The Dussack- steel or wood???

[Aaron Pynenberg]

So I have been spending more time with Rapier and Dussack as of late...I have heard arguments about whether or not Dussack's had steel versions, or if they were only made of wood, leather etc... I found something interesting I thought I would share, and see if there is any other info available on if they were or were not actual weaponry:

In the on-line Member's Only version of Eggerton Castle's 1885 works, I found this interesting tidbit:

pg 229, 1st paragraph, there is a refrence to the German Dussacken with a footnote of 1.

Under that footnote( same page) last paragraph he says the following: "The Dusack is of Hungarian or Bohemian origin, but it soon was adopted throughout Germany by the middle and lower classes as an excellent weapon, very simple and inexpensive. It consisted of Iron, one part of which was fashioned as a cutlass blade, and another curved into a loop which formed a grip and knuckle-bow combined. The double curve which resulted from this arrangement was eminently favourable to cutting action." "In fig 51, pg 77 The upper sword is the true Dusack, the lower is an even simpler imitation."

In that fig, the text shows the upper weapon clearly made from a solid piece of material, which is waaay slimmer than anything I have seen so far...the lower weapon is what looks like the Meyer plates---

I also think that if it was a weapon of the mid-lower classes and very cheap to make it makes sense that there would not be many left--any comments.?

[Mike Cartier]

yes many comments Aaron

Hows it going by the way

anyways on the subject of if the weapon called a Dusack was actually a weapon or a training tool for other weapons.

If this were so i would expect the training tool to fit the weapon more closely, that is i think its detrimental to learning messer to have a hand guard that does not exist with a messer.

As far as i know there is only one metal Dusack of the perdiod in existence and it might be a mislabeled curved eastern European sword rather than a Dusack.

So where dos that leave us.

Well meyer says this, The dusack is a training tool for all one handed weapons and likewise we can use skills in its use with the Rappier and other single handed swords.

meyer also says something along the lines of the Dusack being a very popular fechtschule weapon in the toorneys. Then why no metal dusacks in existence.

ok here is my flimsy theory.

i think the Dusack represented all single handed weapons not just swords, but sticks, maces etc , anything requiring power with one hand.
i think given the prescence of some rules against carying swords having a wooden or leather dusack might have deftly avoided legela trouble while still affording oneself a good self defense weapon.
A wooden dusack or hard leather dusack would be a much better weapon that a simple stick, the edge focusing the energy of the strikes, the handle affording protection and the skills learned using it translating directly to swords of a steel variety.

like i said flimsy, but its hard to understand whythere are no steel examples if the weapon was so popular.

IMHO the Dusack style of Meyer lends itself to stockfechten (stick fighting)
even better than Kali lends itself to stickfing due to its emphasis on power.

i'd like to see a picture of the true dusack Aaron. so far i have seen quite a variety.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

Great man-how about you..?

I don't know I am not so convinced anymore Mike- The picture of the "true" Dusack looks like they took a flat bar of metal hooked one end and curved and sharpened the rest...It would appear like anyone with a basic knowledge of metal working could have possibly made one, accounting for it's popularity in the lower classes..

Which by it's very virtue would also make sense that there are not many around...cheap to make, easy to make, therefore no real investment in time, or money also- no special attachment or family history etc..

It's not like it's grandpa's longsword which in contrast would have been very expensive and costly, no this is a peasant weapon and therefore not really that special.

As a simple bar of sharpened and shaped steel, it could also have been easily converted into other uses..farming, hunting, etc..

I am very aware of Meyer's comments about it as the base for all single handed weapons, but have you noticed that the handguard lets you get away with some pretty dangerous parries- it's almost like it directs your hand into the path of the incoming blow- what do you think of these ideas Mike-?- AP

[Brian Hunt]

One other thing to be aware of is that a lot of Dussack techniques I have looked at are the same as those shown for the older Messer. I have seen plates that show a technique with the Messer that are identical to plates shown at a later date for the Dussack as far as opening guards and the techniques thrown. The only main difference is clothing and whether they are depicted with a messer or a dussack.

Another thing of interest is if you look at the Dussegen plates in Paulus Hector Mair, his Dussegen/Dussack has a hand guard that projects out of the it's side that is similar in nature to the "nail" or hand guard that comes off the side of a messer.

As to the wood vs. steel argument. Don't know for sure, but there is written evidence for both leather and wood dussacks as well as steel. Here is an interesting article on the history of the dussack. http://www.swordhistory.com/excerpts/dussack.htm Currently I personally think that a lot of dussacks were of wood or leather for sport fencing purposes and that there may have also been steel dussacks for actual combat. This is of course subject to change based upon future evidence.

Hope this helps some.

Brian Hunt

Arma Senior Researcher.

[Mike Cartier]

I don't know I am not so convinced anymore Mike- The picture of the "true" Dusack looks like they took a flat bar of metal hooked one end and curved and sharpened the rest...It would appear like anyone with a basic knowledge of metal working could have possibly made one, accounting for it's popularity in the lower classes..

thats very true, its throw-away nature could easily account for the lack of surviving examples. Its also true that they were probably of no special nature and so not preserved but instead re-used.

I am very aware of Meyer's comments about it as the base for all single handed weapons, but have you noticed that the handguard lets you get away with some pretty dangerous parries- it's almost like it directs your hand into the path of the incoming blow- what do you think of these ideas Mike-?-

i have noticed that handguard lets you do things you cannot do with a messer. I think its the basis of all one hand weapons but each weapon of course is very different and so is used differently. Meyer rappier concepts work well with dusack and some dusack concepts work well with rappier. For example once you hook up the dusack play to the rappier thrusting concepts it really opens up your mutieren which is a big big thing in Meyer period but especially so in dusack and rappier.

in particular i am intrested in Meyer dusack off-hand use both on the opponent and on your own weapon (ubergreiffen). i think uses a hand assistance method that you don't see in other single hand weapons arts. i would not have noticed it had i not ben exposed to it in FMA. This hand assistance method lends itself nicely to increasing the power in a blow and for stopping and shortening the trajectory of blows for quicker redirects and counters etc. This stuff in Dusack is a bit different than messer or other single hand weapons. Does make one think a bit doesn't it. little too much variance of techniique to simply be a training tool for messer.

I myself think the Dusack was a weapon in its own right, no just a training tool.

[Stacy Clifford]

At the bottom of this page from Lutel, which is based in the Czech Republic, they have an item called the Czech Tusk which looks exactly like a steel dussack:

http://www.lutel.cz/pgs.php?en=1&pg=kat&s=1

Their location fits the general definition of "Hungarian or Bohemian," so it might be interesting to contact the folks at Lutel and ask them what the origin of their design is for that weapon, and if they know of any originals they based it off of. Theirs doesn't just look like a direct copy of a picture in a manual.

[Michael Olsen]

An iron Dussack (the only extant metal dussak - and perhaps the only extant dussack?) was found at Nymburg and was dating to c. 1520. It had a curved knuckle guard, but was not "punched", rather the metal seemed to have been split, then twisted and drawn towards the handle unlike in the depictions in fechtbücher and art. I do not know if it was sharpened. (I imagine this is the same Dussack shown in E. Castles work).



What I have read of the Dussack makes me think it was principally a sport weapon, used by the Schulfechten Fechschule like the Marxbüder and the Federfechter in the 16th century. The depictions and descriptions of dussack and dussack prize plays seem to involve casual wounds (split scalp, broken teeth, etc), not the more greievous wounds of a steel weapon.

It would be interesting to see if there are any depictions of dussacks in artistic depicticions of battles, street fights, or duels. So far, I only have read of their use in the Fechtschule, and not on the street.

As Mike said, though, it seems that the techniques of the Dussack could be applied to one-handed weapons.

[Stacy Clifford]

Nice find, it looks like the Lutel "tusk" is patterned off that blade almost exactly.

[Will Adamson]

Split scalp and broken teeth are casual wounds!!!

Obviously, a different world.

[Michael Olsen]

I also think that if it was a weapon of the mid-lower classes and very cheap to make it makes sense that there would not be many left--any comments.?

You know, another interesting aspect of this is that the Federschwerter (for lack of a better word) used by the fencing schools of 16th century Germany would have been numerous - I imagine there were dozens around. But today there are only a few surviving specimens - I think there are three pair in different museums. It seems that if there were any metal Dussacks used in the Fechtschule, they too may have befallen the same mysterious fate as the Feders.

[Andy Spalding]

think about the nature of these tools and where we get most of our historic artifacts. They were not heir looms, so there would have been no reason to keep them as trophies, prizes or even objects of art, so you will probably not find them in the possession of collectors or families; they were not battle field weapons so they would not be dug up during an excavation, and they were not something a person would be buried with either. The very nature implies temporary use. They are as much a waster for a single bladed weapons as wasters are for longwords. There is a reason they are called wasters not keepers.

Sure, we know for a fact they were used in tourny. But i doubt people would carry one into battle for the same reason they wouldn't carry a waster into battle. Does that mean a waster cannot be a deadly tool? It is just that some things are suited for certain occasions.

Take a look at the images of dussacks from different sources, there was a huge variety of styles that they used. A Meyer is not the same as a Miar. I feel like this is becasue the actual weapons they stood in for varied so much.

[Eric Chisler]

Found this a few days ago and thought I would add it to bring the surviving dussack total to 2.

http://www.myarmoury.com/review_dt5174.html

-Eric

[Jeremiah Backhaus]

Dussack (tusk) - Very easy for a smith to make. That design is some of the most basic skills needed for smithing anything. A smith for a week could pump one out. It must have been invented by a German blacksmith - Simple, elegant, and deadly!

I have absolutely no sources to back this, but I thought that this weapon came into its own mostly on the seas not the land. This would account for the extremely low number of extant artifacts. Also with the smaller blade it would have been more useful on the water. Like I said, no sources, just a hypothesis.

-Jeremiah (GFS)

[Corey Roberts]

Question, which maybe some individuals with more German manual experience to touch on, in Codex Wallerstein I noticed that the German text uses Düssack and Messer interchangeably to describe what is illustrated as essentially the same thing. Example Plate 61 shows what appears to be two fighters with Falchions, (which is what the English text reads; Falchion) but the German text reads: "versecz aber mit der flach und auf den nagel und dauch im sein messer"

Plate 57 shows two fighters wtih again what appears to be the exact same weapon but the text reads "Im dussacken stannt der stant" again the English text (by Bart) says Falchion.

So the thing I started to wonder are Dussack, Messer and Falchion all the same thing? The German text at least dosn't seem to distinguish, at least not in these instances in Codex Wallerstein, most of the time the German text did appeart to use Messer, to describe what we'de call a Falchion, but then there was the occasional use of Dussack, all in the same section on the same weapon.

[Aaron Pynenberg]

I know confusing isn't it...If you look at numerous sources, they all from time to time will discuss certain weapons by name sometimes interchangably.

I think this has alot to do with the fact that we in todays age, are very specific when we discuss nomenclature, typeology etc, whereas in the period, there is a little lee-way when discussing the "name" assinged to these weapons. If you take a spin through just about any manual you will find some fuzzy refrences to types. Anglo describes this effect in his book and if you detail Castle it really is obvious.

Specifically for Dussack, dussacken, messer, falchion, etc this does seem to happen alot, and I think in terms of the use, and manner of the actions of the cutting blade they are all about the same. Larger, wider cutting blades, with a primarily single edge. It would seem to me that it would make sense to discuss them as a group.