American foot artillery sword?

Lee · 27th April 2013, 05:31 PM

An inquiry received in my e-mail:

Quote:

I am of Norwegian descent, my great-great grandfather, great uncle were both in the Civil war. ...this sword was cherished by my father and kept by him for last 87 years. It is difficult to identify because I cannot find a makers mark except for what appears to be a small star on the blade. The brass hilt is not as either the Ames M1832 model nor the M1821 because it does not have the 3, the blade is approximately 18.75 inches from base of hilt to tip of blade. I thought it might be the French but the pattern is different also. I am now confused and wondering if my great great grandfather brought it over in 1822 from Norway, because I understand the Norwegians are great blade makers.

The first picture upon examining with a jeweler's loupe looks like a 2 over 7 on the crossbar of the hilt.

Battara · 27th May 2013, 07:06 AM

The eagle on the pommel looks French to me. The American (both north and south) version of this piece as you know was based on the French model.

Hotspur · 27th May 2013, 03:28 PM

Wouldn't a French 1816 sword have a rooster and not eagle and those 1816s with none have had their fluer de lis rubbed off?

Add that this has a shield on its breast?

Cheers

GC

Jim McDougall · 27th May 2013, 07:26 PM

I am not sure what the '3' refers to, but this seems very much a M1832 Ames type foot artillery sword. The eagle is the same and the shield of course aligns with the federal period motifs in the U.S.
The French 1816 and 1831 'cabbage choppers' as far as Ive known had smooth pommels and the 1831 had ringed grips rather than 'feathered'.

These swords were of course pretty ineffective as weapons but served well in utility for clearing brush etc in artllery emplacements. As always, these would have served in degree as required if overrun, but there were honestly relatively few sword injuries recorded in the Civil War, and the likelihood of use of these improbable as far as combat use.

David · 5th June 2013, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Wouldn't a French 1816 sword have a rooster and not eagle and those 1816s with none have had their fluer de lis rubbed off?

Add that this has a shield on its breast?

Cheers

GC

I agree. Eagles with the shield on the breast are a very common American symbol of the day see the coins below.

Hotspur · 5th June 2013, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David

I agree. Eagles with the shield on the breast are a very common American symbol of the day see the coins below.

Yes. particularly from 1783 to date

VANDERNOTTE · 28th May 2013, 01:28 AM

hello there
in my opinion is a variante du sabre d'artillerie 1816 produit par
l'industrie privee pour la garde national pariseinne
the blade suppose have no proof
reference " des sabre et des epee par michel petard"
regard
jacques

Hotspur · 28th May 2013, 05:36 AM

There are certainly cockerel emblazoned 1816 variants up to the second empire. As mentioned, early ones had the fluer de lis scraped off after the first empire.

An example of those noted by Jean Binck (no photo)

The sword on the right is probably a privately purchased variation of the French artillery gladius Model 1816. The rooster on the pommel allows to date it between 1830 and 1848. This kind of privately purchased fancy pattern was in use in the French National Guard

There are also some anomalies with the American assemblies, with the same eagle but peened rather than riveted. Attached below. Also keep in mind that the IOOF loved the Ames 1832 and there is no reason not to consider what we are seeing here is a lodge sword or other, as the later degree swords continued the gladius form up into the 20th century with make ups such as the really plain blades and bullseye pommels. One could even blame Bannerman for this one.

Cheers

GC

28th May 2013, 01:28 AM	#7
VANDERNOTTE Member Join Date: Sep 2012 Posts: 60	glaive 1816 hello there in my opinion is a variante du sabre d'artillerie 1816 produit par l'industrie privee pour la garde national pariseinne the blade suppose have no proof reference " des sabre et des epee par michel petard" regard jacques

28th May 2013, 05:36 AM	#8
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 498	There are certainly cockerel emblazoned 1816 variants up to the second empire. As mentioned, early ones had the fluer de lis scraped off after the first empire. An example of those noted by Jean Binck (no photo) The sword on the right is probably a privately purchased variation of the French artillery gladius Model 1816. The rooster on the pommel allows to date it between 1830 and 1848. This kind of privately purchased fancy pattern was in use in the French National Guard There are also some anomalies with the American assemblies, with the same eagle but peened rather than riveted. Attached below. Also keep in mind that the IOOF loved the Ames 1832 and there is no reason not to consider what we are seeing here is a lodge sword or other, as the later degree swords continued the gladius form up into the 20th century with make ups such as the really plain blades and bullseye pommels. One could even blame Bannerman for this one. Cheers GC Attached Images

27th May 2013, 07:06 AM	#2
Battara EAAF Staff Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Louisville, KY Posts: 7,219	The eagle on the pommel looks French to me. The American (both north and south) version of this piece as you know was based on the French model.

27th May 2013, 03:28 PM	#3
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 498	Wouldn't a French 1816 sword have a rooster and not eagle and those 1816s with none have had their fluer de lis rubbed off? Add that this has a shield on its breast? Cheers GC

27th May 2013, 07:26 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,945	I am not sure what the '3' refers to, but this seems very much a M1832 Ames type foot artillery sword. The eagle is the same and the shield of course aligns with the federal period motifs in the U.S. The French 1816 and 1831 'cabbage choppers' as far as Ive known had smooth pommels and the 1831 had ringed grips rather than 'feathered'. These swords were of course pretty ineffective as weapons but served well in utility for clearing brush etc in artllery emplacements. As always, these would have served in degree as required if overrun, but there were honestly relatively few sword injuries recorded in the Civil War, and the likelihood of use of these improbable as far as combat use.