Officers sword pattern 1796 for Light Cavalry?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Bryce

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about near 20 at best surviving, from the 83+ (including the original 27) that would have been produced up until superceded by the 1821/22 model sword for light cavalry officers.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

[Calien]

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

[fernando]

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 ?


.

[Jim McDougall]

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!

[fernando]

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)

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

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

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... good call on the inscription partly obscured by langet, I totally missed that ...

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

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I ask, which reference by Mr. Calvo this is from. I need more data on the Spanish sword making firms of this period...

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.


.