![]() |
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,833
|
Portrait of King Ferdinand IV of the Two Sicilies. His father King Charles VII of Naples had acceded the Spanish throne in 1759 as Charles III . This placed Ferdinand as King of Naples (and Sicily) as a cadet branch of the Bourbon dynasty. Really....how do these guys figure this stuff out?!
As he ruled Naples as Ferdinand the IV, he was King of Sicily as Ferdinand III, but as both known as Ferdinand the Bourbon. I wonder if the IV designator in the ascription on the blade suggests this is a Neopolitan schiavona as opposed to Sicilian? I think Im still on track, though almost lost it at the last turn! Last edited by Jim McDougall; 27th May 2024 at 01:06 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,833
|
Still at it-
As the Napoleonic period began, a coalition of European armies formed to defend, including Sweden, Russia, Holy Roman Empire, United Kingdom, Portugal and Naples and Sicily............known as the THIRD COALITION....in April,1805. They were defeated by Napoleon at Battle of Austerlitz Dec.2,1805. Napoleon then declared himself King of north Italian cities, and advanced toward Naples. Ferdinand IV, his forces already defeated at Austerlitz, fled Naples to Sicily (Palermo) where British navy helped defend him there against French. In southern Italy, in Naples the area of Calabria (Greek inhabitants) were fiercely loyal to Ferdinand IV and the Calabrian insurrection in these regions of the semi autonomous Neopolitan Republic (formed 1799) ended with the SIEGE OF AMANTEA (Dec1806-Feb1807). With all of this, I would submit that this schiavona might be classified as a NEOPOLITAN SCHIAVONA OF THE THIRD COALITION, perhaps an officer of the forces of Ferdinand IV. It may have been a heirloom hilt with later blade in accord with the rule of Ferdinand IV. Those are my thoughts so far....what do you guys think? Not sure if my facts are right on some of this, so corrections welcomed. Last edited by Jim McDougall; 27th May 2024 at 03:27 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Black Forest, Germany
Posts: 1,262
|
I cannot find any mistake in your conclusions that this Schiavona was a property of an Neapolitan officer of the army of Naples during the Third Coalition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 | |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,833
|
Quote:
While the Two Sicilies designation became more 'officially' used after he was restored as the Napoleonic wars ended in 1816, he then became officially designated FERDINAND I. The turbulence in Italy continued of course until the unification in 1861, which ended the dual kingdom/state of the Two Sicilies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Tyneside. North-East England
Posts: 733
|
Hi Jim. My opinion is that this is a complete blade and hilt combination from c.1700 and the inscription was a later addition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,833
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
Jm, allow me to post this sword. Only the inscription matches. This one is said to be from the Royal Regiment of Macedonia, Ferdinando IV (1765-180)5. Dates also don't match.
- Last edited by fernando; 28th May 2024 at 05:52 PM. Reason: Photo addition. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|