SWORD for comment and I D please

[kahnjar1]

I have this sword for comment and identification please. Hilt is brass and appears that it might be cast. The blade is straight and is not sharp on either edge. It looks as if it was made specifically for thrusting. Blade profile is as shown (on both sides).
Regards Stuart

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Stu,

Very attractive cavalry officers 'walloon' type sword, probably Continental and end of the 18th century to early 19th. It seems like this form was widely used for military officers by many countries, so we would need to really hit the typology references to really narrow it down. The scallop shell decoration may offer some telling definition. That blade cross section seems unusual as well. More research needed of course, but this is the trail to follow in my perception.

All best regards,
Jim

[kahnjar1]

Thanks Jim for your input. Does anyone else have any ideas please??

[celtan]

Hi Guys, I don't think kt's a walloon. More probably late 19th C or early 20th?

Perhaps Swedish?

Warmest regards

Manuel

[Henk]

Searched in some books but couldn't pin it down. I think it is military, British and probably an infantry sabre.
The gues of Manuel about age is probably correct.

[kahnjar1]

Hi Henk,
Not a sabre IMHO as they were a cutting weapon. This is DEFINATELY a thrusting weapon as the edges are not sharp. I very much doubt the British heritage also, as military swords usually had the Regimental Cypher on the hilt, and also the name of the swordsmith, or at least a proof stamp.
The plot thickens!!

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Hi Stu,

Very attractive cavalry officers 'walloon' type sword, probably Continental and end of the 18th century to early 19th. It seems like this form was widely used for military officers by many countries, so we would need to really hit the typology references to really narrow it down. The scallop shell decoration may offer some telling definition. That blade cross section seems unusual as well. More research needed of course, but this is the trail to follow in my perception.

All best regards,
Jim

I'd say you are pretty much bang on the button Jim.

It's a Walloon, and I'd agree the simple bronze form of the guard is later, I'd have said last 1/4 of the 18thC, possibly a little earlier if I had to guess.

IMHO its not British, and without finding some marks on the blade I'd possibly lean towards it being Dutch with 2x?? added because thats just a first impression.

Regards
Gene

[celtan]

What exactly do you call a walloon?

For me, this is walloon (belgian) , and I don't see any similarities...





The perforated hand cover is missing in mine...

M

Originally Posted by Atlantia

I'd say you are pretty much bang on the button Jim.

It's a Walloon, and I'd agree the simple bronze form of the guard is later, I'd have said last 1/4 of the 18thC, possibly a little earlier if I had to guess.

IMHO its not British, and without finding some marks on the blade I'd possibly lean towards it being Dutch with 2x?? added because thats just a first impression.

Regards
Gene

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by celtan

What exactly do you call a walloon?

For me, this is walloon (belgian) , and I don't see any similarities...





The perforated hand cover is missing in mine...

M

Hi Manuel,
Any excuse to show off that beauty!

These are quite varied, and produced for a long period. There is some variation in style, and yours is a rather fine one.
Some even have a single sided guard if memory serves.

Regards
Gene

[kahnjar1]

Hi, and thanks for the replies so far from those who have answered. Consensus seems to suggest a Walloon, but I sense some doubt.
I have had a look at all references to Walloon that I can fine in my books, and although the hilt is SIMILAR, it is not in my mind a definate identification.
WHAT ABOUT THE BLADE??
I have yet to see an illustration showing this blade profile. All that I have seen on illustrations of Walloon have fullers, or are what I would call standard blade profile.
What do you think?

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Hi, and thanks for the replies so far from those who have answered. Consensus seems to suggest a Walloon, but I sense some doubt.
I have had a look at all references to Walloon that I can fine in my books, and although the hilt is SIMILAR, it is not in my mind a definate identification.
WHAT ABOUT THE BLADE??
I have yet to see an illustration showing this blade profile. All that I have seen on illustrations of Walloon have fullers, or are what I would call standard blade profile.
What do you think?

I think possibly everyone is right to some extent here. This may be a late sword of the walloon style, not quite a 1796 heavy cavalry officers sword, but in that line of evolution.

If thats the case there is probobly some merit in calling it a walloon-esq Cavalry officers sword.

Can you post measurements and tell us if there are any markings on it at all?

Gene

P.S. I'll go back and hit the books and see if there is a similar one anywhere. Between us we must have one like it pictured.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Atlantia

I think possibly everyone is right to some extent here. This may be a late sword of the walloon style, not quite a 1796 heavy cavalry officers sword, but in that line of evolution.

If thats the case there is probobly some merit in calling it a walloon-esq Cavalry officers sword.

Can you post measurements and tell us if there are any markings on it at all?

Gene

P.S. I'll go back and hit the books and see if there is a similar one anywhere. Between us we must have one like it pictured.

Hi Gene,
No marks whatsoever. Overall it is 37 1/2" (955mm) and the blade is 30 1/2" (775mm). Blade is absolutely straight, both edges blunt (never sharpened by look of it) but tip sharp.
Regards Stuart

[Gavin Nugent]

G'day Stu,

The peened tang in one image there doesn't look to me as the original finish I would expect to see on a European sword, maybe a better photo might say otherwise??? It might be a marriage of some sort rather than a regulation weapon?

Gav

[Atlantia]

Its a bit shorter than I'd have expected.
Here is a picture of the 1796 and the similarities are clear. It does look like it might be a marriage of handle parts from one of these with a different blade.

Well, done Manuel and freebooter, Henk, Stuart, I stand corrected


Overall length 39" Blade 32 1/4"

[celtan]

Hi Gene,

Thanks for the kind words. This one is certailnly one of my favorites, I like the way it feels on my grip.

Which reminds me: I just let go of one of my swords, a US CW Cavalry saber that feels equally pleasant. A pity, I'm now sorry I placed it on auction, too late though, since I must honor my commitment. But certain swords do leave a pleasant feeling after handling them.

Back to the sword at hand. What characteristics makes one sword a Walloon?

Is this sword a Walloon?

M

Originally Posted by Atlantia

Hi Manuel,
Any excuse to show off that beauty!

These are quite varied, and produced for a long period. There is some variation in style, and yours is a rather fine one.
Some even have a single sided guard if memory serves.

Regards
Gene

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by celtan

Hi Gene,

Thanks for the kind words. This one is certailnly one of my favorites, I like the way it feels on my grip.

Which reminds me: I just let go of one of my swords, a US CW Cavalry saber that feels equally pleasant. A pity, I'm now sorry I placed it on auction, too late though, since I must honor my commitment. But certain swords do leave a pleasant feeling after handling them.

Back to the sword at hand. What characteristics makes one sword a Walloon?

Is this sword a Walloon?

M

Hi Manuel,

Your real walloon is one of my favourites too!

As for whether these bronze hilted double edged swords are strictly 'part of the family' I always thought they were the end of the evolution.
I know they are often just called 'cavalry swords' but until they go to the single edged blade I always thought of them as part of the walloon line....
Looks like I might be wrong on that!

[celtan]

Thank you kindly Gene,

How would you classify the last sword I presented to you? Its blade has a foliate blade with a resulting raised central ridge on one side and a central depression viceversa, inscribed Vivat Carolus XI Domine meus. ie. a Swedish 17th C blade. The hilt is strange. cavalry? Early-Mid 19th C.? The grip is also difficult to precisely date, showing another urn-pommel. (Late 18th C.?) plus a rather modern looking grip cover.

Best

M

Originally Posted by Atlantia

Hi Manuel,

Your real walloon is one of my favourites too!

As for whether these bronze hilted double edged swords are strictly 'part of the family' I always thought they were the end of the evolution.
I know they are often just called 'cavalry swords' but until they go to the single edged blade I always thought of them as part of the walloon line....
Looks like I might be wrong on that!

[Atlantia]

Originally Posted by celtan

Thank you kindly Gene,

How would you classify the last sword I presented to you? Its blade has four concave faces with a raised central ridge, inscribed Vivat Carolus XI Domine meus. ie. a Swedish 17th C blade. The hilt is strange. cavalry? Early-Mid 19th C.? The grip is also difficult to precisely date, showing another urn-pommel. (Late 18th C.?) pkus a rather modern looking grip cover.

Best

M

Hi Manuel,
I may just be digging myself a deeper hole here, but I'll have a go!
The sword in your picture has the 'walloon-esq' guard, which I'm from now on just going to call 'horsemans swords' LOL and as with Stuarts, a double edged blade, which you think is a remount?
It also has the Urn shaped pommel which makes me think late 18thC, but I've seen them on swords described as mid 18thC.

I know the 1796 pattern British swords were used through to the 1820-30s, but wasn't the fashion for single edged blades exclusively by then?

Why are yours and Stuarts remounted with older blades?
Could they represent a transitional period? Or a cost cutting measure? Or even be colonial pieces?

What are your thoughts?

Regards
Gene

[katana]

Looking at the hilt there is evidence of a re-hilt....

There seems to be a steel washer below the screw holding the knuckle bow which would not be original. ( Perhaps the washer acts as a 'spacer' to improve the 'fit' of the knucklebow.)

There is also evidence of 'vice marks' on the pommel and other parts of the hilt.....perhaps where it was held whilst the tang was peened over. There seems to be no patination on the inside of the brass guard ...which seems to suggest that the hilt componants were cleaned whilst it was apart.

The leather washer at the junction of the blade with the guard seems recent...there is little or no wear where it would meet the top of the scabbard. It is possible the leather covers the possible mis-matched blade and guard ie the slot in the guard was originally designed to accept a different profile of blade.

Still a nice piece .....and perhaps why this is difficult to ID

Kind Regards David

[kisak]

Regarding the blade, this cross-section is seen on some Swedish swords from the 17th to the 19th centuries. The profile looks a bit odd though, in many cases I'd expect a bit more profile taper, especially in the smaller infantry words (which this seems to fit size-wise). The "quillions beneath the guard"-variant of the hilt seems pretty rare in Sweden though, it doesn't really match any of the swords shown in vol1 and 2 of Berg's Svenska Blankvapen.

Personally I'd think of the brass hilts seen here as "walloon descendants" rather than proper walloon hilts (much like I think of the Swedish "karolinian" cavalry hilt), but that might just be my own little oddity.

[kahnjar1]

Thankyou Gene, Manuel and David. Things are now getting interesting, but still no conclusive result.
A couple of things to be clarified.

This sword is not what I would call a true "double edged" item as the edges are not, and appear not to have EVER been sharp. It is the point which is sharp.

The raised rib on the blade is on BOTH sides, and does not have the concave "mate" as per discussion above.

I have attached better pics of the hilt, and the apparent "vice" marks are as a result of the orginal casting marks and a BAD pic---sorry guys!

The "washer" is in fact part of the casting of the guard and not a seperate piece. There is no washer of any sort at the top of the pommel.

Yes the brass has been cleaned at some stage as there is the telltale powder residue in the grooves, and the leather gusset shows no sign of being against a scabbard mouth.

Whats next??

[celtan]

Blades or even hilts which have significant value, familiy blades, even historicallly valuable fragments are often remounted, rehilted, or rebladed.

I once owned a Napoleonic Hilt mated to a short Garde Nationale Second Empire blade. The "A la marengo"Hilt was a select type, designed by Napoleon himself as a War Trophy . Apparently the owner, an ex-hussar proud of the honor implied by its posession, had it rebladed to match its subsequent Field Service. Same thing with family blades, rehilted according to fashion, service or as family heirlooms...

A classical example of this are the rehilted nihonto baldes as shin-gunto during the japanese showa era post-1920. Or the spanish Toledo 17th C blades rehilted in the New Spain (America) during the 18th C.

The blade shown looks very similar to one on a swedish officers sword I own, with four flat faces and a central ridge, of diamond crosscut.



Best regards

Manuel Luis

[katana]

Hi Stuart,
thanks for the clarification......they do say a picture is worth a thousand words .......unfortunately...sometimes a thousand of the wrong ones The newer pictures definately show this.

I am stumped with the blade ....it reminds me of some bayonets ....but obviously this is far too long ...and I am not suggesting that this is a re-hilted one either, but the 'thrust' , without the 'cut' makes perfect sense. I also wonder as to the damage to an opponents sword if this sword was used to parry a 'strike'. The 'ribs' would add strength to your blade (like a girder) and limit the 'flex' that would normally help to 'cushion' the impact of another blade.
Would it make sense that this blade may be designed to pierce armour

Regards David

[celtan]

Hi Kisak,

Almost missed your post.
I believe you are referring to my sword.
Mine does taper, it's the angle of the picture that makes it look as if having parallel edges...

Both Russians and Prussians tangled with Swedes, Could this actually be a remounted captured blade? There even was a brief Anglo-Swedish War, wasn't it?

Do you have any idea of my sword hilt's date? The rather similarly hilted British sword is a 1796 model. The foliate shape of the blade is very interesting, almost sensuous...

Merry 2009 to "y'all"


Manuel Luis

Originally Posted by kisak

Regarding the blade, this cross-section is seen on some Swedish swords from the 17th to the 19th centuries. The profile looks a bit odd though, in many cases I'd expect a bit more profile taper, especially in the smaller infantry words (which this seems to fit size-wise). The "quillions beneath the guard"-variant of the hilt seems pretty rare in Sweden though, it doesn't really match any of the swords shown in vol1 and 2 of Berg's Svenska Blankvapen.

Personally I'd think of the brass hilts seen here as "walloon descendants" rather than proper walloon hilts (much like I think of the Swedish "karolinian" cavalry hilt), but that might just be my own little oddity.

[kisak]

Originally Posted by celtan

I believe you are referring to my sword.
Mine does taper, it's the angle of the picture that makes it look as if having parallel edges...

Both Russians and Prussians tangled with Swedes, Could this actually be a remounted captured blade? There even was a brief Anglo-Swedish War, wasn't it?

Do you have any idea of my sword hilt's date? The rather similarly hilted British sword is a 1796 model. The foliate shape of the blade is very interesting, almost sensuous...

That is indeed the type of blade I was talking about. A remounted trophy blade could be possible I guess, a whole lot of Swedish swords were lost to Russia after Poltava for example. The Anglo-Swedish war seems like an unlikely candidate though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-S...%E2%80%931812)

Stuart's blade isn't a perfect match for any Swedish model, but as officers were often free to buy their own swords, it could simply be a less common variant. Regarding the profile taper there are some 18th century swords for heavy cavalry with a rather moderate taper, but these would be quite a bit larger than Stuart's sword.

As for your sword, the hilt is of a type which was in use in Sweden for quite a long time, so the dating will be quite vague I'm afraid. The relatively straight knucklebow and finely grooved, non-spherical pommel would indicate that it's from the latter part of the period in which these saw use though, perhaps something like 1760-1820?

This would also mean that we can identify it as an infantry officer's sword, originally this hilt was used by all kinds of officers, but somewhere pretty soon after the death of Karl XII it fell out of use with cavalry officers, leaving this type for the infantry (cavalry officers had two hilt types to choose from back then, infantry officers didn't have any choice).

[celtan]

Thanks Kisak,

Very interesting! It's usually the other way around, countries which aren't legally at war actually attacking each other. Like the US attacks on German U-booten in WWII, the English attacks on Spanish ships before the Napoleonic Wars, the US attacks on Spanish merchantmen before the Spanish American War, the Chinese and Russian attacks on UN Troops in Korea, the Russian attacks on Allied troops after WWI and WWII. The Mexican/American border conflicts etc...

But a declared war without hostilities? That's truly ingenious: Wars fought with only loud raspberries!

I wish they were all like that.

Kudos to the Swedes!

: )

Originally Posted by kisak

That is indeed the type of blade I was talking about. A remounted trophy blade could be possible I guess, a whole lot of Swedish swords were lost to Russia after Poltava for example. The Anglo-Swedish war seems like an unlikely candidate though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Swedish_War_(1810%E2%80%931812)

Stuart's blade isn't a perfect match for any Swedish model, but as officers were often free to buy their own swords, it could simply be a less common variant. Regarding the profile taper there are some 18th century swords for heavy cavalry with a rather moderate taper, but these would be quite a bit larger than Stuart's sword.

As for your sword, the hilt is of a type which was in use in Sweden for quite a long time, so the dating will be quite vague I'm afraid. The relatively straight knucklebow and finely grooved, non-spherical pommel would indicate that it's from the latter part of the period in which these saw use though, perhaps something like 1760-1820?

This would also mean that we can identify it as an infantry officer's sword, originally this hilt was used by all kinds of officers, but somewhere pretty soon after the death of Karl XII it fell out of use with cavalry officers, leaving this type for the infantry (cavalry officers had two hilt types to choose from back then, infantry officers didn't have any choice).

[Norman McCormick]

Hi All,
Three British 1796 Heavy Cavalry Dress Swords all slightly different hilts, blades and scabbards. As a dress sword the blade profile may not be just as important as usual and could possibly be an older 'family' blade remounted.
Regards,
Norman.