thehaca.com/pdf/sf12.JPG

[Andreas Ahammer]

Kampfschert is surely uncorrect, cause this would mean figthsword and makes no sense.
Tucks is a word I´m not familiar with.
Estoc defines a ceratin type of Sword, that doesn´t fit in the appearance of this weapon, though it´s purpouse, thrust, is the same...

I ask because i knew the picture for some time and just fell over the term "tiglitz" in a listing of fencing weapons that were teached to Maximilan the first. The only thing i could find out is, that it isn´t mentioned in a fechtbuch and that it must be a thrust-weapon, because the same term is used for a thrust hunting weapon in the same period.
Quite difficult to explain the further information for e in english...
In later periods it is a knive/dagger with a (i donßt know the word in english but i think its) beak/grommet/nozzle or spout and can be fixed on a gun(also for hunting) as a "parent" of the modern bayonet. As this weapon on the Picture might be mounted with a beak(etc. my dictionary gives all these examples for the German word) it could be that this is a "tiglitz". So i´m searching for Material about this weapon now.

If someone knows the source of the picture i still would be very happy. But also Solothurner Fechtbuch was a new source for this weapon to me. Thanks!

...and i hope my english isn´t too bad!

[Jaron Bernstein]

Those look like very specialized half swording anti-armor blades to me. I don't know the source.

[Jay Vail]

Cool. They enter zufechten in pflug. Let the game begin.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Kampfschert is surely uncorrect, cause this would mean figthsword and makes no sense.

The term kampfschwert is indeed correct and makes perfect sense.

It actually means "dueling-sword". There are tons of compound words in MHD with the term kampf that in context mean "duel / dueling".

We witness Talhoffer stating that some swords were customised for armoured kampf : 1459 Fechtbuch states that the third sword portrayed on folio 108r is Zuo...dem kampf.

You can also read for yourself that Matthias Lexer has shown in his Mittelhochdeutsches Handwörterbuch that kampfschwert a period-correct term:

kampf-swërt, kempf-swërt stn. ( II2. 775b) romphea, gladius bis acutus DFG. 500a. HB. M. 509. 514.

These kampfschwerter, these specialised dueling swords, in a variety of design, and as portrayed in fight-books like Talhoffer and Codex Wallerstein and Wilhalm, swords fit for the halbes schwert thrusting of harnischfechten, may very well be translated as "tucks" or "estocs". But if you like not those terms, then you ought to use the term "dueling-sword" for such a weapon.

[Jeffrey Hull]

Cool. They enter zufechten in pflug. Let the game begin.

It is interesting to me that some of these ultra-specialised harnischfechten dueling-swords look like giant rondel-daggers.

[Andreas Ahammer]

The fact that it is a sword made to fight doesn´t say that any writen source would call it kampfschwert, cause this term simply would define that the sword was made fo a battle...
i´m not searching for a modern term or a Classification of this weapon, but for a source about it...

[Jeffrey Hull]

The fact that it is a sword made to fight doesn´t say that any writen source would call it kampfschwert, cause this term simply would define that the sword was made fo a battle...
i´m not searching for a modern term or a Classification of this weapon, but for a source about it...

No, you are engaging merely in gainsay. Textual & graphical sources sources like Talhoffer, and 15th Century written sources cited by Lexer all substantiate specialised anti-armour kampfschwert = dueling-sword. The picture that you provided, and the one from Solothurner Fechtbuch, are each *obviously* portrayals of judicial armoured duels within barriers. Again, it is well established that kampf in context of the fechtbuecher and elsewhere circa 1350-1550 meant "duel". So it is correct to call those weapons kampfschwerter. Go ahead and disagree with me, Lexer, Talhoffer and others if you so insist. The evidence supports what I assert.

Now then: What exactly do you mean a source for the weapon? How to wield the thing? I would suggest a source dealing with kurzes schwert / halbes schwert method of wielding, as found at the ARMA-Poland website:

Lignitzer via Von Danzig (1452)
http://www.arma.lh.pl/zrodla/traktaty/v ... hwert.html

Hundtfeltz via Von Danzig (1452)
http://www.arma.lh.pl/zrodla/traktaty/v ... hwert.html

Open your mind and enjoy.

[Andreas Ahammer]

No, you missunderstan me(or i write that bad in english)...

As german is my mother toungue i KNOW that "its correct" to call it a kamfschwert. But i am searching for a term that defines THIS weapon. You could compare kamfschwert with eg. dagger. There you also find Rondels, Bollocks, Baselards etc.
It´s quite the same with kamfschwert. An estoc or the swords for half sword fencing like in KHM Vienna are both kamfschwerter, but i´m searching for a term in Codices who give a Name for the weapon displayed above.

And i am searching, as i said above, for the source of the picture i have posted...

[John_Clements]

It's a BnW version of a 15th century Spanish color illumination from the Bibliothec National of France, item MS 2258, c1458-88. I've found no other similar images yet from that source.

JC