The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution

Jim McDougall · 1st October 2020, 02:57 AM

Hi Bryce,
There is nothing wrong with skepticism, as an obsessive researcher myself, I often entertain same, which compels me to look harder for evidence.
As has been noted, these extremely common weapons, produced cheaply and in remarkable volume, seem somewhat disdained (of course) by the other ranks who used them in artillery units. As I noted in my post #25, from Brian Robson, 1975, but did not note the page (154), concerning the briquet in British service, I think adding more of the context might help:

"...in the early years of the 19th c. ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short curved sword with a straight brass knucklebow hilt, CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THE FRENCH INFANTRY SWORD (BRIQUET) OF ANIX (1800-01) AND ANXI (1802-03)."
* ref: Bottet, plate II, #3
"...this type of sword is shown in a painting at Windsor Castle by Denis Dighton,dated 1813, entitled "Royal Horse Artillery dislodging French Cavalry".
ref: Royal Library Catalog #15044

"...and in Charles Hamilton Smith's "Costumes of the Army of the British Empire"
ref: Royal Artillery plate 46, issued 1 Feb. 1815.

Here is where is gets confusing:
"...this is almost certainly the sword referred to in the report of the Select Committee on Artillery Equipment (1819), 'the Sub-Committee beg to remark that the sword with which the Artillery men are now armed is in itself a very inefficient weapon for any purpose".
ref: Proceedings of the Royal Artillery Institution , PRAI, Vol. 1. pg. 94

"...it was also the sword referred to as THE SPANISH PATTERN HANGER, which was in use in 1820 and which continued to be worn by gunners and drivers attached to field guns until 1826".

ref: PRAI Vol.1, pg. 186.

The Bottet ref. was,
De l'Arme Blanche 1789-1870 et De l' Arme Feu Portative 1718-1900,
M. Bottet, Paris, 1959.

In this Robson reference, it seems these 'briquets' were in use by British artillery in the early 19th century, about the time of the presumed Storr production I have theorized, probably more at the turn of the century.
The type or character of the briquet in British use is illustrated in the painting by Denis Dighton (1813) COMPARING IT TO THE FRENCH BRIQUET OF 1801-03.

What I am wondering is if the 'Spanish pattern hanger' could be incorrectly termed as here my impression is that the briquet (of French form) is the sword described in these proceedings.

The Spanish pattern illustrated in the article linked has a hussar style cavalry hilt similar to the light dragoon sabers of 1780 (pattern) for British cavalry, noting again that the 'Spanish' association was simply for use in the Peninsula.

Or, were there two types? one of briquet form as my example, or the one in the article and multiple examples of its form suggested.

I think the best analogy to describe the situation with the dearth of these briquets, in general, let alone British examples, and especially marked ones, is simply as Fernando noted,
these are hardly collectible, or sought after (except for a few of us

The brass in the hilts was a useful commodity, and these were undoubtedly melted down as scrap.

Military history accounts and narratives seldom EVER describe edged weapons used in campaigns or battles, but firearms, cannon and even thier ammunition is included in detail. Few are interested in the lowly privates, or their weapons save a few of these valued artists .

In my early years of collecting (60s and 70s) the authors I have mentioned were 'the' authorities on the regulation military patterns, forms and unusual types in use. Blair was renowned as an arms historian, and Wilkinson-Latham was well placed with his access to records to accomplish his incredible knowledge.
Naturally all authors face revision and rebuttal as new evidence comes available, but I felt that these observations of these gentlemen were sound so have remained in acceptance of what they have said and shown as well as the work of Robson in 1975.

However, I too would welcome a significantly marked example with British provenance, but the evidence I have gathered over these years for me is OK at this point.

The 'ref' notes from the Robson text are the footnotes for each of these comments.

1st October 2020, 02:57 AM	#18
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,957	Hi Bryce, There is nothing wrong with skepticism, as an obsessive researcher myself, I often entertain same, which compels me to look harder for evidence. As has been noted, these extremely common weapons, produced cheaply and in remarkable volume, seem somewhat disdained (of course) by the other ranks who used them in artillery units. As I noted in my post #25, from Brian Robson, 1975, but did not note the page (154), concerning the briquet in British service, I think adding more of the context might help: "...in the early years of the 19th c. ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short curved sword with a straight brass knucklebow hilt, CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THE FRENCH INFANTRY SWORD (BRIQUET) OF ANIX (1800-01) AND ANXI (1802-03)." * ref: Bottet, plate II, #3 "...this type of sword is shown in a painting at Windsor Castle by Denis Dighton,dated 1813, entitled "Royal Horse Artillery dislodging French Cavalry". ref: Royal Library Catalog #15044 "...and in Charles Hamilton Smith's "Costumes of the Army of the British Empire" ref: Royal Artillery plate 46, issued 1 Feb. 1815. Here is where is gets confusing: "...this is almost certainly the sword referred to in the report of the Select Committee on Artillery Equipment (1819), 'the Sub-Committee beg to remark that the sword with which the Artillery men are now armed is in itself a very inefficient weapon for any purpose". ref: Proceedings of the Royal Artillery Institution , PRAI, Vol. 1. pg. 94 "...it was also the sword referred to as THE SPANISH PATTERN HANGER, which was in use in 1820 and which continued to be worn by gunners and drivers attached to field guns until 1826". ref: PRAI Vol.1, pg. 186. The Bottet ref. was, De l'Arme Blanche 1789-1870 et De l' Arme Feu Portative 1718-1900, M. Bottet, Paris, 1959. In this Robson reference, it seems these 'briquets' were in use by British artillery in the early 19th century, about the time of the presumed Storr production I have theorized, probably more at the turn of the century. The type or character of the briquet in British use is illustrated in the painting by Denis Dighton (1813) COMPARING IT TO THE FRENCH BRIQUET OF 1801-03. What I am wondering is if the 'Spanish pattern hanger' could be incorrectly termed as here my impression is that the briquet (of French form) is the sword described in these proceedings. The Spanish pattern illustrated in the article linked has a hussar style cavalry hilt similar to the light dragoon sabers of 1780 (pattern) for British cavalry, noting again that the 'Spanish' association was simply for use in the Peninsula. Or, were there two types? one of briquet form as my example, or the one in the article and multiple examples of its form suggested. I think the best analogy to describe the situation with the dearth of these briquets, in general, let alone British examples, and especially marked ones, is simply as Fernando noted, these are hardly collectible, or sought after (except for a few of us The brass in the hilts was a useful commodity, and these were undoubtedly melted down as scrap. Military history accounts and narratives seldom EVER describe edged weapons used in campaigns or battles, but firearms, cannon and even thier ammunition is included in detail. Few are interested in the lowly privates, or their weapons save a few of these valued artists . In my early years of collecting (60s and 70s) the authors I have mentioned were 'the' authorities on the regulation military patterns, forms and unusual types in use. Blair was renowned as an arms historian, and Wilkinson-Latham was well placed with his access to records to accomplish his incredible knowledge. Naturally all authors face revision and rebuttal as new evidence comes available, but I felt that these observations of these gentlemen were sound so have remained in acceptance of what they have said and shown as well as the work of Robson in 1975. However, I too would welcome a significantly marked example with British provenance, but the evidence I have gathered over these years for me is OK at this point. The 'ref' notes from the Robson text are the footnotes for each of these comments.