Anglo-Indian army swords

[Shakethetrees]

Great looking saber!

It appears to have a bone grip, right?

[sirupate]

Lovely sword Chris, but would this be classified as a 1796 type? I'd be very interested to hear what the other experts opinions are.

[mrcjgscott]

Originally Posted by sirupate

Lovely sword Chris, but would this be classified as a 1796 type? I'd be very interested to hear what the other experts opinions are.

Thank you Simon.

I actually said "1796 style" (not that it really matters)

The hilt is certainly based on that design, possibly for an officer of the East India Company.

I am always happy to hear other opinions.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mrcjgscott

Thank you Simon.

I actually said "1796 style" (not that it really matters)

The hilt is certainly based on that design, possibly for an officer of the East India Company.

I am always happy to hear other opinions.

Chris, this is a beautiful sword, and what appears to be a Solingen blade, probably end of 18th to c. 1815. The M1796 light cavalry stirrup hilts were among the most widely varied of the British 'regulation' patterns. This was due to this of course being the first 'officially' recognized pattern date, and at this time there were a good number of makers all responding to orders from officers, often with their own design and innovations.

I recall when I first collected British cavalry patterns many years ago, one challenging field was variations of the M1796 lt cavalry sabre for officers. The troopers swords were pretty standard, but officers had many nuanced differences in the backstrap, langets, and clearly the grips....often there were variations in blades as well.

It seems I have seen this langet style somewhere, and it very well may have bee an EIC selection. If I can find some of the data I will add it here, there was some very obscure and brief articles back in the 70s it seems.
It is unfortunate that EIC swords were never marked, nor it seems usually inscribed (none I have seen personally at least).

I agree the grip does seem bone but hard to say, these officers had access to good ivory work in the EIC regions so that must be considered.

[mrcjgscott]

Hello Jim,

Many thanks indeed for chiming in on this one.

I have always suspected, as have most of the people who have handled this particular sword, that the blade was of Indian manufacture.

Whilst the blade itself is sound and still holding a wicked edge, the finish, especially around the fullers, isn't really up to the standard I have come to expect from a Solingen product of that era.

Is there any particular indication that makes you think it is Solingen rather than Indian? Obviously their output during this period was prodigious (one only has to consider the amount of "J.J. Runkell" examples encountered) but I had no idea that they might be importing blades into India also.

It is always good to revaluate things from time to time, especially those things which you have had so long that you have rather written them off as "knowing it all"! So I thank you for making me think twice about this old friend of mine.

As you say, the dearth of markings on early EIC blades is something of a handicap, and does leave interpretation up to combinations of other features. But perhaps that is also part of the fun?

I shall take some better images of the hilt, then perhaps, we might be able to tie that down slightly better!

All the best,

Chris

[sirupate]

That kind of fullering/groves reminded me of one of Drabya Shah's weapons circa 1559

[sirupate]

This is quite a good little PDF on Officers 1796 LCS

[mrcjgscott]

Originally Posted by Shakethetrees

It appears to have a bone grip, right?

I believe so Shakethetrees, although I could not tell you from which animal it came.