Please help on 1796 HC sword marks

Ian Knight · 16th December 2009, 08:39 AM

Hello guys,
This is my first post on this Forum although I have been a member on Sword Forum International for a number of years.
Fernando, I believe that I have just purchased a British P1796 HC sabre with Portuguese markings on the knuckleguard. The markings seem to attribute the sword to the 11th Regiment of Dragoons, 2nd troop. There is also a rack number or trooper number 45. I believe that this regiment was present at the Battle of Salamanca.
The sword was actually originally bought together with a French AN XI scabbard which had been altered to allow the sword to fit.
A very interesting piece.
Ian

Rick · 16th December 2009, 07:49 PM

Bump for Ian .

asomotif · 16th December 2009, 08:51 PM

Interesting thread, and congrats Fernando with this impressive sword !

Normally I go for the esthetics and beauty of weapons.
But some dicussion on usage and effects seems logical to me.

The "discussion" about thrust and slash intrigues me.
This is a HC (heavy cavalry) sword.
Straight, long, used for the thrust with a frontal attack.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the same period armies would also have a "Light cavalry" ? The guys with the curved swords ie. mameluke sabres, being used for the slash.
So in a battle both techniques would be used.. Or not

Best regards,
Willem

Ps. excuse me for wandering of from the ethno forum. No offence intended

I have a 1908 pattern troopers sword in case you want me to change my avatar

Jim McDougall · 16th December 2009, 10:05 PM

Ian, thank you so much for joining us here!!!! not only that, but thank you for reviving this fantastic thread

I truly enjoyed the discussion on this one, and it brought forth some excellent details on these M1796 Heavy Cavalry swords.

As an interesting historical note, these huge cavalry swords were developed for the British cavalry from the Austrian M1769 disc hilt cavalry sword.
As a young officer serving with Austrian forces in Flanders, Major General John Gaspard LeMarchant saw the effective use of cavalry swords by the Austrians and sought to develop regulation sword patterns for the British cavalry.

The patterns of 1796 for light and heavy cavalry are of course known as the first officially recognized regulation pattern swords for the British cavalry, with the light cavalry sabre considered one of the deadliest sabres known in Europe at the time. The heavy cavalry sword was not so well received, but it cannot be denied that these were used with devastating effect.

While seemingly intended for thrusting, with the huge straight blades, the tips of the blades were radiused into a hatchet type point, which radiused into a deadly cutting profile intended for chopping type cuts.

The Battle of Salamanca was mentioned , and in a touch of tragic irony, Major General LeMarchant died at the head of his heavy cavalry brigade at this battle on 22 July 1812, with troopers of these regiments of dragoons carrying these very swords.

Again Ian, welcome!!! and Fernando, its great to see this fantastic sword again.
Ian could you please post photos of your M1796?

Willem, please do 'wander' here more often!!! and try to get some of the other guys to do the same

These forums are meant to complement each other , and hopefully the important connections between all these forms of arms and armor will be realized in both ethnographic and European context.

Very good questions you post, and as you have astutely noted, the European cavalry's did operate both heavy and light regiments in different functions in battle. The heavy was the shock action, intended to batter into the enemy positions, while the light was used in flanking attack, pursuit and before combat in reconaissance missions. The huge straight swords of the heavy were intended as earlier noted for heavy chopping action, as well as the thrust as required....while the light cavalry using curved sabres utilized slashing cuts in fast moving combat.

All very best regards,
Jim

P.S. Willem, dont change your avatar

but why not post your M1908?..a great pattern worthy of some interesting discussion

Ian Knight · 17th December 2009, 04:56 PM

Thanks Jim,
I don't have the sword in my possession at the moment, I am still awaiting delivery but I have a few photos.
As mentioned, when originally purchased from a dealer in the U.K. the sword was paired with a French AN XI MK 2 scabbard. Both the scabbard and sword had been altered slightly to enable the sword blade and langets to fit the scabbard. My reasoning is that they were probably paired after a Peninsular War action from items found on the field.
The sword has been re-fitted with a very basic wooden grip which is too big and a poor fit. I have recently fitted my own home made grips to two P1796 LC sabres. I may do the same to this P1796 HC sabre, I haven't yet decided. I have a photo of the markings which isn't too clear. I will re-photograph the grip when the sword is delivered to me.
The blade is maker marked: WOOLLEY DEAKIN & Co.
Unfortunately, the sword and scabbard have recently parted company after a marriage of 200 years. The scabbard has now been re-matched with a French AN XI sabre.
The first photo with the blue background is of a P1796 LC sabre which I recently fitted with a grip made by myself.
Ian

celtan · 17th December 2009, 05:57 PM

Hi Ian, welcome to the EA.

The engravings in your sword could also mean 2nd Regiment, 2nd Company weapon #45, if it ever was in Spanish Hands.

Best

Manuel

Gonzalo G · 31st January 2010, 10:02 PM

Interesting thread. I just found it, and some questions came to my my head when I read it completely . To begin with, I understood that long straight one-edged swords were used by the cavaly not because some theoretical reasons/preferences over the subject "thrust vs. slash-cut", but because they were designed to penetrate-perforate the cuirasses-protections (since cuirasses were not the only body protection) used by other heavy cavalry corps at the time, and also to make effective cuts but, am I wrong? That need would be also the reason for the appearance of more pointed and rigid (by diamond-shaping the blade) medieval swords, associated with the development of the full plate armour, according with Oakeshott. Sometimes, those long and straight cavalry blades would replace gradually the lances used also by this corps, though the lances did not dissapeared completely. That would explain also the geometry of the hatchet point, since it permits the use of the thicker back of the blade to reinforce the point and give more rigidity to the thrust against body defensive protection, especially in the case of non diamond or non rhombic shaped blades (under this practical light, I feel necessary to re-evaluate the Spanish cavalry sword form this period), isn´t it?

And it is also the reason why some heavy cavalry corps in oriental Europe used a long estoc carried on the saddle as a permanent complement of the curved sabres suspended routinely from their belts or, am I wrong? This last fact, of alternative but consecutive uses, would put the "thrust vs. slash-cut" dicussion on a serious metaphysical contradiction (and on a practical dilemma, for that matter: "what do I do now, perforate him...or slash him...what do I pull?") if the subject is not considered under the more practical terms of purposes related with body armour (even horse armour, in the case of oriental European cavalry fighting against the Turkish), than with wound-effectiveness. Because wound effectiveness also does not explains the fact that frequently, at the same time and in the same army, cavalry troops used a curved sabre, meanwhile infantry troops used a straight sword. Unless a slash from a horseback in more dangerous than a thrust, or a thrust on foot more dangerous than on horseback. Though the curved sabres does not impede thrusts, and straight swords does not impede slashing cuts, and I recall one cavalry very old excersice of thrusting rings suspended from a fixed points (did I see to many Hollywood movies?). And worst yet, that does not explains the fact that some cavalry corps used straight swords, meanwhile other corps in the same army used curved sabres....I feel confussed....

I always thought that the problem of wound effectivenes was seriously considered in the design of sword blades, but I believed it was not the only one, and that the adoption of specific geometries obeyed to more complex and less....theoretical reasons, but I can be mistaken.

I don´t know for sure if this ideas are wrong, so please illuminate me, as I understand that the gradual dissapearance of those long and heavy straight swords is related with the dissapearance of all body protection in the cavalry corps, though not in a linear form, since traditions or preferences related with the tastes of those who decide over the official models (and, as we have seen, they are not always versed on the needs of the field), or the latter irrelevancy in the use of the edged weapons in combat, but for the bayonets, explains the survival of straight swords on the late 19th Centrury-early 20th Century cavalry corps, and the progressively lesser curvature of the sabres. Am I too simplistic or misinformed?

Thank you for your attention.
Regards

Gonzalo

fernando · 17th December 2009, 06:02 PM

Hi Ian,
It is so nice to have you here.
Yes, it all indicates that those are portuguese marks.
Mind you, it would be 2nd. Regiment and not 11th. If you observe, this number is in Roman digits (II).
If such were the case, the 2nd. Cavalry was licenced in 1807 to integrate the 3d. Regiment of Army Cavalry, the future so called Portuguese Legion, that was mobilized to serve Napoleon in his international campaings. However your sword could have been marked before this took place.
The initials 2ª Cª fit well as 2nd. Company and the nº 45 could well be the trooper (sergeant-officer?) number.
Obviously my coments should be taken with a certain reserve, as i am no scholar in the matter.
Once again, i register your presence in this Forum with great satisfaction.
Fernando

Ian Knight · 17th December 2009, 06:49 PM

Hello Fernando & Celtan,
Thank you both for your kind welcome.
Fernando, I think that you are correct. It is more than likely the 2nd regiment rather than the eleventh. Do you know of any Peninsular battle in which this regiment were present?
I have been desperate to acquire a British P1796 HC sword which are normally out of my price range. My only concern with this one is the fact that the blade has been ground down quite a bit to allow it to fit the French MK 2 scabbard. I wish that I could have bought the sword with the scabbard as together they tell an interesting story. Apart, they are two separate items that show abuse.

Now I need to find a British scabbard to go with the sword.

How do you feel about the grip? Should I take the sword apart and fit a new one or leave as is? The grip has probably been added at a much later date.
Ian

celtan · 17th December 2009, 08:07 PM

Hi Nando, nice to see you agree with me. : )

I'm always learning. I though the Portugueses were English allies from the outset, which explains Spain's attacks on your country at the very beginning. Spain became an reticent Napoleon's ally only after the British Navy attacked a Spanish Convoy during Peace Time, forcing the country into an open confrontation with England and their allies.

Besides, this sword is _British_. I find it difficult to internalize the concept of the Brits arming a Portuguese unit that would serve Ol'Nappy.

Since Portuguese and Spanish Military abbreviations seem identical, couldn't this be a Spanish sword obtained as British military assistance, after Spain was invaded by Nappy, and they became enemies?

The relations between Spanish, French, Portuguese and British during the Napoleonic Wars were incredibly complex, and sometimes downright bizarre,

Best

¡ Oro,Vino y Mujeres..!

M

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Ian,
It is so nice to have you here.
Yes, it all indicates that those are portuguese marks.
Mind you, it would be 2nd. Regiment and not 11th. If you observe, this number is in Roman digits (II).
If such were the case, the 2nd. Cavalry was licenced in 1807 to integrate the 3d. Regiment of Army Cavalry, the future so called Portuguese Legion, that was mobilized to serve Napoleon in his international campaings. However your sword could have been marked before this took place.
The initials 2ª Cª fit well as 2nd. Company and the nº 45 could well be the trooper (sergeant-officer?) number.
Obviously my coments should be taken with a certain reserve, as i am no scholar in the matter.
Once again, i register your presence in this Forum with great satisfaction.
Fernando

Norman McCormick · 17th December 2009, 08:46 PM

Hi Ian,
Nice to see you here. The 1796 L.C. sabre grip has worked out really well, the orders will be rolling in soon. I hope you enjoy your time here at the E.A. and I look forward to seeing examples in your collection.
My Regards,
Norman.

16th December 2009, 08:51 PM	#3
asomotif Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,228	Thrust or slash ? Interesting thread, and congrats Fernando with this impressive sword ! Normally I go for the esthetics and beauty of weapons. But some dicussion on usage and effects seems logical to me. The "discussion" about thrust and slash intrigues me. This is a HC (heavy cavalry) sword. Straight, long, used for the thrust with a frontal attack. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the same period armies would also have a "Light cavalry" ? The guys with the curved swords ie. mameluke sabres, being used for the slash. So in a battle both techniques would be used.. Or not Best regards, Willem Ps. excuse me for wandering of from the ethno forum. No offence intended I have a 1908 pattern troopers sword in case you want me to change my avatar

17th December 2009, 04:56 PM	#5
Ian Knight Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: East Sussex, England. Posts: 103	Thanks Jim, I don't have the sword in my possession at the moment, I am still awaiting delivery but I have a few photos. As mentioned, when originally purchased from a dealer in the U.K. the sword was paired with a French AN XI MK 2 scabbard. Both the scabbard and sword had been altered slightly to enable the sword blade and langets to fit the scabbard. My reasoning is that they were probably paired after a Peninsular War action from items found on the field. The sword has been re-fitted with a very basic wooden grip which is too big and a poor fit. I have recently fitted my own home made grips to two P1796 LC sabres. I may do the same to this P1796 HC sabre, I haven't yet decided. I have a photo of the markings which isn't too clear. I will re-photograph the grip when the sword is delivered to me. The blade is maker marked: WOOLLEY DEAKIN & Co. Unfortunately, the sword and scabbard have recently parted company after a marriage of 200 years. The scabbard has now been re-matched with a French AN XI sabre. The first photo with the blue background is of a P1796 LC sabre which I recently fitted with a grip made by myself. Ian Attached Images Last edited by Ian Knight; 18th December 2009 at 08:17 AM.

16th December 2009, 08:39 AM	#1
Ian Knight Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: East Sussex, England. Posts: 103	Hello guys, This is my first post on this Forum although I have been a member on Sword Forum International for a number of years. Fernando, I believe that I have just purchased a British P1796 HC sabre with Portuguese markings on the knuckleguard. The markings seem to attribute the sword to the 11th Regiment of Dragoons, 2nd troop. There is also a rack number or trooper number 45. I believe that this regiment was present at the Battle of Salamanca. The sword was actually originally bought together with a French AN XI scabbard which had been altered to allow the sword to fit. A very interesting piece. Ian

16th December 2009, 07:49 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	Bump for Ian .

16th December 2009, 10:05 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,191	Ian, thank you so much for joining us here!!!! not only that, but thank you for reviving this fantastic thread I truly enjoyed the discussion on this one, and it brought forth some excellent details on these M1796 Heavy Cavalry swords. As an interesting historical note, these huge cavalry swords were developed for the British cavalry from the Austrian M1769 disc hilt cavalry sword. As a young officer serving with Austrian forces in Flanders, Major General John Gaspard LeMarchant saw the effective use of cavalry swords by the Austrians and sought to develop regulation sword patterns for the British cavalry. The patterns of 1796 for light and heavy cavalry are of course known as the first officially recognized regulation pattern swords for the British cavalry, with the light cavalry sabre considered one of the deadliest sabres known in Europe at the time. The heavy cavalry sword was not so well received, but it cannot be denied that these were used with devastating effect. While seemingly intended for thrusting, with the huge straight blades, the tips of the blades were radiused into a hatchet type point, which radiused into a deadly cutting profile intended for chopping type cuts. The Battle of Salamanca was mentioned , and in a touch of tragic irony, Major General LeMarchant died at the head of his heavy cavalry brigade at this battle on 22 July 1812, with troopers of these regiments of dragoons carrying these very swords. Again Ian, welcome!!! and Fernando, its great to see this fantastic sword again. Ian could you please post photos of your M1796? Willem, please do 'wander' here more often!!! and try to get some of the other guys to do the same These forums are meant to complement each other , and hopefully the important connections between all these forms of arms and armor will be realized in both ethnographic and European context. Very good questions you post, and as you have astutely noted, the European cavalry's did operate both heavy and light regiments in different functions in battle. The heavy was the shock action, intended to batter into the enemy positions, while the light was used in flanking attack, pursuit and before combat in reconaissance missions. The huge straight swords of the heavy were intended as earlier noted for heavy chopping action, as well as the thrust as required....while the light cavalry using curved sabres utilized slashing cuts in fast moving combat. All very best regards, Jim P.S. Willem, dont change your avatar but why not post your M1908?..a great pattern worthy of some interesting discussion Last edited by Jim McDougall; 16th December 2009 at 10:17 PM.

17th December 2009, 05:57 PM	#6
celtan Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: PR, USA Posts: 679	Hi Ian, welcome to the EA. The engravings in your sword could also mean 2nd Regiment, 2nd Company weapon #45, if it ever was in Spanish Hands. Best Manuel

31st January 2010, 10:02 PM	#7
Gonzalo G Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Nothern Mexico Posts: 458	Interesting thread. I just found it, and some questions came to my my head when I read it completely . To begin with, I understood that long straight one-edged swords were used by the cavaly not because some theoretical reasons/preferences over the subject "thrust vs. slash-cut", but because they were designed to penetrate-perforate the cuirasses-protections (since cuirasses were not the only body protection) used by other heavy cavalry corps at the time, and also to make effective cuts but, am I wrong? That need would be also the reason for the appearance of more pointed and rigid (by diamond-shaping the blade) medieval swords, associated with the development of the full plate armour, according with Oakeshott. Sometimes, those long and straight cavalry blades would replace gradually the lances used also by this corps, though the lances did not dissapeared completely. That would explain also the geometry of the hatchet point, since it permits the use of the thicker back of the blade to reinforce the point and give more rigidity to the thrust against body defensive protection, especially in the case of non diamond or non rhombic shaped blades (under this practical light, I feel necessary to re-evaluate the Spanish cavalry sword form this period), isn´t it? And it is also the reason why some heavy cavalry corps in oriental Europe used a long estoc carried on the saddle as a permanent complement of the curved sabres suspended routinely from their belts or, am I wrong? This last fact, of alternative but consecutive uses, would put the "thrust vs. slash-cut" dicussion on a serious metaphysical contradiction (and on a practical dilemma, for that matter: "what do I do now, perforate him...or slash him...what do I pull?") if the subject is not considered under the more practical terms of purposes related with body armour (even horse armour, in the case of oriental European cavalry fighting against the Turkish), than with wound-effectiveness. Because wound effectiveness also does not explains the fact that frequently, at the same time and in the same army, cavalry troops used a curved sabre, meanwhile infantry troops used a straight sword. Unless a slash from a horseback in more dangerous than a thrust, or a thrust on foot more dangerous than on horseback. Though the curved sabres does not impede thrusts, and straight swords does not impede slashing cuts, and I recall one cavalry very old excersice of thrusting rings suspended from a fixed points (did I see to many Hollywood movies?). And worst yet, that does not explains the fact that some cavalry corps used straight swords, meanwhile other corps in the same army used curved sabres....I feel confussed.... I always thought that the problem of wound effectivenes was seriously considered in the design of sword blades, but I believed it was not the only one, and that the adoption of specific geometries obeyed to more complex and less....theoretical reasons, but I can be mistaken. I don´t know for sure if this ideas are wrong, so please illuminate me, as I understand that the gradual dissapearance of those long and heavy straight swords is related with the dissapearance of all body protection in the cavalry corps, though not in a linear form, since traditions or preferences related with the tastes of those who decide over the official models (and, as we have seen, they are not always versed on the needs of the field), or the latter irrelevancy in the use of the edged weapons in combat, but for the bayonets, explains the survival of straight swords on the late 19th Centrury-early 20th Century cavalry corps, and the progressively lesser curvature of the sabres. Am I too simplistic or misinformed? Thank you for your attention. Regards Gonzalo

17th December 2009, 06:02 PM	#8
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Ian, It is so nice to have you here. Yes, it all indicates that those are portuguese marks. Mind you, it would be 2nd. Regiment and not 11th. If you observe, this number is in Roman digits (II). If such were the case, the 2nd. Cavalry was licenced in 1807 to integrate the 3d. Regiment of Army Cavalry, the future so called Portuguese Legion, that was mobilized to serve Napoleon in his international campaings. However your sword could have been marked before this took place. The initials 2ª Cª fit well as 2nd. Company and the nº 45 could well be the trooper (sergeant-officer?) number. Obviously my coments should be taken with a certain reserve, as i am no scholar in the matter. Once again, i register your presence in this Forum with great satisfaction. Fernando

17th December 2009, 06:49 PM	#9
Ian Knight Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: East Sussex, England. Posts: 103	Hello Fernando & Celtan, Thank you both for your kind welcome. Fernando, I think that you are correct. It is more than likely the 2nd regiment rather than the eleventh. Do you know of any Peninsular battle in which this regiment were present? I have been desperate to acquire a British P1796 HC sword which are normally out of my price range. My only concern with this one is the fact that the blade has been ground down quite a bit to allow it to fit the French MK 2 scabbard. I wish that I could have bought the sword with the scabbard as together they tell an interesting story. Apart, they are two separate items that show abuse. Now I need to find a British scabbard to go with the sword. How do you feel about the grip? Should I take the sword apart and fit a new one or leave as is? The grip has probably been added at a much later date. Ian

17th December 2009, 08:46 PM	#11
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	Hi Ian, Nice to see you here. The 1796 L.C. sabre grip has worked out really well, the orders will be rolling in soon. I hope you enjoy your time here at the E.A. and I look forward to seeing examples in your collection. My Regards, Norman.