Officers sword pattern 1796 for Light Cavalry?
 

Hello,

I am curious about this sword and I assume it is an officers sword? The blade is plain without any fuller and the grip has a "beak".

My main focus are Swedish weapons so most of my knowledge lies in that area so what can be told about this specimen?

Best regards/Ulrik Sjöberg, Sweden

And the pictures, Ulrik ? ;) .

Sorry, now the pictures are uploaded!

You are right about the appearance of it, with blade in the scabbard it's a 1796 pattern light cavalry saber. The blade itself is another story- it appears to be a custom job. I would be curious if etching one spot reveals the Damascus pattern. Could be a sword bladed for an officer serving in India.

Very nice example (especially so to see the hanging straps still on the scabbard rings) and most definitely an officers M1796 from early 19th c.
I have one of these not often seen sabers which I acquired in London in the 70s, and is not nearly in as nice condition.

The 'stepped' back has always suggested Indian influence (this feature often seen on Indian tulwars of latter 18th c.) so I have been inclined to think of these as being for East India Co. officers.
East India company officers were supplied by certain outfitters usually in London and the blades were typically from Solingen.

The 10th Hussars had unique sabers which were in a small number ordered in 1810, and these blades, Solingen blade which had the distinct 'step'.

Wilkinson (1967, "Swords and Daggers") had one of these shown and noted the curious 'beak' . Pic attached.

While the 1796 patterns for officers had of course basic similarity to troopers sabers, the quality, variation and profoundly the fish skin grips were indicators.

Dmitry ? :confused: ;)

oops :)

G'day Ulrik,
It is a 1796 light cavalry officer sword which is very much in the style of the sword cutler John Prosser. We will call it light cavalry, but the truth is it could also have been carried by an infantry or artillery officer as well. It closely resembles the regimental pattern sabre of the 19th light dragoons, but without any markings, we can't attribute it to that regiment. The blade will be British made and is also commonly found on British, mameluke hilted sabres as well. Here is a similar unmarked example in my collection, which differs from yours in that it has a different style hilt. This style hilt was also commonly used by John Prosser. These blades are usually around 79-80cm. How long is yours?
Cheers,
Bryce

Hi Bryce,
With the 10th Hussar special pattern sabers in the order for officers 1810, these were also mounted by Prosser, and the blades were noted as Solingen with the 'stepped tip' and marked with the sun,moon etc. motif. If British makers were making these blades, which might they be? We Know Gill was marking his blades, as were Osborn and Wooley in this time.

It seems like there was a degree of 'experimentation' with blade profiles in this time, I know with Osborn as he developed the 1796's. and the pipebacks, yelmans and even it seems a yataghan type blade was present on at least one I've seen.

Best
Jim

G'day Jim,
You are right that the original batch of 10th Hussars' swords used Solingen blades like my example below. Later examples had the flat, unfullered blades like the sword in this thread. In his earlier period Prosser used imported Solingen blades where a fullered blade was required, but I think the unfullered blades must have been made by him. You can find early examples which have Prosser etched on the blade.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hi Bryce,
There seem to have been a number of variations in blades in the original 27 sabers for the 10th Hussar group made in 1807 for the Prince of Wales to present to his officers, and according to the amazing research by Richard Dellar, these were indeed German blades.

My example of 10th Hussar, in keeping with the 'historic' condition of many of my swords (deplorable by most collector standards) is in rough shape, and it appears someone tried to restore the grip. I got this about 1979, but back then not much was known about these except perhaps by Geoff Worrall. Claude Blair and J.P.Puype wrote on them but I dont think it was until later in the 80s.

In talks with Richard Dellar we agreed this 'could' be one of the original 27 as it seems like a Solingen blade with 'hollowed' face. As it seems to have been in somewhat 'relic' condition, and the blade has lost any evidence of the kind of occult motif (as seen on yours). I was under the impression that the Prince had a number of German blades from his earlier sabers which he had Prosser use to create these unique sabers.

I have a hard time (as most seem to) delineating makers from cutlers.
Cutlers I have always thought were 'assemblers' of swords but used blades from 'makers'. It seems by 1816, Prosser was using Runkel blades, which seems logical as Runkel had been a supplier in London of German blades for some time. He was not a maker but typically signed his name on them.
I see Prosser listed among the names of others who did make blades, but it would seem this was mostly as 'suppliers' of swords fully mounted.

It seems to have been a long standing practice in England to bring in unfinished blades from Germany and grind and polish them prior to mounting. Most cutlers had engravers to decorate the blades in accord with the cutlers designs. As many cutlers also had other professions, especially as jewellers, many probably engraved their own.

I see what you mean on these notably flat blades being later in the first quarter 19th c. but it is truly a puzzle on where they came from. The established makers in England would not have produced a flat unfullered blade, nor would Solingen, so I suppose it would be feasible that cutlers might have found metalworkers that might have forged them.

Hi, it measures 79 cm! Br/Ulrik

My P1796 LC officer's sabre has a very similar design of hilt to yours, though a much more standard 1796 blade. The blade on mine is by JJ Runkel Solingen, and the presence of post 1801 Royal Arms dates the sabre from 1801-7.

I think the Royal Arms also suggest the owner was a regular officer rather than EIC.

Nice example!
I think you are right, the royal arms typically did signify regular officers while EIC were inclined to have motif of the Company primary in blade decoration. According to David Harding the EIC did not mark edged weapons with the familiar bale mark (other than bayonets which were part of the firearms and these of course were marked).

I have seen officers swords with hilts incorporating EIC lion, and of course as with officers in general, the decoration with EIC devices etc.

Bryce, I wanted to ask your opinion on my 10th Hussar example. It is in such rough condition in comparison to yours and other examples I have seen. The brass of course is as expected, not corroded, but the silver POW feathers on each side are with broken ends. The blade has deep pitting and as evidenced the grip seems a not particularly well done replacement.

I am wondering if this may have been a battlefield pick up, as it does seem that the 10th officers did take these on campaign, contrary to beliefs they were simply dress sabers. While it does seem this one did experience some 'exposure' and perhaps slight damage in situ, it possibly was retrieved a reasonable time after the events so did not reach the dramatic 'relic' condition.

Best
Jim

G'day Jim,
It is possible. There is evidence that these sabres were used in battle, rather than just kept for dress use. To achieve the level of distress that your sabre has it is likely that it has been exposed to the elements for a length of time. Several 10th Hussar officers were killed in combat, so it is possible that some of these were lost on the battlefield. The blade of your sabre does look like it could have been part of the original batch ordered by the Prince. Major Frederick Howard who was killed at Waterlooo would have had one of the original sabres. Who knows...?
Cheers,
Bryce

Hi Bryce,
Thank you so much for those valuable insights, which mean a lot considering that the extent of knowledge you possess after the tenacious research you have done on the British sabers of this period.
It is extremely validating to know that a sword I acquired decades ago which was apparently dismissed by other collectors because of its condition and lack of scabbard may prove to have inherent historic value.

Back in 1979 when I got this, there was not a great deal of knowledge on these 10th Hussar sabers, and I only knew from the pictures in Robson (1975). It was only for that distinct and intriguing classification that I bought it.

Clearly, we can never really know if this example was in fact a battlefield relic as we have agreed is possible, the evidence in its condition is compelling that it well could be. The breakage of the plumes on the POW feathers in both of the guard cartouches suggests very rough exposure whether in combat or post combat damage as from being on the field and perhaps trod upon.
The severe blade corrosion and evidence of original grip covering being gone also suggest a period of deposit in battleground circumstances.

To know that there is enough evidence from the blade's general appearance in its profile to suggest it may be of the originally ordered group is pretty exciting as this would put this in the pre Waterloo period. Clearly this strengthens the plausibility of its possible presence with one of the officers of the 10th either in campaigns in Spain or optimistically at Waterloo.

Of these 10th Hussar sabers, from my understanding, there are only actually about near 20 at best surviving, from the 83+ (including the original 27) that would have been produced up until superceded by the 1821/22 model sword for light cavalry officers.

While this is of course digressing a bit from the saber in the OP, it is relevant to the discussion in reviewing this example as similar type and the kinds of disposition that may apply in investigating these sabers.

Thank you again Bryce!!!

Cheers,
Jim

Good evening gents, I have another variation of these made in Toledo 1812. Haven't seen another like it.

Intriguing that this blade does not appear to originate from this sword, as the word "Royal" and the year "1812" are partly hidden by the langets. Also the name Campbel on the blade doesn't make much sense for a Spanish sword. some British 'remember me' ?.
And by the way, wasn't Toledo and many weapons Spanish factories invaded by the Peninsular War, 1812 included ?


.

I very much agree with Fernando, this saber is entirely an anomaly.
While Toledo had reestablished a factory on outskirts of Toledo in 1761 after nearly a century hiatus, the blades they were producing for swords were not especially good, most emphasis was a bayonets.
As Fernando notes, the Napoleonic campaigns affected not only Spanish factories but even Solingen after 1806.

Though the interesting script does follow the Toledo convention of marking, including the 'Ano' date, it seems strangely unique, especially with the addition of the name Campbell.

The shape of the yelman on the blade is also contrary to the character of the blades discussed earlier in this thread associated with Prosser in England as well as the earlier Solingen types occurring on the M1807(?) patterns for 10th Hussar sabers.

The hilt here appears to be of the type with the 'ears' at center angled as seen on officers examples of the 1796 often had (typically officers versions seem to have been without this feature. I have always associated these type hilts with Osborn, but think that was simply circumstantial as the feature seems known on others.

One note I would make here is that Wilkinson sword Co. did have what was known as a Toledo pattern blade, but this was more of a thrusting pattern with 'dumbbell' cross section and not until well after 1850s (when they began sword production). It seems the term 'Toledo works' was even used (Reeves I think) but cannot recall the circumstances, theres an article around here somewhere :)

Looking forward to more input on this one!

The Toledo factory
 

To be precise, by the end of 1808 when the occupation by the enemy was imminent, the factory of Toledo evacuated, whith equipment and personel, to a new factory in Seville; however only active for a little while, during 1809, once in the same year the French advance caused its transfer to a new plant in Cadiz, where they stayed until, by order of 16 December 1813, it has returned to Toledo, then free of occupation by the enemy, whom had used its premises as an artillery park.
(Juan L. Calvó)

Thank you Fernando! May I ask, which reference by Mr. Calvo this is from. I need more data on the Spanish sword making firms of this period.
BTW, good call on the inscription partly obscured by langet, I totally missed that :)

If doubts were ...
 

I just can't imagine that a blade with such inscription setup has originally belonged to the sword where it is presently :o.

The mentioned reference comes in page 91 of Armamento Español en la Guerra de la Independencia, notwithstanding this may appear in other works of same author. He also refers in page 14 that, when the Independence (Peninsular) war initiated, the occupation of the factories of Placencia, Cataluña, Oviedo y Toledo either took place or there was no way to avoid it, reason why it was decided to admit the smiths evacuated or those that had ran away in new factories to organize in territory not controled by the invader. Factories were established in Seville, Cadiz, Granada, Jerez de La Frontera, Murcia, Valencia, and Berga, among others. All were occupied and dismantled, with exception of Cadiz and Ceuta. Worth to mention were Seville, Valencia and Cadiz. The one in Seville due to being the most important of those projected, despite having not exceeded the six months of its existence; the one in Valencia due to, being among those dismantled by the enemy, kept active for the largest space of time, since November 1808 until the beginning of 1812; and the one in Cadiz, as the main one among those that were not occupied by the enemy.


.

Further from Dom Calvó's website ...
 

SABLES AND MOUNTED SWORDS, WITH STIRRUP IRON HILTS.
In the Illustrated Dictionary of Artillery, published between 1853 and 1866, the only illustrated munition model is the one called "English Sword" (Md. 1796 for Line Cavalry). The sabers do not include the "English model" (Md. 1796 for Light Cavalry), but its existence in Spanish museums and collections is no less abundant than that of the sword. These English models arrived in Spain on two occasions, during the War of Independence, and then during the Carlist War of 1833-1840, acquired by the Spanish Government from the English, which thus had the opportunity to get rid of the antiquated armaments that filled its warehouses. Connoisseurs affirm that the saber was an excellent combat weapon, not the sword, which was excessively heavy to "saber or carry".
With an iron stirrup hilt, the only munition models used by Spanish cavalry forces were the English ones from 1796, which at certain times were able to outnumber the Spanish in service. There is no doubt that in 1833, Salas referred to them when he stated how in 1814 "there were generally English swords and sabers in our cavalry." "ENGLISH SWORD" IN THE ILLUSTRATED DICTIONARY OF ARTILLERY (1853-66) In the Illustrated Dictionary of Artillery, published between 1853 and 1866, the only illustrated munition model is the one called "English Sword" (Md. 1796 for Line Cavalry ). The sabers do not include the "English model" (Md. 1796 for Light Cavalry), but its existence in Spanish museums and collections is no less abundant than that of the sword. These English models arrived in Spain on two occasions, during the War of Independence, and then during the Carlist War of 1833-1840, acquired by the Spanish Government from the English, which thus had the opportunity to get rid of the antiquated armaments that filled its warehouses. Connoisseurs affirm that the saber was an excellent combat weapon, not the sword, which was excessively heavy to "saber or carry". With a stirrup guard, in iron, there was an irregular "war" production in Spain, dating from between 1808 and 1814, but in general its manufacture would be said to be destined for "privates", meeting the demand of Chiefs and Officers and obeying the design "by fashion" rather than constituting "officer variants" of some munition models, which in any case could only be the British in 1796, of adoption to be defined as "accidental", caused by war. Among these "Officer" sabers, the most surprising are those whose blade includes the marks of the munition specimens, the crowned R followed by the monarch's figure, and the review Ca. D La. that indicates them destined to the 1st. Line Cavalry of the line. The use of munition blades was usual in the subsequent manufacture of "Officer" swords and sabers, but I consider the production of a curved saber model unacceptable, as a team of line cavalry troops, and the only explanation that occurs to me. This is the blades of the horsemen sword for line Cavalry, of the model introduced in 1802, which were later manipulated, "bent", for use in the construction of "Officer" sabers.

Resuming ...
Ilations on Calien's sword, factory, production date, customer, have still a wide open door. Do not forget that sword pattern 'reproductions' were made at Toledo, bearing the new date and not that of the original production. Still 1812 could be a customer (Campbel) whim; like he has been around by then ... and or his could be a Brit sword.


.



.

Good evening gents, thank you for your replies. I should add a few things to this conversation, for example the provenance. This came from the Sitwell legacy estate auction and allegedly it has been in the family for over 150 years. Secondly the scabbard without a doubt is made for this blade, it’s much too irregular to be randomly fitted into one, and the ears are just wide enough for the throat to fit in it as I will provide in the pictures. Lastly there is an image of a Osborne and Gumby 1796 clip point saber with the same scabbard and as far as I’m aware they were only made between 1810-1815. Part of the signature being under the langets really doesn’t raise any meaning to me as many makers signed their name under the langets (French, German ect) i do have issues with the dates though because officially Toledo was shut down there until 1814, but the British did have control of it during several months in 1812.

Here is the Osborn and Gumby

Well Calien, if the British were in control of the Toledo Factory for a long while in 1812, that changes the perspective; whether it is possible that Campbel commissioned a sword with his name on the blade, or at least this opens a door to such probability. This considering that the factory was fully operational by then and he managed to organize blade smith, hilt artisan, scabbard fitter and engraver to set it up.
By the way, i don't recall anyone having questioned that the scabbard would not be the proper one for your sword.
However the inscriptions being partly hidden by the langets, a practice that, as you note, often occurs, i view it that the (some) blade makers, not being able to realize which type of hilts will be mounted on them, do not ponder to leave space enough for the inscription to be fully visible. A question of common sense, i guess.
Also new for me is that Toledo also forged this type of blades with yelmen; but that should be no surprise, as my knowledge of these is extremely limited.
Stay safe.


.

The scabbard raises a couple of flags with me, rings are out of period. They could be replacements, but at the time split rings would be used for officer swords.

Also I can’t see the brazing seam where the scabbard joins on the underside. Both of these could point to a later manufacture date for the scabbard at least.

There could definitely be something to that Fernando, maybe the blade was taken back to England and furnished there? The date is what really throws me off though. I can also said that I’ve spent countless hours looking at these models and I’ve never seen one with small langets like this, the blade is also quite unique but the tip past the yelman certainly has that Spanish style with a flat center and wide symmetrical distal taper on both sides.. Radbiund could you explain that a bit? When I get home I can take some better pictures of the scabbard.

In looking at this further, first I'd like to thank Fernando for the superb research, data presented and observations........this not only pertinent but most valuable perspective and much appreciated.

It seems that during these Napoleonic campaigns and subsequent occupations, there was apparently some propensity for unique blade acquisitions by British officers. In Paris, there were a number of blades acquired which were M1796 heavy cavalry officers sword blades, blued with the cypher of George III, and marked Klingenthal, the French sword blade factory.
Apparently in Solingen there were numbers of these M1796 British heavy cavalry blades left over from the J J Runkel contracts which ended 1807.
These must have been either decorated in Solingen or possibly Klingenthal, however the style of inscription matches the type used by Solingen with the Runkel contracts (article by Richard Dellar, 'Man at Arms', Vol.43,#4, August 2021).

With the Toledo factory, it was indeed closed down for a time during the Peninsular campaigns and perhaps in the ensuing struggle for independence.
The Toledo factory had been reopened in 1761 after a nearly century long hiatus, and in producing cavalry sword blades with patterns in the 1790s they did begin using the 'clipped point' (sharpened along the blade back considerably up the blade).
This suggests that the industry was favoring this feature on blades, and the raised back 'yelman' was in vogue, so this beveled looking blade does correspond to Spanish style, though admittedly an anomaly.

If a 'Toledo' blade was desired by a British officer in this notable year, 1812, then it does seem possible he may have been accommodated. Clearly a private commission would include his name in a status measure. The style hilt is similar in character to Osborn hilts, and if this blade was made for this officer, a scabbard to suit would have been made in accord with the blade.
The partial obscuring of the inscription (which does seem in accord with Toledo convention of the period) would be understandable with this custom blade. The presence of English swords was of course well established in Spain in these times.

The mounting of English blades in Indian hilts in the British Raj is well known, and vice versa, foreign blades on English hilts.