Please help on 1796 HC sword marks

[Jim McDougall]

Pretty amazing 'intermediary' stuff Fernando ! and thank you for the note on the field modifications you added as well. It is amazing how much info is available these days with the computer, as opposed to how we did things in the old days...lots of letter writing, and waiting...(no more cracks about parchment Andrew!!! )

Actually I had heard about the term 'woodchopper' which was sort of derisively used describing both the M1796 swords for British cavalry. I recall that from an article written by John Morgan in "Classic Arms and Militaria" back in the 90's about the M1796 swords, and I think it was titled 'chopping wood' or to that effect. At that time I was very fascinated by these huge British disc hilts, and was talking with him a great deal on the ancestry of these swords to the M1769-1775 Austrian disc hilts, handled by then Capt. LeMarchant on campaign in Flanders. He was a brilliant officer and wanted to bring standardization of swords to the British army and proposed both the light and heavy patterns based on these and other European examples.
He was deemed the 'scientific soldier' and was killed in cavalry combat at Salamanca during the campaigns there.

The stamped crown with number was the mark used when the weapon was viewed, and this configuration was used up to about 1820, when a letter was also added. According to Robson ("Swords of the British Army", p.191) individual viewers used different numbers at different times, so it would likely be hard to determine with any certainty. The 'V' is puzzling, as it does not seem that letter was ever used to denote 'viewing', and it seemed that it would be rather indiscriminate, although it would seem that organized control in those times were somewhat irregular. The crowned number stamp would seem to negate the need for the V as a view mark. I had thought perhaps it might be an arrow, which of course were ordnance marks then, but this seems more the letter V rather than the phaeon, and there is no BO (board of ordnance initials).

The Gill contract I referred to remains completely unsubstantiated so I can only presume my memory, or mind was sound concerning this reference.
The Gill family was profoundly one of the key producers of swords for the service, and I cannot imagine there were not other contracts. It seems there is a work in progress on the Gill swords, but I do not yet have further details.

Norman, you are right, these swords would have been horrendously consuming in actual combat, and the only driving force that enabled these troopers to use them as such was virtually pure adrenalin. The amount of skill in the average troopers swordsmanship was limited, which was what drew the derisive comment from the French, and probably did resemble chopping action. The French cavalry were keen swordsmen, and adamantly preferred the thrust, emphasizing the conflict over that cut vs. thrust over the next century in many European armies.
From what little I recall of fencing (many many moons ago!) working at strengthening various muscle groups was essential before handling a blade, and even with the very light sabre, one was spent quickly in combat.
A great movie was "The Duellists" where the combatants in a heated duel were incredibly evenly matched swordsmen in the French cavalry, and fought until both were so exhausted they could barely left the sabres.It was often said that after combat in an engagement, and intense action, horsemen could be seen just sitting motionless in thier saddles with tears streaming down thier faces, strictly from the anticlimatic release of adrenalin.

Well, I didnt mean to write a book oops,

All the best,
Jim

[fernando]

By the way, for how long was this 1796 pattern in service ... in Britain, i mean ? Did i hear 1821 ?

Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

By the way, for how long was this 1796 pattern in service ... in Britain, i mean ? Did i hear 1821 ?

Fernando

Interestingly, the disc hilts stayed in service in Austria considerably longer than the British....the British came up with the M1821 which was a sheet steel bowl guard and the rest of the hilt was essentially like the M1821 light cavalry sabre with three branch guard. There were apparantly problems in manufacture and issuance of these patterns so they did not effectively come out until 1829... thus they are often termed M1829's.
The disc hilt was around only for a short while as these were issued, and many of course went to yeomanry units.
As mentioned, these were turned in to the armouries where they were stored when many were destroyed in the 1850's (again if memory serves.....no...I wasn;t there!! ).


BTW, while the chopping wood remarks were loosely applied, it seems it was more intended for the M1796 heavy swords, while the light cavalry sabres received contrary reviews. It was said that Napoleon decried these sabres as 'barbaric' for the horrendous injuries they inflicted, and at Waterloo it is known that the heavy cavalry swords also inflicted terrible wounds and carnage. While the chopping connotation suggested ineffectiveness, it sounds like in at least may cases there were very effective.

All the best,
Jim

[katana]

Hi Fernando,
Great sword .Could the 'V' on the guard be the Roman numeral for 5 ?

Regards David

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Fernando,
Great sword .Could the 'V' on the guard be the Roman numeral for 5 ?

Regards David

Outstanding David!! You're always thinkin' !!! Very good question, did units in Portugal use Roman numerals in marking weapons?

All the best,
Jim

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Outstanding David!! You're always thinkin' !!! Very good question, did units in Portugal use Roman numerals in marking weapons?

All the best,
Jim

Don't you know Jim, David is a born thinker
Hi, i am glad you popped in, David

I don't think this is a roman five. Maybe some kind of symbol, even an owner's mark, to distinguish it from others; i wish i knew.
Regimental/rack numbers are composed of a few letters and numbers. In fact i have just learnt that the 1796 pattern swords that were distributed to Portuguese cavalry bear such regimental markings, eventually in the scabbard(see example attached), so the probabability that this specific one was used by my country fellows is now more remote, although surely many thousands were used by local regiments and even military police, so i have also learnt.
Definitely this was a popular weapon around here; even King Dom Pedro IV (who became Emperor of Brazil), used one of the kind.
Oh, i have forgotten to mention that my example came with a leather sword knot, in a very bad shape ... much too dry and braking in certain parts. I have soaked it in castor oil, to try and return some 'life' to it, and next Monday i will take it to the shoe maker to try and sew the broken parts.
This knot by could in a way define the age of the sword, assuming that the sword user would not mind to acquire a new one in case the original got lost or destroyed. It happens that a webpage that is selling sword knot replicas pretends that the knot version i have, with an optional brass button, is the second model for this sword and appeared in 1821. I am therefore a bit disapointed, as i presumed that this sword was an earlier example. I will try and double check this knot information.
Well, at least the scabbard can't be newer than 1821, as this is the date Osborn & Gunby partnership ceased.
Fernando

.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Don't you know Jim, David is a born thinker
Hi, i am glad you popped in, David

I don't think this is a roman five. Maybe some kind of symbol, even an owner's mark, to distinguish it from others; i wish i knew.
Regimental/rack numbers are composed of a few letters and numbers. In fact i have just learnt that the 1796 pattern swords that were distributed to Portuguese cavalry bear such regimental markings, eventually in the scabbard(see example attached), so the probabability that this specific one was used by my country fellows is now more remote, although surely many thousands were used by local regiments and even military police, so i have also learnt.
Definitely this was a popular weapon around here; even King Dom Pedro IV (who became Emperor of Brazil), used one of the kind.
Oh, i have forgotten to mention that my example came with a leather sword knot, in a very bad shape ... much too dry and braking in certain parts. I have soaked it in castor oil, to try and return some 'life' to it, and next Monday i will take it to the shoe maker to try and sew the broken parts.
This knot by could in a way define the age of the sword, assuming that the sword user would not mind to acquire a new one in case the original got lost or destroyed. It happens that a webpage that is selling sword knot replicas pretends that the knot version i have, with an optional brass button, is the second model for this sword and appeared in 1821. I am therefore a bit disapointed, as i presumed that this sword was an earlier example. I will try and double check this knot information.
Well, at least the scabbard can't be newer than 1821, as this is the date Osborn & Gunby partnership ceased.
Fernando

.

Hi Fernando,
Indeed he is!!!! a true weapons forensics scholar!! He always has me thinking too.....the words, 'why didnt I think of that?'

Good notes on the 'V', and I agree that this mark/numeral seems quite 'sterile' in the sense of that possible application, but still was a very good idea. Perhaps it might be a mark of acceptance as the weapon entered Portuguese stores? I dont think it would be an owners mark, as these troopers weapons were somewhat impersonally issued as I understand.
I think the closest they got to personal issue was a rack number.

The sword knot sounds interesting, good tip on the castor oil...although the presence of an original sword knot seems almost miraculous! It is incredibly seldom that these survive with these older swords, and suggests that this one was likely collected originally a very long time ago, and has remained relatively static since then. Such weapons tend not to repeatedly change hands, and then more personally rather than the saleroom circuits, where they get passed around indiscriminately, tending to lose such components and provenance related information along the way.

Again, a fantastic weapon with outstanding history, and its great to have it here to discuss. Thank you so much for sharing it!

All the best,
Jim

[celtan]

5 minutes of physical combat can leave you utterly devastated, specially when the muscle's "oxygen debt" manifests itself...

The sword thrust is far more lethal than the slash, since a sword's point concentrates an incredible amount of energy, being able to slip through the ribs or even pierce flat bones. The slash is an incredibly effective psychological weapon, since its effects are ghastly and destroy survivor's morale.

M

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Norman, you are right, these swords would have been horrendously consuming in actual combat, and the only driving force that enabled these troopers to use them as such was virtually pure adrenalin. The amount of skill in the average troopers swordsmanship was limited, which was what drew the derisive comment from the French, and probably did resemble chopping action. The French cavalry were keen swordsmen, and adamantly preferred the thrust, emphasizing the conflict over that cut vs. thrust over the next century in many European armies.
From what little I recall of fencing (many many moons ago!) working at strengthening various muscle groups was essential before handling a blade, and even with the very light sabre, one was spent quickly in combat.
A great movie was "The Duellists" where the combatants in a heated duel were incredibly evenly matched swordsmen in the French cavalry, and fought until both were so exhausted they could barely left the sabres.It was often said that after combat in an engagement, and intense action, horsemen could be seen just sitting motionless in thier saddles with tears streaming down thier faces, strictly from the anticlimatic release of adrenalin.

Well, I didnt mean to write a book oops,

All the best,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=celtan]5 minutes of physical combat can leave you utterly devastated, specially when the muscle's "oxygen debt" manifests itself...

The sword thrust is far more lethal than the slash, since a sword's point concentrates an incredible amount of energy, being able to slip through the ribs or even pierce flat bones. The slash is an incredibly effective psychological weapon, since its effects are ghastly and destroy survivor's morale.

M[/QUOTE


Most interesting perspective, Manuel, and I hadn't thought of those aspects, which are extremely well placed. The controversy over which was more effective, the cut vs. the thrust, carried through the entire 19th century, and ironically by the time the M1908 British and American M1913 huge bowlguard swords were introduced, the sword itself was essentially obsolete.

There was some intriguing study written by J.Christoph Amberger in his "Secret History of the Sword" concerning the medical aspects of sword combat, which despite sounding gruesome, was actually compelling when read objectively. There were some other similar studies done concerning the nature of warfare injuries revealed in archaeological discoveries that pertained mostly to Anglo-Saxon and Norse studies if I recall.

All best regards,
Jim

[celtan]

Hi Jim,

The medical aspects would make a very interesting sub-subject. Since you seem to have given a lot of thought to the subject, would you care to expound on same?

Best

Manolo



[QUOTE=Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by celtan

5 minutes of physical combat can leave you utterly devastated, specially when the muscle's "oxygen debt" manifests itself...

The sword thrust is far more lethal than the slash, since a sword's point concentrates an incredible amount of energy, being able to slip through the ribs or even pierce flat bones. The slash is an incredibly effective psychological weapon, since its effects are ghastly and destroy survivor's morale.

M[/QUOTE


Most interesting perspective, Manuel, and I hadn't thought of those aspects, which are extremely well placed. The controversy over which was more effective, the cut vs. the thrust, carried through the entire 19th century, and ironically by the time the M1908 British and American M1913 huge bowlguard swords were introduced, the sword itself was essentially obsolete.

There was some intriguing study written by J.Christoph Amberger in his "Secret History of the Sword" concerning the medical aspects of sword combat, which despite sounding gruesome, was actually compelling when read objectively. There were some other similar studies done concerning the nature of warfare injuries revealed in archaeological discoveries that pertained mostly to Anglo-Saxon and Norse studies if I recall.

All best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=celtan]Hi Jim,

The medical aspects would make a very interesting sub-subject. Since you seem to have given a lot of thought to the subject, would you care to expound on same?

Best

Manolo




Hi Manolo,
It really is interesting, though I will confess, it is the least appealing aspect of studying weapons to me. It is of course obvious that swords were intended for a purpose, that is to kill and maim, and the results are not nearly as inspiring as the tradition and romantic aesthetics of the weapon.

I prefer to focus on the more subtle symbolism, history and developmental aspects of weapons, despite acknowledging some of the necessary recognition associated with thier use.

Thank you for your expressed confidence in my perspective though, received as a welcome compliment considering your own profound medical knowledge and its potential application in understanding the use of weapons. My observations would be cursory in comparison, as I've only briefly seen the references I mentioned.

All very best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... it is the least appealing aspect of studying weapons to me. It is of course obvious that swords were intended for a purpose, that is to kill and maim, and the results are not nearly as inspiring as the tradition and romantic aesthetics of the weapon.
I prefer to focus on the more subtle symbolism, history and developmental aspects of weapons, despite acknowledging some of the necessary recognition associated with thier use...

Amen.

Fernando.