Very good points Bob, and interesting to see our own versions of ratiocination in unison, and well noted on the age issue! I have reached out to see if I can get more information on the 1627 King Gustaf sword so hopefully I can add here.

Wayne, well observed on the 'mix and match' sword production situation in Great Britain prior to the latter 18th c. Basically swords were 'produced' (assembled) by 'cutlers' who used of course primarily imported blades while they fashioned hilts and scabbards.
The 'American' swords of the Revolution period were of course mostly British forms, and as George Nuemann ("Swords and Blades of the American Revolution", 1973) well shows, a hodge podge of Continental European swords including German, French, Spanish and sundry others.

The New York swords you mention were the famed 'Potter' (not Harry!) sabers of the four slot form, and well noted on the spurious Tarleton history in the film though swords were OK.

Thanks for that Jim, I had a minor brain fart :rolleyes:, I'll remember (Harry) Potter tho.

Hi Jim and Wayne, Thanks for replies it would be interesting to know if the 1627 sword still exists to check out the stamps.

If my sword is pre or around the English Civil War time 1642-1651 then which side would have had Basket hilts or was it simply a case of bring what you have and choose a side.

Basket Hilts, Mortuary swords were in fashion and obviously the Rapier and Short swords were very popular never mind Blades from one era being re-hilted with a more modern style. Reworking old swords has happened for centuries, family swords being upgraded.

Would enlisted men have been given a hanger for infantry and cavalry would get a sword of some description, it appears that even organised armies had numerous options.

I have often wondered, in the British army officers and gentlemen bought their own swords I assume pre 1750 they could buy what they wanted either a Rapier, Broadsword or Backsword or were there regulations then giving guidance.

I assume that people often had more than one sword anyway, as the occasion dictated.

History is so interesting................for some people !! Cheers Bob.

History, for many of us....is ADDICTING! :)

In history, war, battles etc. there are no fine lines, rules or categories in 'sides' in conflicts. During the English civil wars (a comprehensive term to describe not only the primary conflict, but many rebellions and insurgences before, after and during.........weapons were obtained by any means.
The well known Hounslow shops producing swords were taken over by Cromwell, and many of the makers left to go with the Royalists at shops in Oxford and London, many remained at Hounslow (though Cromwell turned the mills into powder mills).

While the 'Royalists' were regarded as 'dandies', cavaliers, they were of course inclined to more elegant rapiers etc. while the Cromwellians were more pragmatic and munitions grade arms and armor.
The so called 'mortuary' ( a misnomer) was used thoroughly on both sides.
Naturally basket hilts (which are not entirely Scottish) found use by most everyone. Actually the Scottish basket hilt was termed the 'Irish hilt' into Victorian times.

In border regions between England and Scotland, you might look into the groups known as 'Border Reivers'. These groups might be on 'one side' or the other, depending on the situation or times, and here the amalgam of weapon forms, styles etc. was completely catch as catch can. Through these channels weapons filtered through to any and ALL sides, and through all the many conflicts and actions.

The notion of 'regulation' patterns is in many regards, a kind of myth, though obviously such administrative protocols do of course exist, mostly from 19th century on. The commanders of units chose, commissioned and bought the arms they supplied thier troops with....it was entirely thier choice. However, obviously the favored forms being bought by others were easier to concede to, so some uniformity prevailed.

Officers were typically of high station or gentry, often nobility, so clearly the choice of weapons for them was carte blanche. However, often for battle or campaign, they used 'fighting weapons' which were in many cases similar to the forms used in other ranks.
While the ranks had weapons 'issued' from the racks, officers often had a 'stable' of swords to choose from. In actuality, many officers would take their dress type swords into battle as they were not expected to participate in combat....but direct troops and actions, so the sword was more used in that capacity. Naturally that often changed as situations developed.

I am hoping to hear more on the 1627 sword soon.

You bet Wayne.....I only remembered them because research on them just came up a month ago!!!
Harry who??????!!!! :)

I never actually watched more than a few minutes of a few episodes. Thought they were mostly silly and a bit childish for adults. I preferred Highlander, Gladiator, The last legion, and the Eagle more, tho i'd have liked the last 3 more if they'd used Pila and plumbata, as they would have in reality. Crassus against the Parthians, with it's golden ending would make a cool movie. As would the Romans revenge 60 years later.

Why are these frequently attributed to the 42nd even without regimental markings? Is it because the blades are not of the Jefferys/Drury backsword type and therefore presumed to be earlier (when the 42nd were the only Highland regiment in the British Army)?

Thank you,
VS

I think that the 'hilt form' is what is attributed to the 42nd, which is the collective regimental designation for the "Black Watch" battalions which were formed in 1739 as the 43rd but later renumbered 42nd. It seems there are few of these regimentally marked, but the hilt form is well established as being produced by Nathaniel Jeffries (3500 swords in 1759) and as a 'pattern' of 1757 . The Highland units comprised of 42nd went to North America in 1758 (to 1767) with enlisted men carrying these in French-Indian war.

Later, the last purchase of these was in 1775, and after battle of Long Island in 1776, the swords were collected and stored. The Black Watch at the end of the war went to Nova Scotia in 1783, and swords were only carried by officers and NCO's.

By 1770s, Dru Drury had taken over the business and both he and Nathaniel Jeffries had produced these swords.

I think this is the reason for the collective classification of these particular enlisted mans basket hilt as 'Black Watch' is because of this rather broad classification for the Highland Regiments in America using them.

This is a very large thread so not sure which post you are referring to as far as the sword with Farara . Most of the blades are marked Jefries or Drury and if Farara it would be an import from Solingen.

Thank you, Jim. I can understand the hilt form being attributed to the 42nd. I’ve seen some sales listings which seem to imply the swords (with non-Jefferys/Drury blades) are for the 42nd. Without regimental markings or other very strong evidence, I personally wouldn’t confidently state that a sword with this pattern hilt was used by someone in the 42nd.

Thanks again,
VS

I agree VS, that would be a bit irresponsible to classify any type of sword to a regiment etc. without markings or provenance, though it is OK to note that it is 'of the type' used accordingly. What I was noting is that Jeffries and later Drury were prolific suppliers of this munitions grade hilt form (it seems Harvey had a few).

I have one that I've had since the 70s which was remounted with a M1788 light cavalry saber blade, and would suspect it was taken from the stores of these collected after 1784 when they ceased being issued to infantry.
Possibly it was remounted for militia or yeomanry during the 1793+ concerns over possible French invasion etc. hard to say really, but pretty interesting saber.

I got most info from "Swords for the Highland Regiments 1757-1784". Anthony Darling, 1988.

Jim,
I was also using Darling as a reference, which is why I was confused since Darling is careful to not offer conjecture and only states regimental affiliation when his examples have the proper markings. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective on these interesting early regimental swords,

All the best,
VS

Absolutely, and as you well note, Darling was extremely cautious, in fact as you know, he had that one instance of '42' on the one example, which was noted as specifically 'unusual'. Though I've learned so much all these years, I still learn virtually every day, thanks to queries and discussions as here with you.

The regimental markings situation with British weapons in the 18th century are fascinating because they are so mysterious and not necessarily standardized nor always accurately recorded.