British M1803 Flank Officer's Sword with Modification?

[drac2k]

Pictured is the classic M1803 Flank Officer's Sword, however, its blade is only 26" long from the tip to the top of the guard and 27.25" long along the spine; the problem is that the blade should measure 32 & 3/16" long.The 1796 British Regulations stated that the sword had to be at least 30" long and no less than 1" wide. The M1803 is a magnificent sword with a blade and tip made for slashing, so at first, I thought that maybe the tip had been broken and it had been armory repurposed for some auxiliary native troops, however after scouring the internet, I found 3 examples that had been shortened, professionally as mine was after the fuller. I then read accounts of actions where the sword was excellent for slashing, but it was lacking in the thrusting department. I further read that in1822 the M1803 was replaced with a straighter sword that was better for thrusting and in line with British Sword Training. Another source stated that this sword was adopted by the Royal Marines and some Royal Navy Officers and as such, I can see the effectiveness of a shorter sword repointed for thrusting.
So, after my convoluted rambling, does anyone know whether these swords were officially shortened, en masse by the British Army, used by the Royal Marines, or if I just have a repointed sword with a broken tip?

[Radboud]

Hi Drack,

That is a neat 1803 you have there, does it have a maker's name or cutler on it?

To answer your first question, the tip of your sword wouldn't have been officially shortened. These were never government property and private purchases by the officers so if it had been shortened, then it would have been done by a past owner.

As for the regulation length, you mentioned from 1796, the wording of which was:

"The sword to have a brass guard, pommel and shell, gilt with gold; with grip or handle, of silver twisted wire. The blade to be straight and made to cut and thrust; to be one inch at least broad at the shoulder and 32 inches in length, conformably to former orders given out in April 1786"

This regulation is actually for a different pattern sword from your's namely the 1796 Pattern Infantry officers sword.

(not to be confused with the

• 1796 Light Cavalry trooper's sabre
• 1796 Light Cavalry Officer's sabre
• 1796 Heavy Cavalry Trooper's sword
• 1796 Heavy Cavalary officer's undress sword
• 1796 Heavy Cavalry officer's dismounted service sword

1796 was a busy year for British sword patterns)

The 1803 Pattern for Officers of the Grenadiers and Light Companies was introduced in early 1803 following the tacit acceptance of the General Staff that officers of the Grenadiers and Light Companies were doing their own thing anyway and have been carrying sabres since as early as 1792.

This was officially given recognition in August 1799 with an order that authorised officers of the flank companies (Grenadiers and Light Companies) to wear sabres. However, no pattern was specified.

In 1803 an official pattern of sword was approved for officers of the Grenadiers and Light Infantry. Together with the Pattern sword for Regimental Officers of the infantry and that for General Officers and officers of the General Staff of the Army.

The flank companies considered themselves the elites of the infantry and developed their own fashions in uniforms and swords. Some even ignored the 1803 pattern in favour of their own regimental pattern. A lot was permitted at the time if your superior officer allowed it.

In practice, there is a lot of variation in blade length and curvature in this pattern, with some being as short as 27 inches and others as long as 32, with most being around 30 inches. The curvature of the blade varied widely as well with extreme examples of 9 - 10 inch curved blades existing.

Complicating matters further were the militia and volunteer forces that formed back in Britain in anticipation of a French invasion. These were a kind of National Guard / Territorial army that could only be deployed on British soil. At the height of the Napoleonic wars, this force was about as large as the actual army. Again we see a discrepancy in what was supposed to happen and what actually happened. A lot of these volunteer groups were formed by wealthy gentlemen as a display of their gallantry and patriotism which of course necessitated that they looked splendid when out on the mandated 26 days of annual military exercises. As a consequence, they too often adopted swords that followed fashion more than military patterns (keep in mind that this all came out of their own pockets).

[drac2k]

Thank you very much for your very detailed and informative answer. Sorry, I can not find any maker's names, and the mottos " Dieu et non Droi," & "Honi Soit qui mal y pense," are very faint.
It makes sense that since each officer was responsible for his own gear, then there could be a fair amount of personal variation within the regulations, however, what struck me upon searching the web and finding numerous M1803 swords, was the fact that 3 examples were shortened at the end of the fuller in a similar tip configuration. It just didn't seem random.
Also, were these swords ever used by the Royal Marines as one internet source stated?

[Radboud]

Hi Drack,

According to John McGrath and Mark Barton, “British Naval Swords & Swordsmanship”

It is probable that 1803 Pattern swords were carried by officers of the Royal Marines and Royal Navy. Some variations exist with a fouled anchor replacing the strung bugle or flaming grenade. But without such modifications or a clear provenance to a named officer it is impossible to link an individual sword to any service.

I would not take the shortening of the tip as an indication that the officer who owned the sword transferred to naval service, thereby deciding to shorten the blade.

Unfortunately too much time has passed (your sword is 200 years old!) to draw any meaningful conclusions on who used it and why it was modified.

Cheers
Bas

[kronckew]

From above ref. book:

[drac2k]

Thank you gentleman for clarifying that point; some were used by the Royal Navy, but they would be distinguished by an anchor on the guard.

[Will M]

I see nothing to indicate that the blade has been shortened. The corrosion on the tip matches the rest of the blade. The point is done correctly and has corresponding fasle edge. It appears to have been made this way most likely for an officer of shorter stature. I would be interested in grip measurements as it appears to have corresponding size to the blade but with photos you can't be sure.

[kronckew]

On another note: Navy swords of the time used white grips for commissioned officers and dark grey or black for warrant officers. There was some fluctuations in this tho. I'm not sure how that went in the other services.

[drac2k]

The reason why I thought that the blade had been shortened was that the tip lacked its distinctive slashing configuration & was seemingly made more into a thrusting sword.
The handle measures 5.75".

[Will M]

The tip is a slashing type just not quite a hatchet point. If it was a thrusting tip the back of the blade would be ground down somewhat like what the British did to their 1796 HC swords. These swords as another member pointed out vary greatly, no pun intended.

[Radboud]

Like Will says, that style of tip is fairly common on British swords of the time. It creates a light but stiff blade.

My non-regulation grenadier officer’s sabre has the same style on a 830mm blade. And I’ve seen it on 1788 Pattern cavalry swords, hangers and flank officer sabres.

[drac2k]

A picture is worth a thousand words; it is nice to see another sword here on the thread with a similar tip to confirm my suspicions(and to allay my fears), that this purposely period done and not a backyard conversion for a broken tip.