Thanks Sean! I am glad I can be of any help. I try to do my best! =)
And yes, that might very well be the valid distinction between the two. Now whether of any historical importance or not, let us, for the sake of discussion, take a closer look at the subtle difference in grips and guards and try to make a distinction of our own.
I have found that more often than not, the messers are shown in the manuals with the knife-like handle as opposed to the sword-like hilt of the falchion. Talhoffer's Alte Armatur und Ringkunst, the 1467 Ed., Dornhoffer, Codex Wallerstein among others all show it. (I have not had any opportunity to study Lekeuchner though as I am yet got get my password to the members section <img src="/forum/images/icons/frown.gif" alt="" /> .) What the messer also often seem to lack is a distinct pommel, something all the falchions seem to have. One thing I have noted is that most falchions from cross to pommel very often tend to look like the classical medieval sword, i.e. straight or slightly curved cross, simple grip and a Type G-K pommel. One exception is the falchion I found depicted in a wall-painting dating to ca 1580 in the local 15th century church here in Gimo. The falchion featured a very distinct and curious pommel that most likely was a T1 or T3. This I have not seen anywhere else. All of the weapons labeled messers I have seen so far differs in grip and pommel. First: the grip is often composed of two strips of plain wood sandwiched to the tang and then riveted in place. No binding in cord, leather or wire as opposed to the grips of falchions and other, regular swords whatsoever. What comes to mind directly is the grips of modern kitchen knives. Or perhaps, more appropriately: the above mentioned machete. Second: They lack a standard pommel. The grip terminates either abruptly or with a small hook-like protrusion that extends forwards an inch or two.
If this now is the distinction between the falchion and the messer we cannot really know, but that does not make it any less interesting. And it might be, as you said, one good way to categorize the weapons if one was inclined to do so. I am not sure to what extent the falchion/messer has been studied yet. I do know that some weapons can get overlooked by scholars of medieval weaponry though, and this might be the case with the subject of our discussion.
What the difference in hilts between falchions and messers does technique-wise I have no hands-on experience of, but my initial thought would be: a slight difference in usage of the grip would most definately exist. Why? A pommel can be gripped in the palm of your hand, thus giving you an extra reach of a couple of inches. That cannot be done with a non-descript machete-like grip. The downside of palming the pommel is that you essentially weaken your grip, perhaps to the extent that if you were to hit your opponant further down on your blade, and not with the point of percussion, you would most likely risk getting your sword knocked out of your hand upon the moment of impact. The reason for me going into this subject is that given the cutting nature and the top-heavy feel of such blades the impact from a versetzen or a strike on your blade would probably be very powerful and therefore require quite a strongly held weapon. What kind of effect the difference in grips and gripping has on the cutting, parrying and countering has in the long run I am not sure of though, but I have, at the moment, trouble visualizing any clear benefits of the machete-grip over the sword-hilt. But perhaps this is something that will be revealed to me further on in my training. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
While still on the subject of distinctions: The falchion is generally believed by scholars to be a descendant of the old Norse scramasax. Now the scramasax had a grip that is almost identical to that of the German messer; which in my belief firmly makes them too related. Now could it be that, and humor me now, the messer (with its distinct grip) came first and is the predessesor of the falchion, and not its cousin or brother or whatever? That is: the messer evolved from and is directly related to the scramasax (thus carrying its sandwich grip)
before the classical falchion with its sword-like hilt came into being. Then, somewhere along the line, someone was not happy or comfortable with the scramasax grip of his messer/falchion and decided to have it re-hilted with the hilt of a regular sword. This then became popular and became ever more fashionable thus forevermore separating the falchion from the messer. And then there is the characteristic that some falchions shares with he messer that could work for my theory: the clipped point. Now the clipped point, somewhat frequently occuring among falchions and evidently so standard among the messers, might very well be an indicator of how the falchion is just a messer with a different hilt; like the Thorpe falchion for instance. Yes, imaginative speculation without any solid evidence on my part I know, I know.
But stranger things have happened in the course of history. <img src="/forum/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />
Now to break things down a little: It is sometimes easy to overlook the most basic facts. Despite them sometimes staring one straight in the face. So... Let us take a look at what we really have been discussing all along: names, and the meaning of them.
Falchion: The name could be derived from the Latin word
falx ("sickle"), and/or the French
fauchillon ("small sickle", "crocked gardenKNIFE").
The same thing goes for the
cutlass; which is derived from the French word
coutelas, which in turn comes from the Italian word
coltellaccio ("large KNIFE").
Messer: German for knife.
So here we have three somewhat different, but still similar, weapons all bearing names essentially meaning the same thing. Now could that be mere coincidence? I think not.
But to be humble: I might be wrong. I might be dead wrong. Once again the point is: We cannot really know. It may also be the missing piece of the puzzle. But I still think we can agree that the two can, if necessary, be separated and categorized on the basis of difference in hilts. And I can go on forever, boring you all to death with my theories. And like we said: there
is such a thing as over-categorizing. And differences aside in my mind the messer and the falchion is pretty much the same weapon. With the same kind of techniques applied to it when used in combat. And although I am fascinated by the genealogy and archaeology of weapons I am still much more interested in the martial aspect and use of them. To me, how and in what way I can cut your head off with a certain weapon, is in all honesty more important than knowing about the difference in hilts, and whether this weapon should be called this and that weapon should be called that. I can still do the same things with them. I.e; kill. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />
Then we of course have the difference between regular messers/falchions and langen messers/gross messers. But let us save that for another discussion. <img src="/forum/images/icons/tongue.gif" alt="" />
Now on to my thoughts on the hand on the back. You bring up some interesting points there, Sean. I believe it is probably kept there for a number of reasons. Some of them we can figure out while others remain only to become guess at. I think it is foremost kept at the back due to keep it from being chopped off! So far I have not come across any indications pointing towards any legal/cultural prescription, but there could still be some validity to that point. One thought that pops into my mind is that perhaps it was meant as a means to separate the "honorable noblemans" use of the weapon in his "knightly art of war" from the "lowly commoners", who also wielded it in their own crude manner? But that seems a bit far fetched though since the medieval commoner was every bit as sensible as his noble counterpart. All the manuals I have seen so far show the fighters closing in, gripping and halfswording despite them keeping the offhand at the back. Which to me is the most tangible evidence that while holding it there, one was still very able to reach out and grab or what have you when necessary.
Worms or no worms, that article you mentioned sounds interesting. Do you have a link to it?
And does anyone have any thoughts or comments on my theories?
I think it is time for me to round things off here. I have wasted enough of your time already, but I hope you all once again had the strength to trudge though my ramblings. <img src="/forum/images/icons/grin.gif" alt="" />
Regards,
