The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution
 

I recently relocated a sword that was one of the very first I ever bought, I believe around 1966 at a swap meet in a drive in theater in California.
Young and very wide eyed, this simple 'cutlass' looking sword, heavy and solid to me just must have been a 'pirate' sword.

As years went on, and my obsession increased, I learned that this was actually a well known type of hanger used in the British army in the artillery in the late 18th c. into the 19th. However, it seems to have been a common munitions grade form that was represented in virtually all European armies and all virtually the same with the characteristic cast brass ribbed hilt with short hanger blades of varying length.

Apparently these 'briquets' were in use with the French in mid 18th century in infantry (the term 'briquet appears to be French meaning 'light' earlier describing 'light saber').They were well known in Napoleons army as the ANIX, ANXI, and ANXIII for model years from 1800+

British suppliers apparently saw these as useful for artillery gunners and began producing copies probably in 1790s. While not necessarily good as a combat weapon, they were handy in a utility sense for chopping wood (emplacement construction etc.) though could of course serve as weapon if overrrun.

The thing with these weapons is that they are so common and alike, unless there are distinct markings, it is difficult to identify them by country.
On mine, there were only the initials PS in a cartouche on the hilt.
I tried unsuccessfully to find matching initials in British sword makers etc, but in those days, aside from a few references, there were no clues as to who PS might be.

I assumed many possibilities, including possibly Spanish colonial, but no really convincing solutions. At one point however, I saw some detail on silversmiths and thought, this PS sort of does look like a hallmark. I tried reaching antique dealers handing silver items but most seemed appalled that Paul Storr, one of the most celebrated British precious metals artists, could have produced this 'common' weapon.
This left it 'case closed, unresolved', for decades.

Enter the late Richard Bezdek, with his "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" (2003) on p. 158........there it was,
PAUL STORR.

Apparently he was not only a goldsmith and silversmith, but a hilt maker and sword cutler, as was indeed often the case in these days as I have learned.
It is noted he apprenticed in 1784-91 under William Rock in London.

In 1792, he entered his first mark: PS !!!
He apparently retained this mark throughout his career, and became famed for his neo classical style in the Regency period. He produced items for King George III, and George IV of England.

It does compellingly appear that this 'lowly' hanger, bought for just a few dollars decades ago in a most unseemly place, has notably historic origins, and while 'just an old artillery hanger' was produced in the workshop of a soon to be famous artisan.

Such is the adventure and joy of being an arms historian, and listening to the stories told by these 'old warriors' as the weapons tell us who they really are.

Great tale, Jim. It is surprising what turns up on some of the "ordinary" old pieces we have had lying around for years. I'm often surprised by unfamiliar marks and little features on ethnographic pieces I've had for years that indicate they are older than thought or "interesting" in other ways. We are always learning something new if we look hard enough and long enough. One of the few benefits of getting old(er). :)

Thank you so much Ian! indeed we ARE getting older, and it is rewarding to be able to finally, after a lifetime of study, be able to reveal the legacy of these old warriors, who now have become part of mine.

Great story, thank you for sharing.

If i may Jim, some notes on the briquet, both on the "generic" thing as also on your example.
Generic as, this having been produced, and reproduced, in massive numbers among many countries, and also to its affordable price in the market, make it a 'must' in collection beginners.
Concerning your example, i wonder whether PAUL STORR decided to implement his personal touch in the hilt design, by omitting its quillon 'button', or was it that this was cut off during this specific example's life.
Also in addition some notes on this sabre history, some repetitive, in the eyes of the Frenchies, in principle the originators of the so famous briquet ... with the duly translation flaws.

" The grenadier sabers of the old regime were considered more and more cumbersome, it is to remedy this that in 1765 a new model of regulatory saber was introduced, with a shorter blade, reduced to 59.5 cm, the saber d infantry model 1767.
He was immediately given the nickname of "saber lighter" by the cavalry. The word "lighter" in the 17th century first meant "knife" or "penknife", mainly and also: "a small break in iron". To this origin is added "gear": a small kind of sword, a type of dagger, which has also become in dialects: "shoe nail". Its name therefore takes on a somewhat mocking, even haughty, connotation; or even gently affectionate: her small size and the shape of her guard are indeed reminiscent of the lighters used by soldiers in the field to light fires. Then, in 1806, this designation became official.
From 1767, the saber lighter equipped grenadiers, but also non-commissioned officers, corporals, soldiers of elite troops, drummers and musicians, fourriers, and later the Consular Guard then Imperial. The artillerymen also carry the saber lighter, which they most often use to prune the vegetation when they put their pieces in battery. Although it is mainly used for practical and utilitarian purposes rather than warfare, it is an effective weapon, whose point blows are dangerous and whose size blows can cause serious injuries. However, its mass and its size, in view of its usefulness on the battlefield made its tactical justification questionable, to such an extent that in 1806, the Emperor Napoleon 1st promulgated a decree eliminating the wearing of the lighter (which will never be applied), before going back on his decision in 1811.
The lighter saber was used until 1831 by the infantry, when the new model 18311 sword was adopted.
The saber is still (2018) under the name M / 1854 used by the Danish Royal Guard, which has 544 of these sabers in total. They are all German spoils from Waterloo, and later Danish spoils after the 1848-50 war between Denmark and Germany. The saber is worn by grenadiers and non-commissioned officers guarding the Queen and the royal palaces, notably Amalienborg and Fredensborg".

.

Fernando, thank you so much for the outstanding material on the background of these interesting weapons. It is always interesting to learn more on just how much history resides in a weapon, regardless of its perceived commonality.
With the quillon button, I am certainly no forensics analyst as far as the structural aspects of this sword's hilt, but it has always appeared that the quillon was broken off.

Amazing back story!!
 

Wow, Jim! That is an incredible unfolding story on your briquet! It is always extremely satisfying when one can pin down an origin, maker, time period or battle-used item so succinctly! Glad you saved this item all those years to finally illuminate those that collect these sword types. I am also fascinated how the tradesmen and guilds often cross-trained and made multiple items to sell in their shops. I'm reminded of Paul Revere, noted American Revolutionary War hero, silver-smith and cannon maker! So glad you were able to pin down the initials. I'm still trying to find an American pewter smith's initials unsuccessfully, having gone through many books, catalogs, auction sites, etc.

Fernando, thank you for adding the informative history (along with Jim) on the briquets. It can be noted that many of the early pattern French naval hangers of the late-18th century had a very similar pattern of plain brass hilt with single integral knuckle bow, short curved chopping blades, grooved grips, etc (Gilkerson's book has examples listed). Not to be confused with it's maritime cousin, the briquet was strictly an infantry-type sword (to confuse matters more, I have even seen infantry types with a very tiny anchor stamp, leading some collectors to believe naval, but I assume the mark is just the smith's own stamp). A very enjoyable read!

Certainly not, Captain; you can bet your money on the existence of a briquet for the Navy ... and you will win ;).
Besides a zillion French websites announcing Briquets with the anchor (hilt and even scabbard mouth) as being Navy connected, we may read more reliable sources assuming that there was a Navy version ... whether Navy artillery, Coast guard, you name it.

.

( from French Wiki)

Saber lighter model of the year IX
After the revolution, a new version of this weapon will be produced: that of the Year IX.

blade length: 59.5 to 62 cm
arrow: 1.12 to 2.6 cm
heel width: 3.38 to 3.5 cm
blade type: flat
frame: cast brass, monobloc
splines: 36
scabbard: in black leather, with two brass fittings, yoke with trigger guard
A slightly modified version is also created for the Navy.


(From the French Nvy Museum)

The museum's collections did not yet include a graded gunner's saber: only two soldier gunner's sabers of the 1772 and 1784 models were in inventory.
From 1792, the model of saber acquired by the museum now distinguishes the rank gunners. However, it was supplied in its time only to the 160 sergeants of the 1st Marine Artillery Regiment, which made it extremely rare from the outset. This specimen is the only certified witness to date of this ephemeral formation: this regiment was indeed created by decree of June 14, 1792 and abolished on January 28, 1794.
It is about a saber-lighter (Briquet) of the troops of the Navy designed on the model of the saber-lighter of infantry of 1782. The production of this weapon, identified by the punch to the rooster, is original: in order to provide for the needs from the war, from 1792, multiple iron workshops, in Paris and in the provinces, were converted into makeshift workshops for the production of weapons. They were named Republican Workshops.

(Imagine such conversation in a Native venue)

...What could you tell me about this lighter saber, which has the particularity of having punches representing a marine anchor? ...

... if there is none ... or as a simple manufacturing variant, your Mle is a colo infantry lighter from the completely regular restoration period.
a pity that the scabbard didn't have an anchor too ... see even 2 since mine, whose chappe was punched on both sides, found a little brother here a short time ago ...

...Model 1816 lighter of private manufacture, obviously for a government order with a punch that I presume to be that of an artillery controller. ...
...The anchor is the Navy's reception hallmark, but I cannot comment on the authenticity of this hallmark.
Who in the Navy has benefited from orders from the private sector? It is more common for the National Guard....

... Did not the Coastal artillery dependent on the navy have national guard legions? ...

... I will be surprised that the anchors are not original ...

... I am not saying that they are not good, but there is an investigation to be carried out to understand how weapons from private diggers could have been carried in units whose weaponry depended on the Navy.
To be dug perhaps on the side of the Coast Guard of the National Guard under the July Monarchy....


.

Wow, 'Nando! Thank you very much for this information! I have seen that very mark (the anchor stamp) on the more common briquet patterns, but assumed they were not necessarily proof of naval usage- the same way the fleur de lis isn't always a French mark, nor a fouled anchor always a naval affectation (the U.S. state of Maryland used the anchor on their militia swords during the Federalist period to show that their state was the 'home' of maritimers).

I had of course forgotten about all of the various branches of naval units (Coast Guard, Marines, etc) who would have been so armed with such swords versus the typical sailors. This actually great information and now I'll have to try and add one of these to my own collection should I ever find one again!

Just to muddy the waters: (;))

See Anchor Stamp see p[osts 27-28.

Eskiltuna made blades for a lot of nations.

Arrggh! Wayne, you are killing me! No, actually this is good information and it supports my earlier point that not all anchor-stamped swords are necessarily naval, but apparently some of the briquets were, which makes sense when you look at the development of the naval sword into the late-18th/early 19th c.

Dear Mark, i thought that by now you wouldn't easily take Wine's baits :rolleyes: .
We are talking about French Briquets with the anchor; not whatever items you find out there with the 'morbid' intent to muddy the waters (SIC).
You can find the anchor in a zillion things, from hallmarks to American weapons, in which the anchor has metaphoric means.

Well then I guess my totally 'naive' notion of this briquet (the one my original post) being a 'pirate' cutlass, was not entirely without merit.
These munitions grade weapons which were so ubiquitous throughout European armies, could easily have been acquired by private vendors to supply vessels' arms lockers.

The 'anchor' is of course a device that is among many used semiotically by makers, in trade etc. and not necessarily directly maritime connected.
The signature devices with multiple cross bars seen often on Spanish blades as well as the Solingen versions of them have often been termed 'anchors'.
The term anchor often has had certain religious symbolism.

Thank you again everybody for the comments and input on my briquet story.

The only 'wine' I drink now is Port. ;) - as sailor's say, usually at anchor, on shore leave, "Any port in a storm". :D

We appear to be talking about briquets from many nations, you even mentioned Denmark! Let's not forget that many nations were (Forcefully) incorporated into the Empire and supplied troops to the French. with very slight differences, briquets were made by many nations under french control to supply their needs as well as the french. Briquet hilts appear on a variety of blade styles too.

After trafalgar, there was very little need for French naval sailors and Marines, or naval cutlasses, so Nappy took advantage of them by incorporating them into the Imperial Guard as artillerymen, at which service they served well. I could see some briquets being accepted into 'naval' service by these Imperial Guards and used exclusively onshore, using their own 'naval' acceptance stamps instead of the less elite 'army' ones.


Guarde Imperiale

The Marines of the Imperial Guard (French: marins de la Garde Imperiale) and sailors formed a naval unit within the Imperial Guard of Napoleon I. The men of the unit not only operated as naval infantrymen but as gunners (after the training they had received in naval gunnery), sailors and engineers. Napoleon himself stated "They were good sailors, then they were the best soldiers. And they did everything - they were soldiers, gunners, sappers, everything!"

They were decimated in the Peninsular wars, and the Rusiian campain, but still there at waterloo, covering the retreat, and accompanying Nappy to St. Helena. Their Officers retained their naval, rather than army, ranks. Officers wore their distinctive sabres as in the wiki link's images, see below. Not a wild strech to think the newer recruits at the end may have carried briquets.

My apologies for the misspell, Waine :o .

Almost there... :p

Best Regards,
WAYNE

p.s. - I do actually own a Frenchy Briquet. Not my favourite hanger tho. Bit heavy.

Hi Jim,
My contribution to your story. A Briquet of mine made by Gebruder Weyersberg and stamped with arsenal marks for Berne, Switzerland. I contacted a museum in Berne and was told that it was an N.C.O.'s sword from C1830. It has a false back edge running for approx 6 inches which you can just make out in the photograph. I haven't actually handled many of these Briquets but I don't remember seeing another with a false back edge.
My Regards,
Norman.

No can do. We seldom use the 'ipsilon' over here, so such key got stuck in my keyboard. We have to do with the ' i ' for the mean time; it sounds the same, anyhow :D .

I too had a briquet long ago; but i let it go, as it didn't meet my demands, collection wise.
By the way, is it my eyes or the blade of your briquet looks as not being the right one ? :o

PS
I can see dozens of Frenchies being sent to hell for their lies.

SABRE BRIQUET DES TROUPES DE MARINE MODELE DE L'AN IX
Ce modèle à 36 cannelures sur la poignée, quillon en forme de trompette croisière avec poiçon à lancre.

La lame est plus longue que celle de l'infanterie et mesure 63,5 cm poinçons à l'ancre et "B" ; "M" surmonté d'une rous crantée.


.

As far as I recall it's a German blade, for a French Model AN XI Infantry Sabre Briquet, from around 1830. Curved but Bit straighter than most. Artillery version or Faschinenmesser?

Mine was a very regular one, i believe AN IX, bought locally, naturally left on the battle field by the Napoleonic forces during the invasions. A couple poinçons on the guard and an ilegible name in the blade ... but no anchor, though ;) .

Thank you Norman, excellent entry!! and seeing these still being produced and used in 1830s, especially in Switzerland. It seems that beyond the 'Landsknechts' there is little discussed on the military of this country.

Cap'n Mark, as always thank you for coming in, I knew ya would as the action word 'pirate' lurked here! and there just had to be at least a few of these in the arms lockers of the 'Brothers'.
Good note on Paul Revere, whose being a silversmith drew a compelling parallel with this Paul Storr product, and illustrates how many guys who produced swords (as cutlers they acquired blades and made hilts) were indeed precious metal artisans.
The best place to find such silversmiths in American context is "The American Sword" by Harold Peterson. Most of the editions include a section and roster of silversmiths (who often of course made pewter). Beyond that there are compendiums of such shops in antique references, but not sure about marks as hallmarks were for precious metal.
However, in the Storr sword, his mark was in this brass hilt, and the hallmarks required by assayers of course absent, so maybe the same is true of pewter.

Dear Jim, could you manage for a more accurate picture of the PS mark ?
I have turned the Internet upside down and didn't spot a minimum sign that Paul Storr was other than a magnificent silversmith; who has actually suplied some of his high end works to Portuguese aristrocatic families.
The only connection with his contribution to the arms (sword) area would have been silver hilts; which we manage to imagine in a splendid sketch designed by Thomas Stothard, whose works were put into practice by Storr; although the one depicted here was never brought to life.
So, despite Richard Bezdek book mentioning Paul Storr was a 'hilt maker and sword cutler' (per your words) i request your understanding that, this does not mean that such silver smith wizard would come down to integraly imitate a non British (sort of) sword, in cast brass, just for the fun of it. What for ?
So, do you see a a chance that the PS mark on yor briquet was someone elses's ... or even some low profile brass caster using his initials ...


.

G'day Jim,
I wasn't aware that the British ever used this type of sword. They did have the so called "Spanish" pattern artillery short sword. What makes you think your briquet is British?
Cheers,
Bryce

Hi guys,
The first reference I recall showing this was a British form used by the artillery was in one of my first books, "European and American Arms" Claude Blair, 1962. Mr. Blair was a brilliant arms historian who provided some of the most reliable and intriguing material on arms that have become part of the literature well used over decades. He was always generous, helpful and insightful with assistance with many questions from novices, like me back in those early days.

These appear as British in numbers of other references such as Wilkinson's books (before Robson) and I would have to go through notes to find the other references. I cannot imagine why these inexpensive munitions arms would not be used by British other ranks just as they were in virtually most European armies.

I'll work on getting all the references together.

With Storr being a silversmith, he is also listed as a 'hilt maker' in Bezdek, which was not at all unusual as craftsmen and artisans in those days often doubled with more 'mundane' functions. Since rather than 'sword makers', mostly there were 'cutlers' which means that these guys 'assembled' swords and sold them to government buyers or the colonels of regiments who were supplying thier troops.

In his early days of course he would have cast metal hilts as brass was finally being permitted by the cutlers officials. I doubt if he was just 'playing' with brass, as hilt making was much needed to mount the blades for other ranks in the army units. Not sure what more pictures of the PS cartouche would achieve.

Naturally, there is always a chance the initials could have been for another hilt maker, and I have searched through many years of references, Annis & May; Wilkinson; Robson; Southwick etc. but have yet to find anyone else with initials PS.
These rebuttals are however inspiring, so as always, I'll keep looking.
The entry in the very thorough work by Bezdek is as noted, compelling.
I have not seen this kind of cartouche with initials on other briquets, and most markings seem to be units or issuance.

Just found this from a thread Feb. 2010:

Discussing a briquet, Fernando notes, '..I know the briquet didn't make the Brit's taste".
In Robson ("British Military Swords", 1975), "...in the early years of the 19th c ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short, curved sword with brass knucklebow hilt, similar to the French infantry sword (briquet) ANIX (1800-01), ANXI (1802-03)".

Paul Storr apparently ran the manufacturing workshop for the firm of Rundell, Bridge and Rundell from 1807 and became partner 1811-17. These partners were officially appointed goldsmiths and swordsmiths to King George III.

In these times there were considerable concerns about foreign imports of swords and blades, and the treasury department would levy taxes on any foreign products. With these administrative matters things are pretty complex so I would only suggest that perhaps, the reason for a cartouche with initials in a munitions grade hilt might have been to indicate it was a legitimate product by a maker well known to the king.

With marking on swords, particularly blades, it seems many, if not most instances concerning markings used are not only to indicate the maker, but often other administrative matters (usually the collective 'guild' mark is suggested). In Toledo, the espaderos del Rey were given marks that they were 'official' to the king, thus exempt from taxation etc. Without more complicated description, these kinds of matters are often behind the markings we find on weapons, with meanings now lost to us.

As those making silver hilts or any items of precious metal, in addition to makers marks, there are several other 'assay' marks. In this case, it would seem the PS was simply an indicator of Mr Storr's work, and possibly with regard to the scenario suggested.

Doing more research, I looked in "London Silver Hilted Swords" by Leslie Southwick, 2001, and there is no reference to a maker of silver hilts for either Paul Storr, nor Thomas Stothard (1755-1834).
Stothard was a painter, illustrator and engraver, not a sword cutler, nor hilt maker.
Storr is listed in "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" R. Bezdek, 2003. p.158......as goldsmith, silversmith, hilt maker, sword cutler.

In "Swords for Sea Service", 1970, W.E.May and P.G.W.Annis, p.333
"...English silver hilt makers were compelled by law to put their marks on their work. Other men put their marks on scabbard lockets and ' even on hilts not made of silver'.
Loxham is an example of the first and Francis Thurkle II (1791-1801) put his initials (FT) on many hilts regardless of the metal from which they were made.

It would seem that while Storr was running the manufacturing for Rundell, Bridge and Rundell, who were indeed goldsmiths, silversmiths and retailers of swords, they were also appointed officially by King George III.

Storr is not listed among silver hilt makers in the registers in the Southwick references suggesting he did not make silver hilts. He is listed mostly in various partnerships in Annis & May, most of which were goldsmiths, silver hilts and cutlers.

While these precious metals artisans did produce swords as well as their works in metals, it seems reasonable that they did accept contracts for the production of hilts such as these cast brass hilts in number for mounting blades.

In "European & American Arms" Claude Blair, 1962, p.97 (e) is a British foot artillery gunners sword , first half of 19th c. hilt of brass (incl. grip) curved SE blade 24".
In "British Military Swords" John Wilkinson-Latham, 1966. #66
Foot artillery privates hanger c. 1814, blade23.5" On this example there is a makers mark on the shoulder of the blade which is indecipherable but may be Trotter.

These are both identical to mine.

Yes Jim ... a silversmith making silver hilts, among other silver works. Why thinking otherwise ?

Adding countless inspector poiçons to countless sword hilt makers, one can hardly pretend he has seen them all. Besides and convincingly, all countless pieces marked PAUL STORR shown out there have a unique layout, different than that in your briquet. The way i see things going on, i would take it as anedoctical that he would have developed a different cartouche for brass works ... just to defend my thesis.

The more extensive biographies that we find on PAUL STORR , the more distant stays the hypothesis that he engaged in copying and mass producing cast brass military armament.

Precisely Jim; what i said is that he designed (not made) this SILVER HILT that could well end up being sculpted by Paul Storr ... as quoted.

Well made points as always Fernando, and its always good to have opposing views. Naturally my suggestions are hypothetical, but based on the many years of going through material on makers etc. It was years ago that I got the notion (after seeing silver work by Paul Storr) that I thought that perhaps he might be the elusive PS in the cartouche on my briquet. My attempts at suggesting this to various antique dealers as well as other arms 'authorities' were summarily dismissed and quite honestly scoffed at. It was not until Bezdek that the most important note - of his ALSO being a hilt maker became key.

Remember that as late as 2010 I still had decided this might be Spanish colonial, probably because of the heavy, unfullered almost wedge section blade. In the blacksmith grade blades sometimes found on the frontier type espada anchas these are well known.

The position I have taken on the idea of an artisan who was working with precious metals, and a factory where facilities for casting and likely various fabrication of metalwork (as the Rundell's were also retailers with likely a spectrum of items). ...might have served for a contract of 'briquet' hilts.

Clearly with the silver and gold items Paul Storr became famed for, a more mundane event such as casting brass hilts in such 'contract work' in his earlier career would not be heralded in records of these very common and little documented weapons. That was primarily the point I was making in this tale of 'the lowly briquet' (hence the title).

As I had noted in previous post, makers working with silver who DID make hilts, often EVEN PLACED THEIR INITIALS ON HILTS THAT WERE NOT SILVER.

However not all silversmiths who produced fine silverwork made hilts. As such they would have been included in the STRICTLY controlled conditions of the governing officials and treasury.

While am sure that it would be tempting for a silversmith to create such a piece, there must be reasons why not more of the large number of silversmiths did not engage in these particular items. I would suspect that if they did, and each one who made a silver hilt one off, was then listed as a silver hilt maker, the volumes attending to records of these men would be impossibly profuse.

The reason that it was so difficult to find information on Paul Storr among sword makers and production is that in this industry he was a minor player but included among other partners who were involved in the business.
Even the most noted figures in various fields have lesser activities in thier earlier years which may not be considered salient in biographical material, in fact they may consider detrimental to that which they are noted for.

The clearly pedestrian task of casting hilts in brass for a seemingly minor contract in the earlier period of Paul Storr's working life would not be a landmark event in his biography of his obviously stellar career.

However, that an item such as this hilt bearing what may very well be his initials (as per the evidence suggested) would be remarkable, given the fact that these 'uninteresting' (as per your words) other ranks weapons have been largely discarded in nearly the same tonnage they were produced.
That these weapons became so popular that they were copied in effect by virtually most European armies and remained in use well into the next century is testament to their use as a tool as much as weapon .

However, their common rank among weapons has rendered them 'uninteresting' and therefore of little consequence in the collecting world. So again my purpose in sharing this now rather obscure sword is to illustrate the possibility of a most intriguing history which may be part of a much more stellar context in history.

Despite the commonness of the briquet, i think the history behind it is quite fascinating. Already, I have been illuminated by information presented by others here. For a munitions grade weapon, this little booger spread to multiple nations across the globe (I even recall seeing an example in the past with Turkish or at least Arabic markings!). Mexico, Central America, the Germanic states, Denmark, Sweden, etc, all had this pattern. When you think about this sword, it really was kind of the beginning of mass production of a simple sword type. The pattern of swords that came from these, including the forestry swords with their saw-back blades, were the ultimate utility items of the period, used to chop wood, build fascines, and as a weapon in a worst case scenario. Do I have a whole collection of these? No, but I still think they are cool and hope to get one of the rarer naval anchored pieces someday- :shrug:

G'day Jim,
Apart from the references you cited I haven't found any convincing evidence that these briquets were used by British royal artillery gunners. There is plenty of evidence that they were using the "Spanish" pattern sword, which has a straight blade from around 1800 - 1820. A quick search of the internet throws up numerous examples with British maker marks from this time period. There is a good article by Henry Yallop on the Royal Armouries site here:

https://collections.royalarmouries.o...ative-498.html

Perhaps they may have used the briquet earlier than this? I think you would need to find a clearly British marked example to convince me.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hi Bryce,
There is nothing wrong with skepticism, as an obsessive researcher myself, I often entertain same, which compels me to look harder for evidence.
As has been noted, these extremely common weapons, produced cheaply and in remarkable volume, seem somewhat disdained (of course) by the other ranks who used them in artillery units. As I noted in my post #25, from Brian Robson, 1975, but did not note the page (154), concerning the briquet in British service, I think adding more of the context might help:

"...in the early years of the 19th c. ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short curved sword with a straight brass knucklebow hilt, CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THE FRENCH INFANTRY SWORD (BRIQUET) OF ANIX (1800-01) AND ANXI (1802-03)."
* ref: Bottet, plate II, #3
"...this type of sword is shown in a painting at Windsor Castle by Denis Dighton,dated 1813, entitled "Royal Horse Artillery dislodging French Cavalry".
ref: Royal Library Catalog #15044

"...and in Charles Hamilton Smith's "Costumes of the Army of the British Empire"
ref: Royal Artillery plate 46, issued 1 Feb. 1815.

Here is where is gets confusing:
"...this is almost certainly the sword referred to in the report of the Select Committee on Artillery Equipment (1819), 'the Sub-Committee beg to remark that the sword with which the Artillery men are now armed is in itself a very inefficient weapon for any purpose".
ref: Proceedings of the Royal Artillery Institution , PRAI, Vol. 1. pg. 94

"...it was also the sword referred to as THE SPANISH PATTERN HANGER, which was in use in 1820 and which continued to be worn by gunners and drivers attached to field guns until 1826".

ref: PRAI Vol.1, pg. 186.

The Bottet ref. was,
De l'Arme Blanche 1789-1870 et De l' Arme Feu Portative 1718-1900,
M. Bottet, Paris, 1959.

In this Robson reference, it seems these 'briquets' were in use by British artillery in the early 19th century, about the time of the presumed Storr production I have theorized, probably more at the turn of the century.
The type or character of the briquet in British use is illustrated in the painting by Denis Dighton (1813) COMPARING IT TO THE FRENCH BRIQUET OF 1801-03.

What I am wondering is if the 'Spanish pattern hanger' could be incorrectly termed as here my impression is that the briquet (of French form) is the sword described in these proceedings.

The Spanish pattern illustrated in the article linked has a hussar style cavalry hilt similar to the light dragoon sabers of 1780 (pattern) for British cavalry, noting again that the 'Spanish' association was simply for use in the Peninsula.

Or, were there two types? one of briquet form as my example, or the one in the article and multiple examples of its form suggested.

I think the best analogy to describe the situation with the dearth of these briquets, in general, let alone British examples, and especially marked ones, is simply as Fernando noted,
these are hardly collectible, or sought after (except for a few of us :)
The brass in the hilts was a useful commodity, and these were undoubtedly melted down as scrap.

Military history accounts and narratives seldom EVER describe edged weapons used in campaigns or battles, but firearms, cannon and even thier ammunition is included in detail. Few are interested in the lowly privates, or their weapons save a few of these valued artists .

In my early years of collecting (60s and 70s) the authors I have mentioned were 'the' authorities on the regulation military patterns, forms and unusual types in use. Blair was renowned as an arms historian, and Wilkinson-Latham was well placed with his access to records to accomplish his incredible knowledge.
Naturally all authors face revision and rebuttal as new evidence comes available, but I felt that these observations of these gentlemen were sound so have remained in acceptance of what they have said and shown as well as the work of Robson in 1975.

However, I too would welcome a significantly marked example with British provenance, but the evidence I have gathered over these years for me is OK at this point.

The 'ref' notes from the Robson text are the footnotes for each of these comments.

Thanks Jim,
I knew I had seen the illustrations you quoted, but I couldn't find them. Here they are and both show a straight bladed sword with a brass, straight stirrup guard and black grip, not a briquet.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hi Bryce,
Thank you for these illustrations, which very much show the kind of 'Spanish pattern' you have described and in the article you linked.
Now my quandry is............why did Robson describe the 'briquet' as compared the the French ANIX and ANXI swords, which he was described as short and CURVED?
Further, why did highly reputable authors such as Blair and Wilkinson-Latham show illustrations (Blair's was in a panel of line illustrations); Wilkinson-Latham's was a photo...........while his caption notes there is a marking on the blade which he believes may be 'Trotter', who I think was a cutler of the late 18thc early 19th period.

While the 'Spanish pattern' evidence is profound, and there seems no doubt of course that the artillery men were using it, I am wondering if there is a case for some alternate situation in artillery ranks.
The wording FOOT ARTILLERY seems to have been applied to the captions in the briquets I have used as cites, which both match my example.

Could there be some difference in unit structure or simply terminology?
Again, why the comparison to 'curved' French ANIX and ANXI briquets as were well known in their infantry.

Could there have been infantry units assigned to artillery in some capacity to afford defense to the working gun crews?

I guess after having this sword unresolved in identification with its curious initialed cartouche, and finally coming up with a good (and exciting) hypothesis, I am reluctant to let go yet :)

There have been numerous cases like this with my often unusual collection from decades ago (the briquet I got in 1966), one other was a M1796 British light cavalry saber. I know it was British (made by Thomas Bate).
It was well worn and darkly patinated, with a curious squared notch in the exact tip of the blade, not damage but a deliberate square.

Most baffling was the langet had the letters CsA 4 inscribed. Naturally I thought I had 'scored' a Confederate sword (they were known to use numbers of British swords).
However, every venue of research and contacts with authorities on Civil War arms insisted, these were NOT Confederate markings. Disappointed, I then came up with the convoluted idea that it might be Spanish colonial (Charles IV)....but no sound conclusion.
Then a revelation, it was suggested that perhaps the letters COULD be marks for the armory of Castel sant Angelo, in the Vatican! In the wars of unification in late 1860s, men came from throughout the Catholic realm including Great Britain to defend the Pope.
So while not conclusive, still compelling and I published it as such in the Swedish journal 'Varia' (2004). It had been nearly 30 years in research.

Such are my 'cold cases' and this one is clearly another. Obviously, the true story behind these and many old weapons can seldom be confidently resolved. But compelling resolution is at least of some use as long as options are all offered.

Speaking of which, during the Peninsular War period (1808-1814) the Spaniards were around with two models resembling the one you linked to, but for infantry; one with a straight blade and the other slightly curved.

Only later they came out with 'short' sabers resembling Briquets, with slightly longer blades; the first one in 1818 and another (similar) in1822; the 1818 later in 1879 ressurected with a slighly different blade.
Despite their hilt being practically a twin of the Sabre Briquet, never a word is written about such 'inspiration'; at least in my Barceló Rubí's work copy.

.

G'day Jim,
We have one great advantage now that previous generations of sword researchers didn't have - the internet! With a few clicks of the mouse we can view more examples of any particular type of sword in one morning, than these older guys could have seen in a lifetime of collecting.
Cheers,
Bryce

\
Absolutely Bryce!
I recall some years ago when I spoke of my early days of research B.C. (=before computers), and Andrew quipped, "..yeah Jim, but they still had papyrus didn't they?" :)

I can recall sending snail mail letters with overseas postal reply coupons, and my letters eventually responded to in weeks (if lucky), many months, and incredibly some took years. As I recount my 'years' of research on these weapons, those factors considered as well as the dearth of books on the arms gave limited possibiility for the kind of outcomes we have today.

As one of those 'older' guys (I am 75 now) :) I can very heartily agree on your observation on the numbers of examples at finger tips today in just seconds. It took forever to find examples in the old days, and auctions overseas were handled by phone bids (I had to be up in the wee hours for long distance overseas calls). There were great 'gun shows' but it was essential to travel to them often long distances.

Still I treasure my hardbound books, many by the wonderful old sages of arms now gone, and still have the yellowed old letters in the pages.
It is wonderful to have those memories, and at the same time have the amazing new technology and honestly the astute brilliance of the 'new centurions' coming into the world of arms study.
I still welcome learning every day, and often actually from them :)

Hi Jim,
I can't think of a British sidearm that equates to the Continental briquet sabre. The only three I can think of that are remotely similar are the so called Spanish pattern sidearm the Dundas sidearm and the Pioneer sidearm.
My Regards,
Norman.

Thank you Norman! That is most helpful and now I need to look further into the examples illustrated in the references cited by the late Mr. Blair (which was admittedly a line drawing, not a photo) and that photo in Wilkinson-Latham.
There are a number of other references which may be helpful that I will loom into......these gentlemen must have had the notion of the 'briquet' as shown from somewhere.

In years of research, I do realize the possibility that as authors of references on arms classifications, they may well have virtually copied material from another reference without further primary research.

I sincerely hope that is not the case here, as obviously my entire hypothesis for Paul Storr(due to initials in hilt) will be defeated categorically if there is no evidence of a briquet of French style in British service.

There was another case of 'cross influence' between French and British weapons in the latter 18th century with the officers spadroon with five ball decoration on the guard of c. 1780 . The style apparently took hold in England, but by about 1800 became popular in France and was shown in their references as ' l'Anglaise' as a type.

This returns me to Brian Robson (1975) who (as I previously noted) describes the artillery sabers of early 19th c. as 'like the French ANXI and ANIX briquets and with short curved blade (obviously contrary to the 'Spanish pattern'.
Looking at the art works he cites, the weapons shown are clearly not like mine which IS like the French briquet, so the comparison is obviously contrary to his previous comment.

In looking at the many types of briquet (the curved knuckleguard integral to the entire brass hilt cast in one unit) of other countries I have never seen a cartouche with two initials in it as on mine. It seems invariably there are various kinds of numbers instead.

With that, what was most compelling to me is that British hilt makers early (in latter 18th c.) did sign (with two initials) hilts they made even if not of precious metal.
Either my example is in accord with that reference as I have suggested and perhaps even more an anomaly than I had earlier thought, or entirely a fluke in the maelstrom of truly similar briquets in other European armies.

While the Spanish style artillery sword being noted clearly had considerable presence in issue to British ranks, is it POSSIBLE? that a French style briquet type sidearm was indeed tested in small production numbers to British gunners in the latter 18th century period in which Storr did operate a metal work factory?
And that the authors I have cited used some now lost reference which showed this instance and which was understandably obscured by the notable volume of 'Spanish style'?

I wish these gentlemen were still available to ask directly.

Further on my sources Foot Artillery Gunner sword
 

As I presented this briquet hanger in my original post, I only cited my sources, which were of course effectively my words. I have taken to get illustrations of the pages of these references to show how I formed my opinion.
While it is suggested that there is apparently an absence of awareness of this type sword in British context......these sources might at least show my reason for my hypothesis.

These pages, top to bottom:
1,2,3: "European & American Arms", Claude Blair. N.Y. 1962 pp.96-97

4: "Swords for Sea Service" (2 Vol.) W.E.May & P.G.W. Annis, HMSO, 1970,
p.333

5,6,7: "Swords and Sword Makers of England and Scotland" Richard Bezdek
2003
8: "British Military Swords 1800-to Present Day", 1966, #66

In the volume by Blair, example (e) is shown as a FOOT ARTILLERY GUNNER sword, in the plates of British swords.

In photo 4, the page from May and Annis (p.333) describes makers of hilts, using the convention of marking their hilts with their initials (c.f. as per example FT= Francis Thurkle)....even if NOT silver.

In photos 5 and 6 are the Bezdek entries concerning Storr, and various partners including his apprenticeship in 1790s with silver workers as well as hilt makers.

Most compelling was this photo of one of these 'foot artillery gunner' swords taken from John Wilkinson-Latham (1966, example 66) which is noted as c. 1814 (shown here as photo 8). In the text he notes a mark on the blade which he believes is TROTTER (though indecipherable).

Photo 7 shows the page from Bezdek with Thomas Trotter, sword cutler 1814-1820.

So in a reference from 1966, by John Wilkinson-Latham identifies one of these briquets as British foot artillery gunners sword c. 1814-20, and that a mark on the blade even indecipherable he considers Trotter, an established English sword cutler.
Since Blair (1962) has identified this same hilt as foot artillery gunner sword, it would seem that Wilkonson-Latham was in accord.

As Paul Storr was working as a silversmith 1790s onward and took over manufacturing factory in 1807 with Rundell, and was in that setting until 1819, is it possible he may have absorbed the convention of the two initial marking of hilt even of cast brass?

The Wilkinson-Latham example (#66) is identified c. 1814.
Thomas Trotter (if indeed this was the mark) worked 1814-20 as a sword cutler. Which means he was procuring blades in that period, the same time that Storr was running the factory for Rundell.

In these early days of establishing contracts between Board of Ordnance, the varied cutlers and blade makers as well as hilt makers, when the idea of regulation patterns was just in early stages. ...the idea that a pattern of this type does not exist in British context just does not seem likely. We know the 'Spanish' pattern was widely known and used, it is strange that the pattern or type I have known and supported by these authors is deemed non existent.

In "The American Eagle Pommel Sword", Andrew Mowbray, 1988, p.24, discussing Birmingham, England,
"...as diverse as the city's talents might have been, it is clearly revealed by a close reading of the various directories published during the period that nearly all the trades came together at some point to join in the manufacturing of military goods. There was also an extensive cross over between various specialists in order to keep busy. Candlestick makers would have been produced brass castings as well as turnings for muskets, pistols and fowlers and swords when the need for such work exceeded the capabilities of those more intimate to the trade".

In reviewing Robson's revised 1996 "Swords of the British Army", it seems there s a great deal of confusion on the Spanish pattern swords for artillery gunners as opposed to the 'saw back' pioneer type of the same time which he denotes as from 1820. The paintings by Charles Hamiliton Smith and Denis Dighton were with these 'Spanish' type depicted but the works date from 1813 and 1815.

Returning to the possibility of Storr perhaps producing this type of hanger for use in artillery units, these were times of war with Napoleonic campaigns of course, and if he ran a factory in 1807-19 in a partnership, would he perhaps have placed his touch mark in a cast brass hilt?

In photo 4 of my previous post I mentioned Francis Thurkle the silver hilt maker, and found an old article showing his initials in a rectangular cartouche like the one on my PS hanger. As noted, Thurkle placed his 'mark' on hilts regardless of metal used, would Storr have followed this convention?
If it was a subcontract in a partnered company?