Thanks very much JT, excellent references and well noted. I had missed your mention of the markings in the OP. I had no doubt of Osman's expertise which was well displayed in his entries, but took a devil's advocate approach based on what I know of India associated blades of this form.

It is interesting to see the profound influences this early Mamluk blade form had on European sabers such as Eastern Europe. The influence of Eastern European cavalry on other European armies, thus then to Great Britain by the transition of light dragoon regiments into the flamboyant hussars was of course profound. After the Napoleonic period, the further addition of lancers units followed suit.

So I am supposing that since this is an Ottoman blade, it could not have existed in India, and must have come from someplace else in the Ottoman Empire?
The reason I mentioned the notable duplication of these type blades in the Deccan was that that copying of the Ottoman style would suggest there must have been some presence of these in Mughal courts.

We know, as shown, that the period of 1790s was most innovative in England as LeMarchant sought to form regulation patterns for cavalry swords, which ultimately resulted in the M1796 light cavalry saber. If I recall from research, among the saber blades considered were those of the Indian tulwar.

It seems that apparently Solingen began producing blades of this 'Ottoman' style for British use for officers sabers prior to 1807.
These were used by cutlers, most notably Prosser, who mounted them on officers sabers in the expected variations in that period during the Napoleonic campaigns.

So getting back to this blade of your original post, the question remains, would this Ottoman blade have been mounted in India for a British cavalry officer? Which lancer units were in India.....obviously the 16th (Sikh wars, Aliwal), 5th, and the 21st (which were hussars at 1858 redesignated as lancers 1897).....the 17th in Lucknow. Did other cavalry officers adopt the mameluke hilt outside lancer regiments ?
With the elite hussar status and the administrative confusion of regimental amalgamations, it would be surprising if not.

Clearly this is not a civilian example, unless a diplomatic gift or presentation in which case, sometimes trophy or heirloom blades were used for their significance.

I am sure you have Robson (1975) and its revision (1996), but beyond that, the best resource for information of the kind you are seeking would be :Classic Arms & Militaria" magazine in England. The corpus of material on British sword patterns and history is pretty amazing, and reaching them for back issues, index or extracts would be best.

Understood, I think Osman was saying those Indian mounted blades are in fact Ottoman blades on Indian handles, but he can speak more to that.

I'm sure you've read Rivkin A Study of the Eastern Sword incredible book on this subject. Eastern Europe imitated the saber of the East, and I know Le Marchant derived his sword from Austrian Hussar blades, which they themselves copied the Hungarians who copied the Ottomans.

I know that when the British occupied Egypt in the early 1800s they looted a ton of mameluke blades (as did the French) it could've been acquired in that timeframe and likely put together in Britain.

I think we can assume the popularity of mamelukes arising from the completion of the Egyptian campaign in 1801. The French were surely bringing them home, but English troops in the area must've as well. So there is quite a wide range of time this sword could've been produced, if you have an idea when the 1822 regulation pattern went out of style that would be the top end, but they were being made earlier than that by a decade.

I think it can be ruled out from being a civilian sword, this is a fighting blade.

I don't own Robson, need to order it, but a friend did send the relevant pages to me to read.

The wootz sure does look good in those pictures! Need to update my guide, this sword was entirely different in its characteristics bringing the wootz out than the pala I posted earlier.

Jack wootz has its own characteristic and chemistry also forging methods also heat treat methods effect its character so much. So etching it is really tricky. As you know personally i have many kilics from every period in my possession and almost all had different way to etch
Last kilic i own you withnessed by yourself end 15th century Mamluk kilic made by Mastersmith Misri which is really rare piece and only few in the world and its patterns was really hard comer as well cuz all his blades are like this cuz it is the chemistry. Another 16th century Ottoman kilics i owned i needed to etch them almost all with different etchants 18th 19th century blades i owned i had to etch with totally different and shamshirs were different as well cuz masterssmiths who made them were all different. But surely your blade has really amazing wootz patterns even style of Pattern is different than Indian Tulwars. Indian iron ores are so clean ores and their patterns are more smaller which is good thing actually. Wootz is precious for us nowadays and we want to see patterns so much cuz makes piece more unique and valuable in a way especially if it is watered patterns and big patterns but back in History it wasnt like this people were mirror polishing their blades ( prevent rust cuz they dont have access to tools like we do nowadays ) even at some point seeing patterns were kind of shame and smaller the pattern more quality the steel was.

Here is another example with a Persian? wootz blade, silver gilt mounts and leather scabbard.
Cheers,
Bryce

Here is one marked to an officer of the 82nd regiment of foot.
Cheers,
Bryce

Two good examples Bryce, is the first one marked to anyone? It does appear maybe to be a shamshir but Osman would know for sure.

Did either of these have dates? The few examples of leather worked scabbards are claimed to be before the 1822 regulation. All of the swords I've seen after are metal/velvet scabbards.

As for the .. let's call them acanthus leaves, that's what Cribb called them on the scabbard, this design I have solely seen on Lancer's marked blades see Dellar Pg 111-112 fig 12.6-7 12.9-10.

The other assumption we can possibly make is a timeframe, the blades in Dellar post about 1837 become slimmer and I would assume more a dress blade/ceremonial role instead of fighting blade Dellar fig 12.11-16. The same type of transformation the USN officer sword underwent in 1872.

So, a piece of this puzzle I cannot find maybe you can help with is the 1822 dress regulation written in full. Dellar paraphrases it, saying "the 9th, 12th, and 16th Lancer units were prescribed a "mameluke hilted" sword with a plain metal scabbard fr dress wear and a velvet-covered scabbard for full dress."

This adds to the evidence this sword is likely pre-1822 regulation with the leather. Or the leather was replaced, the leather does show a lot of age, so I take back my previous comments saying it could pre-regulation.

The first one was hall marked but I can't remember what the date was. I think it was in the range 1810-20. The second is dateable by the maker to 1813-17. Just to further emphasize how difficult your task to pin your sword to a particular regiment is, here is a mameluke in my collection marked to a Grenadier officer in the 45th regiment of foot circa 1811/12. It has a steel scabbard, but who is to say it didn't also have a leather scabbard for dress wear? I have seen this same type of hilt on several examples marked to cavalry officers. You are right in that the style of the scabbard bands on your sword are similar to those found on several examples marked to Lancer regiments, but there are also plenty of examples of other swords marked to Lancer regiments, with different styles of scabbard bands and hilts. Also the examples of lancer marked swords with the same scabbard bands as yours that I have seen, also have the same design on the cross guard, which yours doesn't. I am not saying that your sword didn't belong to a Lancer officer, it certainly could have, but it could also have belonged to an officer of any number of other regiments.
Cheers,
Bryce

Fair points. At this point I think we can only break it down into knowns, possibilities and unknowns:

Known: ivory handle, ottoman blade 16-17th century by characteristics

Possibility: made pre 1822 regulation due to leather scabbard, Lancers by designs on scabbard

Unknown: maker of blade, maker of sheath

I think the designs on the scabbard NOT being found on anything other Lancers swords is semi-evidence of Lancer ownership. The regulation about scabbard material also points to pre-1822.

Incredible sword, was hoping to find more sources but doesn’t seem to be a ton on these anywhere. Dellars companion volume is in the mail.

Bryce, I love that pipeback sword with the feathered tip!


I recall Prosser made similar wide pipebacks for officers in the very early 19c.

I just found this image in my files. I don't know the source. It appears to have a Persian shamshir blade and the cross guard and scabbard bands associated with lancers.

G'day Kronckew,
The 45th regiment mameluke is by Prosser. Here is a shot of two quillpoints in my collection. The bottom celtic hilt is also marked to Prosser, while the mameluke is unmarked.
Cheers,
Bryce

Great Celtic hilt. I know someone who recently found one but won't part with it.

Here is a Infantry Officer Mameluke 1815-1817 thats how long the furbisher was around for so its easy to date.

And I've heard it came full circle later, when the 1796s were replaced and surplus ones given to the Indian Sepoys. When the English confronted them in the 1857 rebellion, the Brits complained that the Sepoy's swords cut very much better than their own swords. Turned out they were the re-hilted 1796 LC sabres, but the Indians actually sharpened them. The Brits had theirs dulled, if ever sharpened, by contact with the metal scabbards when sheathing and drawing. Brits kept their sabres deliberately dull when not at war to avoid accidentally injuring themselves, and the command to sharpen sabres told them they were about to be deployed at the sharp end (:)).

Yup, in detail in Swordsmen of the British Empire great book. I have a Rijksmuseum Gill 1796 on the way currently. Along with a Dawes officers, an 1811, and an Austrian hussar, I think I'm spent on the model now :D

I love these mamelukes though, I'd like to go for some more eventually, especially one with French Egypt campaign provenance.

G'day Calien,
I am very interested in early British pipe-backs. What more can you tell us about your sword? Who made it and who owned it?
Cheers,
Bryce

oh yeah sure, it was made by T Symmons out of London he was a sword cutler but was only active from 1815-1816. The sword belonged to a Hubert Tiballier, the son of Francois Huber de Tiballiert a French Colonel who was put in charge of taking Haiti back after the slave revolt, he failed and was on route to France to face trial (and probably the guillotine) when the ship was intercepted by the British and he was taken back to London where he professed his undying loyalty to the Bourbons(LOL). Two of his sons ended up joining the war against Napoleon one with the French Hunters on foot and the one that owned this saber with the 60th and then the 35th. The 35th was actually at waterloo (although it didnt see combat) but Hubert was not on the rolls so maybe he joined the 35th after.

Thanks Calien,
Where did you find the information about Symmons? I have had a bit of a look for him, and have found a merchant and a brass founder, but neither at this address?
Cheers,
Bryce

I got a lot of info from a friend on Facebook, he runs Natural Acuity and has a ton of resources for British makers.

Steve Langham’s database is an invaluable resource and can be found here:

https://naturalacuity.com/SwordSearc...d-02f606c626ed

If you click on the i button it brings you to the sources Steve has for his entry One observation though, Steve only lists dates he has a period source for, so in this instance, if T Symmons was using blades supplied by J J Runkel then he must have been operating before 1808 when Runkel ceased importing from Solingen.

Thanks guys,
He isn't in the 1814 London PO Directory or the 1816 PO Directory. It suggests he may only have been in business between October 1814 and October 1815. I wonder where the comment about Runkel blades came from?
Is there anything distinguishing in the blade decoration or is it just generic?
Cheers,
Bryce

No nothing, lots of foliage but not even the GR on it. Pretty unique in that sense I'm guessing because he was French? Also yes Steve is doing a really amazing job with his database, I promised him I would write up an article about this sword but my writing skills suck as you can see lol.

Well I got an expert opinion and they said: “It is of the earlier form of c. 1805 period, but likely 1810-20. Without the regimental devices in motif it is hard to say, but the motif in your fittings resembles one from the 9th Lancers.”

I think this is as far as deduction can carry us on this Mameluke. The blade may have been acquired during the second Egypt expedition in 1811. The British did loot a lot of blades then, then put together back in England. As for the scabbard motifs, if they are ONLY found on lancer blades. I think it can be assumed this was a lancer’s, though of which unit I’ll never know. Glad to have stirred some healthy discussion here. Calien has many beautiful Mamelukes. I’d be happy to post my Pala here but there isn’t anything to learn on that one.

G'day JT88,
The 11th Hussars also had similar motifs on their scabbard bands and cross guards. I think you can call it "in the style favoured by light cavalry officers", but you can't narrow it down to just Lancers.
Cheers,
Bryce

Where do you see the 11th Hussar example?

If you google "11th Hussars mameluke" you can find several examples on the web.

Going back to Calien's mameluke by T Symmons 102 Pall Mall, I stumbled across an example on the net which does have a Runkel blade. Either Symmons was in business before 1815 or he was using old stock?

Cheers,
Bryce

I did, and I see no 11th Hussar mamelukes that have the same fittings??

You are right. The 11th Hussars sword I posted above has exactly the same design on the crossguard (with the addition of the Egypt battle honour) as marked 9th Lancers examples, but the scabbard bands have a similar, but not the same motif.
Cheers,
Bryce

Well guys I appreciate all the responses! The detective work is always fun, if not the best part about collecting antique weapons, though I want to consider myself a historian and not an antiquarian so the research will always continue, but this has come to an end for now at least.

I did my write-up on the piece and posted it to SBG

Cheers!

https://sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/t...mameluke-sword

This is an absolutely brilliant look into these most interesting and attractive sabers JT!!! It makes very clear the resounding influence that these swords made on the British and French, and that Wellington, one of the most admired British leaders of his time, set the pace for these to become such prized swords in the British army.

Thank you for sharing this here! Your example of the mameluke saber becomes so much more appreciated with this colorful background.

Thanks, Jim! Your help was instrumental!