18th century Gunners Stilleto?

[templarnight]

Hi
I have this Dagger.
Long square sectioned Blade with an interesting serrated area just below the tip.
The Wood Handle is beauitufully worn and patinated with engraved Panel.
Is this a Gunners Stiletto for cleaningthe touch hole?
Any ideas as to exact age or where it came from?
Many thanks in anticipation

[fernando]

Hi, welcome to the forum.
What an excelent stilleto.It should have quite some age, judging by its pommel ... and not only.
Could it be that the monogram and number belonged to a military, although the plate wasn't not necessarily applied at the dagger's origin? like a second owner ?
But i might just be talking nonsense. Let's see what the experts tell about it.
I wouln't be surprised to learn that the serrated part works like a touchole cleaning "screw".

[Jim McDougall]

Templar, thank you so much for posting this most unusual piece!
This indeed does appear to be a 'gunners stiletto' which is of a type of weapon better known as the 'fusetti' or bombardiers dagger from early types in use in the Venetian Republic mid 17th into early 18th c.

These earlier forms characteristically were marked with guaged numbers and marks in which often a degree of variation and style led to speculation that these were used to disguise them as gunners daggers. The reason for this was that such weapons as stilettos were proscribed to the general public and only permitted to bonafied artillerymen. While it is unclear how these were used, the most accepted possibilities are for measuring bore as well as measuring the intended projectile. In addition these thin bladed weapons were for puncturing the canvas or cloth measured bag of powder when rammed into barrel through the touchhole.
As well noted, these of course also served to clear the touchhole as it became fouled.........in the final case, these also served as a spike to disable cannon if they were to be abandoned, and as always as a weapon in case of position being overrun.

While the use of the fusetti is suggested to have fallen out of use by the earlier part of the 18th century according to Terenzi ("The Gunners Stiletto" Marcello Terenzi, 'Arms and Armor Annual' 1973 ed. R. Held. pp.170-79), it would seem that similar weapons would remain practical in other countries and accompanying the continued use of smoothbore ordnance.
These stilettos are also discussed by Sir James Mann in "Antiquaries Journal" Vo. XI, #1 , London, 1931.

This particular example by its neoclassic style, the grip shape and crosshatched design as well as the engraved cartouche with the letters and numbers in script seem to suggest 18th century France, perhaps even of Napoleonic period. Naturally it would take more to confirm that, but those are the indicators. As Napoleon himself was a 'gunner' it seems likely that officers in his ranks would have had conspicuous pride even beyond that normally held by artillerymen in course. In these times officers typically had custom made weapons, and in many cases they were gifts from proud family members or fellow officers or troops.

I am yet unclear on exactly how these serrations may have served in the presumed function of this piece, however thier deliberate presence as well as the thin blade itself profoundly identify this as a gunners dagger.

Best regards,
Jim

[Matchlock]

Hi Jim and Templar,

While basically consistent with the opinions given identifying this as a gunner's dagger, I agree with Jim in that the absence of gauging is very unusal, as well as the presence of the serrations. I doubt whether these were intended to 'clean' the touch hole as they would have continously widened the hole.

As to dating, I should attribute it to the mid-19th c., based on the clear 17th c. style of the Historismus period pommel.

Best,
Michael

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Michael, and Im really glad you came in on this, I hoped you would.
An interesting assessment for Historismus period, and honestly I had never heard of it.....and now that I have read on it, I realize why You have an amazing grasp of art nuances that are remarkably esoteric and completely fascinating. From what I can understand the term seems to have appeared around 1797 by Friedrich Schelegel suggesting of course returning to classical period (Iggers, 1995) and while largely philosophical in nature also refers to the art movement end of 19th century c.1870-1910 and as you note, reflecting 16th-17th c. styles.
Interestingly, the vagueries concerning this Historismus period seem to coincide with the very subjective nature of the topics and fields it concerns.
In one reference it is suggested that the 'movement' as it is termed may be considered to have begun as early as 1750 inspired by French neo baroque styles.

As I have noted, the French appearance to me is suggested by the crosshatched design in the grips, typically seen in the ebony grips of French officers sabres on Napoleonic period. The pommel is indeed neo classical, and seems to correspond with period in France where many neo classic styles and traditions were in place. The interesting cartouche with majescule letter above another with numbers in what appears 18th c. French script.

Perhaps this may be an 'interpretation' of the type stilettos used by gunners,
as by the time of this piece it seems unlikely such instrument/weapons would have been used. Actually, the bombardier stilletto phenomenon was largely to Italy, though as with fashion and these kinds of allusions may well have passed in degree to other European countries in a military parlance. It seems that for the most part, the priming iron (a sharp pointed stylus type item) was used by artillerymen to clear touch holes. The prime focus of the gunners stilletto was in its doubling as a weapon, and its disguise with arcane numbers in guage arrangement to meet stipulation that only gunners could have such weapons.

Then there is the matter of the curious crenellations in the blade. Still it is either gunners stilletto issued anachronistically or an honorific interpretation of one, either French in the period I suggest, or later as Michael suggests. It is difficult to say exactly as it is a weapon type issued out of time and may have been fashioned within this broader period of the 19th century.

[Rick]

Perhaps this was meant only to puncture the cloth cartridge in a gun .
The serrated part (if sharp) would penetrate the bag, make a ragged hole and pull powder up toward the touch hole .

The thing looks pretty well used to me .
Cannon are often numbered on naval vessels .

[Matchlock]

Rick,

Interesting points of practical sense, these! Why not?

Best,
Michael

[M ELEY]

Very interesting piece! It also struck me that it could conceivably be naval. The style of pommel and hilt shape remind me of naval French swords and of course, the dirk being a common side-arm. The grip 'badge' was seen on both naval and infantry-type swords. I like Rick's idea that it could have been used to puncture the powder bag (this was done with cannon and swivel guns, I recall). Likewise, as a 19th c. piece in this style, a naval piece seems to fit (meaning that they had a tendency to hang onto items and styles after they had passed, such as pikes and cutlass into the early 20th c.)

[kahnjar1]

Not particularly my field, but it looks from the pics that the pommel, quillons and badge/plaque are brass, which would likely point to naval use. If "normal" military use I would have thought iron/steel for these. I'm not good at decyphering this type of script, but is it RN? (Maybe Royal Navy??)
Nice interesting piece.
Regards Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent points guys, and Ricks note on puncturing the powder bag is noted as a distinct use for the stilettos. The reference to numbering of cannon on ships is also well placed. I think these were typically like L4 for 4th position port and S 6 for 6th position starboard , in that fashion.
As Mark points out, there was a strong tendancy for tradition in the navy and often weapons remained in use long after ceasing in other circumstances.
Stu's note on the initials or letters seems interesting and it does seem possible that an N could be transposed over an R in ligature form , but as noted its hard to make out.
Mark, could these strange crenellations on the blade have anything to do with rigging? It seems boarding axes and knives etc. sometimes have notches or unusual features thought to relate to the arcane handling of these by seamen.
Still a gunners stiletto....but why not naval? It seems that many naval dirks are with unusually thin blades as well, though I dont presume they were used with the guns...just an observation .

[fernando]

If the number in the plate were to refer to a gun's number or its position in the vessel, that stylized monogram is not a good match; certainly not that of the dagger's owner, neither the initials of Royal Navy or the like. More plausible would be if they were the initials of the vessel's name ... but still.

On the other hand, if the monogram is that of the dagger's owner, then the digits would refer his number... either in the service ranks or aboard ship, like gunner # 43.

Noteworthy is the fact that the crenellations (per Jim) are only grooved in one of the dagger faces, not all round. Could this be to facilitate the breaking of the dagger's point, after plugging the cannon touch hole, to disable the enemy to take it off ?
... Just fantasies of mine

My guess on the monogram initials is; A (in bold, as the first), plus a B and a N ... or vice versa.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

...I'm not good at decyphering this type of script, but is it RN? (Maybe Royal Navy??) ...

PLUS

Originally Posted by fernando

... My guess on the monogram initials is; A (in bold, as the first), plus a B and a N ... or vice versa...

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY ?

[kahnjar1]

The Royal AUSTRALIAN Navy did not exist until 1909. Prior to that, units of the Royal Navy were deployed, so not likely any connection there.

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent perspective Fernando, the monogram truly does not match the gun position idea, and a 'rack number' seems possible. It seems often naval weapons were 'racked' on board until they were dispensed as required.
Like Stu, I have difficulty discerning fluorished letters as seem in this ligature.

Im not sure the crenallations would be for spiking a gun aboard ship in the same way as in onland gun emplacements, they could not abandon the cannon without effectively leaving the ship. A ship was not abandoned unless it was sinking, in which case it would be a moot point.

I still wonder if these might serve some other utilitarian maritime use.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

The Royal AUSTRALIAN Navy did not exist until 1909. Prior to that, units of the Royal Navy were deployed, so not likely any connection there.

... just joking, mate .

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Excellent perspective Fernando, the monogram truly does not match the gun position idea, and a 'rack number' seems possible. It seems often naval weapons were 'racked' on board until they were dispensed as required.
Like Stu, I have difficulty discerning fluorished letters as seem in this ligature.

Im not sure the crenallations would be for spiking a gun aboard ship in the same way as in onland gun emplacements, they could not abandon the cannon without effectively leaving the ship. A ship was not abandoned unless it was sinking, in which case it would be a moot point.

I still wonder if these might serve some other utilitarian maritime use.

One thing everyone agrees with; the scoops are there for some use ... they are hardly a decoration, right?

And one question: why necessarily a maritime dagger? just because the mountings are in brass, it is not obliging, is it?

[Rick]

Sure, and they could be cannon in a fortification too .

I would expect that one of these utensils would be issued to each gun crew .
This would probably have been in the posession of the gun crew captain .

Therefore the numbers ?

Question:
Powder bags were silk ?

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Rick

... Question:
Powder bags were silk ? ...

Jute ?

[M ELEY]

No, a good point well taken. Brass doesn't cinch it as being maritime. It's just that so many of the naval dirks from all countries in the period we are talking still used dirks and many had these almost archaic stiletto blades on them (remember the American one from my collection). 19th c. dirks of this period wouldn't seem to have blades on them unless they were, as stated, strictly a gunner's dirk and thus, more of a tool. However, has anyone ever seen a gunner-piece of this late period? On ships, there were always strange innovations going on (Jim brings up the unique axe designs of the American navy, with grooves on them for dragging debris out of the way). This one is still a puzzler.
If naval, the crenulations might have had many odd uses, from acting as a fid to loosen knots, strip rope, carving, etc?
If a true gunner's stiletto, could the crenulations have been used just as a numbered blade in older times?(i.e. By counting the notches?). Jim noted the blades on these could be used to puncture the powder bag and I like the idea of breaking off the blade to spike the cannon (it would be weak near the crenulated point, after all).
I have a pic of a naval sword or dirk with a very similar hilt...gotta find it.

[templarnight]

Ive very much enjoyed your replies to this piece and I thank you.
The Dagger is a total of 55cm long, with a Blade 41.5cm. The maximum thickness of the Blade at the Forte is 8mm.
With regards to the Monogram I would say that it is RN, with No.43 below.
The serrations on the Blade start just under 7cm from the tip and runs for a length 4cm, finishing 2.7cm from the tip.
The channel in between the grooves is about half the thickness of the Blade deep.
I do agree that is possibly Naval.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by templarnight

Ive very much enjoyed your replies to this piece and I thank you.
The Dagger is a total of 55cm long, with a Blade 41.5cm. The maximum thickness of the Blade at the Forte is 8mm.
With regards to the Monogram I would say that it is RN, with No.43 below.
The serrations on the Blade start just under 7cm from the tip and runs for a length 4cm, finishing 2.7cm from the tip.
The channel in between the grooves is about half the thickness of the Blade deep.
I do agree that is possibly Naval.

Why don't you send some pics to the Maritime Museum Greenwich London and ask if they can throw any light in it? Google should give you a contact point.
Regards Stu

[katana]

Just a suggestion.......I think the serrations are to 'weaken' the 'spiked' blade. Once a cannon is over-run ....it could be used by the enemy against your own men. Cannons were therefore 'spiked' ....effectively blocking the touch hole...the point thrust in the touch hole and then 'levered' too and fro to fracture the 'blade' ....the long length of the 'blade' giving more leverage making it easier to break and the tip would remain jammed in the touch hole orifice.

Kind Regards David

[fernando]

Hi David

Originally Posted by katana

Just a suggestion.......I think the serrations are to 'weaken' the 'spiked' blade. Once a cannon is over-run ....it could be used by the enemy against your own men. Cannons were therefore 'spiked' ....effectively blocking the touch hole...the point thrust in the touch hole and then 'levered' too and fro to fracture the 'blade' ....the long length of the 'blade' giving more leverage making it easier to break and the tip would remain jammed in the touch hole orifice.

Kind Regards David

We are together in this one. Have you read (my) post #11 ?

[katana]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi David



We are together in this one. Have you read (my) post #11 ?

Your right 'Nando, I sometimes 'speed read' and miss relevent facts Guilty as charged .....but yes, BOTH agreed The angle of the 'serrations' would aid the fracture of the 'blade' .....I can see no other reason to deliberately weaken the blade/point . I would also assume that it could be used against flesh and bone in a self defence situation as well.

As a footnote. I would also assume that the 'blade' on this is high carbon steel.....two reasons, the first is that a harder steel will 'bite' better in the softer iron/bronze and remain lodged in the cannon. Secondly the high carbon steel would be more brittle and prone to fracture....especially where the 'serrations' are placed

All the best, my friend
David

[terry1956]

hi chaps, I just can,t get my head around this being a navy weapon, I have read 100,s of books about sea actions during the black powder period and not once have i read that any guns got spiked, if a ship was taken and that was the only way to get to the guns it was out of the fight so no need to use the ships guns, and if they had of been spiked then there was time and tools to remove the spike. so I just don,t thing it was used by any navy. however i do remember years ago reading about slave ships which had small cannon mounted to clear the decks of the ship if the slaves did try to take the ship, with this in mine spiking these guns may of been a plan, so maybe gunners on slave ships of the time had these items.
at waterloo when the french cavalry overran the british guns it was always said that the biggest mistake was their not taking along artilleryman to spike the british guns. but did the french have any means to spike their cannons, when the french grande battery was over run by the british cavalry during the same battle no french use the spike to disable their gun, so i thing we can take it that these daggers did not form part of the french artillery mans kit. in early wars the artillery was crewed by hired gunners who also in some cases owned their own cannon, it maybe that the dagger was part of their kit to spike the cannon if it was in danger of being taken, with the hope that if spiked the enemy would leave the heavy weapon in position until the battle was won or lost, the gunner would hope that his side won and he would be able to get his cannon back and remove the spike, so that puts it at a date if used on land before 1740 and if on a slave ship before 1840. michael

[Jim McDougall]

I guess I fail to see why this would have to be a naval item too, and it seems like I suggested that there would be little need to disable cannon on a ship...as the ship could relocate or if it was going down obviously end of story.



I will space this out a little so maybe wont be overlooked

Why make a well finished ornamental object, strategically marked for a simple function such as disarming a cannon as this could be as easily done with the priming iron, as I mentioned in post #5.

I dont think ordnance such as cannon balls were decorated and marked at least as far as I know, as thier end result was of course to be destroyed.

Hmmmm.

[katana]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Why make a well finished ornamental object, strategically marked for a simple function such as disarming a cannon as this could be as easily done with the priming iron, as I mentioned in post #5.

I dont think ordnance such as cannon balls were decorated and marked at least as far as I know, as thier end result was of course to be destroyed.

Hmmmm.

Hi Jim ,
I would imagine the decision whether to spike a cannon or not would be the decision of an officer asigned to the cannon. Therefore, perhaps also a status symbol of that authority. Hence, the ornamental element.

All the best
David

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Jim ,
I would imagine the decision whether to spike a cannon or not would be the decision of an officer asigned to the cannon. Therefore, perhaps also a status symbol of that authority. Hence, the ornamental element.

All the best
David

Hi David,
OK I follow that, just hadn't thought of the protocol and so on related to what was apparantly a preconceived possibility, and in the study on the 'bombardier stilettos' the use in this manner seemed more of a suggestion rather than inevitibility. The loss of guns was a major fear in warfare, and the taking of guns a great conquest in turn.
Here in Texas, one of the well known flags of the Texas Revolution was the flag with a cannon and the words , "Come and Take it" !
The Mexican government had given settlers a small cannon to be used against Comanches in 1831, but as tensions mounted between Texians and the government, Mexico decided they wanted it back. This was the flag flown at the Battle of Gonzalez, Oct 2,1835, first of the Revolution leading to the Alamo.

All the best,
Jim


All the best,
Jim