Small sword identification

fernando · 8th June 2021, 06:45 PM

The folded guard becoming a more 'flat' surface, it leans more smoothly against your hip.
I recall one solution with the 1796 British heavy cavalry sword. As the guard was born unfoldable and harassed troops, the Ordnance decided to cut off (trim) part of it; this before the battle of Waterloo; after which the 'new version' was named.
Also their blade points were reviewed, as may be seen, but is another story.

.

Jim McDougall · 8th June 2021, 07:13 PM

As Fernando has noted, the full guard was often seen as a problem with chafing (of the uniform) so these were cut down, or as noted, the folding guard was created.
After Waterloo, the M1796 hilts were cut down for 'presumably' this reason, which is often notable in identifying post Waterloo use of these.
It seems odd though, as in these times swords were worn low slung ,the reason for the large drag on the chape of the scabbard), so whether hanging over the saddle mounted, or dragging when on foot, how it would chafe uniform is puzzling.

With the blades, actually before Waterloo, the Scots Greys were ordered to grind down the hatchet points (as in Fernandos illustration)on their swords to a spear point, this being an identifying factor in recognizing pre Waterloo modification. This was actually ordered just before they shipped out to Belgium.
The M1796 disc hilts did not remain in use long after Waterloo in 1815, as in 1821 a new hilt with sheet steel bowl guard was introduced.

M ELEY · 8th June 2021, 09:12 PM

I remember seeing and reading about other earlier swords that had their opposing guard (in the case of the 'kidney pattern' swords)bent downwards at an acute angle to prevent the annoyance of it banging up against one's leg. I did a search trying to find an example, but no luck. I think the ones I've seen were the early English hunting sword types. Perhaps this is why we see so many weapons missing one of their two shell guards?

fernando · 9th June 2021, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M ELEY

... Perhaps this is why we see so many weapons missing one of their two shell guards?

...

It could also be a 'two in one' solution; the little central spring that holds the guard open/folded could break or lose tension. As the inner guard was a harassing part, the owner could just take it off instead of having the spring replaced.

.

8th June 2021, 06:45 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	The folded guard becoming a more 'flat' surface, it leans more smoothly against your hip. I recall one solution with the 1796 British heavy cavalry sword. As the guard was born unfoldable and harassed troops, the Ordnance decided to cut off (trim) part of it; this before the battle of Waterloo; after which the 'new version' was named. Also their blade points were reviewed, as may be seen, but is another story. . Attached Images

8th June 2021, 07:13 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	As Fernando has noted, the full guard was often seen as a problem with chafing (of the uniform) so these were cut down, or as noted, the folding guard was created. After Waterloo, the M1796 hilts were cut down for 'presumably' this reason, which is often notable in identifying post Waterloo use of these. It seems odd though, as in these times swords were worn low slung ,the reason for the large drag on the chape of the scabbard), so whether hanging over the saddle mounted, or dragging when on foot, how it would chafe uniform is puzzling. With the blades, actually before Waterloo, the Scots Greys were ordered to grind down the hatchet points (as in Fernandos illustration)on their swords to a spear point, this being an identifying factor in recognizing pre Waterloo modification. This was actually ordered just before they shipped out to Belgium. The M1796 disc hilts did not remain in use long after Waterloo in 1815, as in 1821 a new hilt with sheet steel bowl guard was introduced.

8th June 2021, 09:12 PM	#3
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	I remember seeing and reading about other earlier swords that had their opposing guard (in the case of the 'kidney pattern' swords)bent downwards at an acute angle to prevent the annoyance of it banging up against one's leg. I did a search trying to find an example, but no luck. I think the ones I've seen were the early English hunting sword types. Perhaps this is why we see so many weapons missing one of their two shell guards?