1822 British Lancer Mameluke

Norman McCormick · 1st February 2022, 02:16 PM

Hi,
Along a similar vein, a late 17thC early 18thC Indian Tulwar and a mid 19thC Austrian cavalry sword with an earlier, probably 18thC, Austrian made blade in the Ottoman style. Not too difficult to imagine a British Indian Army officer appropriating a similar Tulwar blade for remounting as an instant Mameluke style sabre as per fashion of the time. Equally Austro/Hungarian officers had blades made in the 'Ottoman fashion' and I have seen a few apart from my own pictured here. This Austrian one has evidence of applied gold highlights on the script although now sadly all but gone.
Regards,
Norman.

Will M · 1st February 2022, 03:27 PM

This mameluke has a fighting blade, not a dress blade for politicians. Generals and high political position 1831p swords usually have slender blades for dress. One must consider the aspects era of the blade, hilt, scabbard and in my opinion this sword does not fit into civilian use such as Lord Lieutenants, it would be a great stretch to fit this sword into that category. We must use the particular attributes of this sword to come to a conclusion rather than distant probabilities. This sword like many can only say so much, if only they could talk?

O. Baskurt · 1st February 2022, 03:57 PM

I think main question here is... Is it really belong to Indian Lancers. As for Austrian Turkic style sabers yes i ve seen and inspected some of them either. The problem about them they dont have true aspects of Ottoman swords they look a like but even writings are kind of made up on them ( inscriptions ) and even people who can read sometimes cant read them at all cuz it doesnt make sense also ornanets and floral patterns are way too off as well as Proportions of blade is way too off either. Jack's blade has perfect proportions of Ottoman form smooth lines true style ornaments and writings all point out Ottoman work rather than Indian or any other but there is also possibilities everytime in life and one of them are being Safavid work. Some Safavid masters were nice kilic makers too most of us see their works on Shamshir and might think about this way only but no they had kilic blades too and they were nice and good at it as well ( i am not talking about 19th century or 18th century revival works those are kind of different topic ). And these kilic blades were totally same featured with Ottoman blades also used by Ottomans too. And many many Safavid masters worked in Ottoman Empire as a kilic maker. ( i have lists of all smiths from 15th to 19th century because they were all needed to recorded in governement due to they produce weapon) Thats why i have no doubts this blade is not Tulwar blade at all it is purely as form Ottoman or Safavid made Ottoman kilic. Portions smooth lines ornaments patterns of wootz blade and many other suits to this perfectly.

kronckew · 1st February 2022, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will M

... 1831 swords usually have slender blades for dress. ...

Yup, Politicians would never need to actually use a sword, and a smart general stays behind the front lines in a battle (but should visit the troops there before & after). Generals who get killed are an instant disaster for their side. Like the death of CSA's General 'Stonewall' Jackson from friendly fire and the Union Major General John Sedgwick who visited the front during a battle, was told to keep his head down as the Confederates had snipers shooting at them. He said "Nonsense, They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist" and collapsed dead from a head shot. The CSA had a few Whitworth sniper rifles, and one may have accounted for the Yankee General, highest ranking officer killed in that war.

Radboud · 1st February 2022, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

Yup, Politicians would never need to actually use a sword, and a smart general stays behind the front lines in a battle (but should visit the troops there before & after). Generals who get killed are an instant disaster for their side. Like the death of CSA's General 'Stonewall' Jackson from friendly fire and the Union Major General John Sedgwick who visited the front during a battle, was told to keep his head down as the Confederates had snipers shooting at them. He said "Nonsense, They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist" and collapsed dead from a head shot. The CSA had a few Whitworth sniper rifles, and one may have accounted for the Yankee General, highest ranking officer killed in that war.

Gentlemen, please. You are confusing modern-day sentiments with those of two centuries ago. In the time that Jim's sabre belongs to, General Officers and their staff were very much on the battlefield and had, on occasion the need to defend themselves with their swords. Napoleon and Wellington were very much present at Waterloo.

As for the American Civil war example, again not applicable in the time that we are discussing. Firearms technology had improved significantly in the intervening fourty years.

JT88 · 1st February 2022, 10:31 PM

Thanks for all the responses! I’ve been indisposed with the worst food poison episode I’ve ever had all day today. So, besides Dellar’s book are there any other sources to draw upon here.

As was pointed out this sword has a fighting blade. Osman seems entirely sure that it is Ottoman in make. One thing I could do is see if I can discern whether the handle is African or Indian ivory.

I am also convinced the leather is an in period replacement. Originally velvet. The leather has constricted with age making the sword difficult to sheath and draw and tearing at the seam as well.

This Mameluke imo is of the early 19th century in style, falling into the 1822 regulation whether or not it is a lancers. Later Mamelukes have completely different characteristics, and all of those “civilian” Mamelukes posted were certainly dress swords and not fighting blades with characteristics akin to the 1831.

Good discussion!

Bryce · 2nd February 2022, 03:24 AM

G'day JT88,
Why are you convinced that the scabbard was originally covered in velvet and that the current leather is a replacement? The majority of these mamelukes had leather, rather than velvet covered scabbards.
Cheers,
Bryce

Jim McDougall · 2nd February 2022, 04:50 AM

In India, during the Raj, it would not be surprising to see velveteen used for a scabbard with a tulwar blade mounted for a British officer in the manner of contemporary style on native tulwars of quality.

As has been discussed there are numbers of these blades which are most certainly in Ottoman style with this stepped blade end (termed a 'latch back' in Bezdek)which were a traditional form seen on early Mamluk sabers. These were the model for many Polish and Hungarian sabers of 17th into 18th century using this blade profile.

Ottoman blades of this style are beautifully made, and seem almost invariably to have cartouches and calligraphy profusely decorating them.
If this is indeed an Ottoman produced blade, it would seem that such decoration or cartouche in some degree would exist. I have not been aware of the Ottomans producing 'trade' blades void of such motif, and would appreciate knowing more on the contrary.

In the 17th century into 18th, there was a notable confluence of Islamic style in the arms of the Deccan ("Arts of the Muslim Knight" ,B. Mohammed, 2008) which included copies of this style of Ottoman blade. Deccani influences were profound influences on Mughal regions to the north.

While I noted earlier that Indian tulwar blades typically had the blade edge blunted near hilt in the 'Indian ricasso', but I dont believe Rawson (1968) meant that 'every' blade had this feature. As Norman noted, it would not be surprising that in remounting, the edge was sharpened to full length.

Here I would point out that British officers in India during the Raj were incredibly flamboyant, and the carte blanche that was typically enjoyed by officers in Great Britain and elsewhere was carried to new dimensions there.
To have a fashionable mameluke hilt mounted with a fearsome tulwar fighting blade would be remarkably appealing to the hubris of many officers.

It is not necessarily the case that this style hilt should be attributed to any particular category of officers despite the regulations recommending them to certain units. Officers swords were privately commissioned and purchased, as was the case of course for civilian swords.
While an officer, especially of cavalry in that elite status, might well adopt a 'fighting sword' of elaborate character....it would be entirely unseemly for a civilian sector official to take such a step.

1st February 2022, 02:16 PM	#1
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	Hi, Along a similar vein, a late 17thC early 18thC Indian Tulwar and a mid 19thC Austrian cavalry sword with an earlier, probably 18thC, Austrian made blade in the Ottoman style. Not too difficult to imagine a British Indian Army officer appropriating a similar Tulwar blade for remounting as an instant Mameluke style sabre as per fashion of the time. Equally Austro/Hungarian officers had blades made in the 'Ottoman fashion' and I have seen a few apart from my own pictured here. This Austrian one has evidence of applied gold highlights on the script although now sadly all but gone. Regards, Norman. Attached Images

1st February 2022, 03:27 PM	#2
Will M Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: In the wee woods north of Napanee Ontario Posts: 394	This mameluke has a fighting blade, not a dress blade for politicians. Generals and high political position 1831p swords usually have slender blades for dress. One must consider the aspects era of the blade, hilt, scabbard and in my opinion this sword does not fit into civilian use such as Lord Lieutenants, it would be a great stretch to fit this sword into that category. We must use the particular attributes of this sword to come to a conclusion rather than distant probabilities. This sword like many can only say so much, if only they could talk?

1st February 2022, 03:57 PM	#3
O. Baskurt Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 11	I think main question here is... Is it really belong to Indian Lancers. As for Austrian Turkic style sabers yes i ve seen and inspected some of them either. The problem about them they dont have true aspects of Ottoman swords they look a like but even writings are kind of made up on them ( inscriptions ) and even people who can read sometimes cant read them at all cuz it doesnt make sense also ornanets and floral patterns are way too off as well as Proportions of blade is way too off either. Jack's blade has perfect proportions of Ottoman form smooth lines true style ornaments and writings all point out Ottoman work rather than Indian or any other but there is also possibilities everytime in life and one of them are being Safavid work. Some Safavid masters were nice kilic makers too most of us see their works on Shamshir and might think about this way only but no they had kilic blades too and they were nice and good at it as well ( i am not talking about 19th century or 18th century revival works those are kind of different topic ). And these kilic blades were totally same featured with Ottoman blades also used by Ottomans too. And many many Safavid masters worked in Ottoman Empire as a kilic maker. ( i have lists of all smiths from 15th to 19th century because they were all needed to recorded in governement due to they produce weapon) Thats why i have no doubts this blade is not Tulwar blade at all it is purely as form Ottoman or Safavid made Ottoman kilic. Portions smooth lines ornaments patterns of wootz blade and many other suits to this perfectly.

1st February 2022, 10:31 PM	#6
JT88 Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 52	Thanks for all the responses! I’ve been indisposed with the worst food poison episode I’ve ever had all day today. So, besides Dellar’s book are there any other sources to draw upon here. As was pointed out this sword has a fighting blade. Osman seems entirely sure that it is Ottoman in make. One thing I could do is see if I can discern whether the handle is African or Indian ivory. I am also convinced the leather is an in period replacement. Originally velvet. The leather has constricted with age making the sword difficult to sheath and draw and tearing at the seam as well. This Mameluke imo is of the early 19th century in style, falling into the 1822 regulation whether or not it is a lancers. Later Mamelukes have completely different characteristics, and all of those “civilian” Mamelukes posted were certainly dress swords and not fighting blades with characteristics akin to the 1831. Good discussion!

2nd February 2022, 03:24 AM	#7
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 187	G'day JT88, Why are you convinced that the scabbard was originally covered in velvet and that the current leather is a replacement? The majority of these mamelukes had leather, rather than velvet covered scabbards. Cheers, Bryce

2nd February 2022, 04:50 AM	#8
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	In India, during the Raj, it would not be surprising to see velveteen used for a scabbard with a tulwar blade mounted for a British officer in the manner of contemporary style on native tulwars of quality. As has been discussed there are numbers of these blades which are most certainly in Ottoman style with this stepped blade end (termed a 'latch back' in Bezdek)which were a traditional form seen on early Mamluk sabers. These were the model for many Polish and Hungarian sabers of 17th into 18th century using this blade profile. Ottoman blades of this style are beautifully made, and seem almost invariably to have cartouches and calligraphy profusely decorating them. If this is indeed an Ottoman produced blade, it would seem that such decoration or cartouche in some degree would exist. I have not been aware of the Ottomans producing 'trade' blades void of such motif, and would appreciate knowing more on the contrary. In the 17th century into 18th, there was a notable confluence of Islamic style in the arms of the Deccan ("Arts of the Muslim Knight" ,B. Mohammed, 2008) which included copies of this style of Ottoman blade. Deccani influences were profound influences on Mughal regions to the north. While I noted earlier that Indian tulwar blades typically had the blade edge blunted near hilt in the 'Indian ricasso', but I dont believe Rawson (1968) meant that 'every' blade had this feature. As Norman noted, it would not be surprising that in remounting, the edge was sharpened to full length. Here I would point out that British officers in India during the Raj were incredibly flamboyant, and the carte blanche that was typically enjoyed by officers in Great Britain and elsewhere was carried to new dimensions there. To have a fashionable mameluke hilt mounted with a fearsome tulwar fighting blade would be remarkably appealing to the hubris of many officers. It is not necessarily the case that this style hilt should be attributed to any particular category of officers despite the regulations recommending them to certain units. Officers swords were privately commissioned and purchased, as was the case of course for civilian swords. While an officer, especially of cavalry in that elite status, might well adopt a 'fighting sword' of elaborate character....it would be entirely unseemly for a civilian sector official to take such a step.