Pommel Ring on British Dragoon Swords 18th c.

[Will M]

The ring is a stronger connection and would add time to the manufacturing and therefore cost. Your sword is possibly from a maker that had not made any other form and he stuck to what he knew worked?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Will M

The ring is a stronger connection and would add time to the manufacturing and therefore cost. Your sword is possibly from a maker that had not made any other form and he stuck to what he knew worked?

That makes sense, perhaps Jeffries, who was known making British dragoon hilt swords might have followed that course, but it changed as he is known to have produced the '1759' patterns.

[Radboud]

Interesting, thank you for the share. It looks like a transitional design from the ‘screw in the pommel’ to the later, simpler join of the slot-hilts you show.

I hadn’t noticed it before, so went back to my catalogue of basket hilt photos and you can almost see the transition of the earlier ribbon hilts to these ring joins and later ones that follow.

[Jim McDougall]

I think that is a pretty likely possibility, and while I am far from being a metal fabricator, it seems logical that rather than the individual placement of guard components into a slot in the pommel...joining the entire assembly with a ring and placing it under the pommel would be an easier bet.

I'm not sure offhand when the ring method began, but these are seen on many of the 'garrison' town versions of basket hilts for British dragoons of first half 18th c. They are clearly seen in Nuemann, Darling, Mazansky et al .

"..in 1755, in common with the three regiments of dragoon guards and four other regiments of dragoons, it was augmented by a seventh, or 'light' troop".
-""The Princes Dolls", John Mollo, 1997,p.8
This reference concerns the 10th Light Dragoons (later hussars) which were the regiment belonging to the Prince of Wales (later George IV).

The author goes on to explain that the 'light troop' was disbanded after return from Seven Years War, and that in 1759, the first entire regiment of Light Dragoons was raised, the 15th, followed by 16th and 17th, and 1783 the 10th.

It would seem that this attraction to the potential of these light cavalry units came from primarily French influences, though German military influence overall was certainly well known. Infantry sword patterns that developed in first half 18th were of German form.
The French 'light' cavalry were a fashionable and effective force, which seems in turn to have developed from their interest in Hungarian cavalry units, some of which were actually factored into the French army.

Further interest in the 'exotica' of these influences may have been the fascination with the 'pandour' phenomenon, which was a key element in the Austrian forces, made up of Hungarian and Croatian cavalry.

One of the features on my sword posted in OP is the 'clipped point' of the blade. This particular feature is of unusual character for British swords, but was known in Europe as the 'pandour point' (Seifert, "Schwert Degen Sabel",1962).

It would seem that the interest in the 'light dragoon' concept, as noted of 1755, would perhaps bring about the notion of a lighter sword resembling the sabers of these European units. Keeping to the existing style of the basket hilt dragoon swords, but keeping the 'ring' and adapting the straight backsword blade using the 'pandour point' , seems a logical 'styling' move for the swords of these new units.

As noted previously, there seems to be some notation of this type sword as a 'pattern' or model of 1756, but this of course is not widely recognized.
We do know however, that in 1759, the swords apparently supplied to these 'light dragoon' units, at least for certain to the 21st, were by Jeffries of London largely, and of this same 'four slot' guard form.
These no longer use the 'pommel ring' method and a side entry mount for knuckleguard is used.

This is basically why I am suggesting this example of four slot sword is quite possibly a prototype form for the first units of light dragoons, and from 1755-56 reflecting the influence of the European light cavalry as noted.

[Jim McDougall]

To add to hilts already shown with the pommel ring, this is a Glasgow hilt, often associated in references to Royal Scots Greys (Royal North British Dragoons pre.1713). The notable feature in the guard structure termed the 'horsemans ring' has been pretty much resolved to have been for holding reins while discharging firearms while still holding sword.

It was long thought this feature was after 1750, however it is now known to have been used in British dragoon hilts much earlier, possibly the early years of the century.

The pommel ring is seen at top of the guard assembly to rest just below pommel, and in the manner I am noting in the light dragoon sword c.1756 (?).
There are numbers of other British dragoon basket hilts with varying guard structures , but all using this pommel ring.

It is of course possible, perhaps likely, that a number of hilt makers of 'old school' still held to this manner of construction, but largely this seems a convention that was popular in British dragoon swords first half 18th c.

[Hotspur]

What was the question again?

What I am wondering is when did this means of securing the guard end? and go to the knuckleguard or guard assembly going into the side of the pommel begin?

If we look at the English 1788 as the 'beginning' of a pierced pommel, in the sense of a four slot hilt, then the AR would be the end of the ring.

Yet, we can go back more than a century to find compound hilts piercing pommels along with screws instead at the same time.

I would believe that the ring assembly adds significant strength in a blow and how a backstrap was also a means to an end. Curious then that the 1788 heavy was inherently weaker

Cheers
GC

[Hotspur]

Also, my brass slot spadroon and others do without the ring and are 1780s