A cavalry sword ... still in time for Christmas

Jim McDougall · 26th December 2011, 09:59 PM

An absolutely magnificent acquisition Nando!!!!! and outstanding observations by Kronckew.There were indeed powerful French influences in play near the turn of the century, and actually the dragoon sword that was referred to as the M1799 was influenced by contemporary French sabres with the 'birdhead' type pommel/backstrap. This was the model that appeared in the 1803 text regulations.

This particular form of cuphilt was I think as you mention possibly called a M1798, but it seems that its classification is a bit sketchy. I think that Juan Perez has more on that but I hevent really reviewed his material from some years ago.

According to Chamberlain (p.83, plates 150,151) this type cuphilt was more in accord with earlier forms and as always revealed Spain's inclination to adhere to traditional forms. It seems these were possibly in use much earlier than the 1798 benchmark, and probably contemporary with the M1728 forms which have become known as the 'bilbo' for thier bilobate shellguard basic in hilt. These 'bilbo' type swords were the form most well known in New Spain as far as military dragoon swords, while the cuphilt style broadswords were well known among infantry officers primarily. Naturally in frontier environments there were few set standards observed conclusively.

With reference to your observation on the Alamo

it is indeed unlikely this hilt form was present in the Mexican dragoon regiments there in 1836, there were possibly two, but offhand I can only think of one from Laredo. Mexico had won independance in 1821, and while still Spanish in basis as far as the regimental structure, arms were largely residual and imports.
The presence of the French cuirassier blade on this sword affirms it Continental provenance rather than Colonial.

These early Spanish swords, especially this particular 'M1798' is probably one of the most desirable and hardest to obtain examples of these 18th century cavalry Spanish cavalry swords as I have understood (when I tried to find one once!

. Bravo!!!!!! and what a wonderful Christmas gift........for me in just seeing it.

All the best,
Jim

cannonmn · 27th December 2011, 10:37 AM

I'm going to put a link back to this thread on my "regular" forum where I am the moderator, the Company of Military Historians Forum, because we have some folks interested in Spanish weapons there. I don't collect Spanish small arms (yet) myself but only artillery and I'm not sure where or if antique artillery is an appropriate subject here.

fernando · 27th December 2011, 03:42 PM

Hi Jim,
Thanks a lot for your input

.
Concerning the model number/year ...
This specific model appears in Barceló Rubi's ARMAMENTO PORTATIL ESPAÑOL, listed as model 1796. On a footnote he quotes Salas mentioning this sword in a rather resumed description without giving any measurements, and also Enrile, this one citing it as a disused model. But the same note adds however that the catalogues of Museo de Artilleria not only describe it (example #1726), but also refer to another one called model 1797 (example #1725), identical in all parts except the pommel which had a spherical shape.
Juan L.Calvó, in one article of his website CATALOGACION DE ARMAS, dedicated to Mounting Swords with Garrison of Barquilla con Vela, also consider this model as 1796.
When Calvó pretends that, according to his research, this model 1796 only appeared in service in 1803, he also reminds us that, the nomination of both fire and white arms being given according to the year of their introduction, like in France, only started being used in Spain in the kingdom of Fernando VII (so after 1808) and not before.
While i am expecting Don Juan Calvó to answer my email, telling me what he thonks about the blade being French, i will try and contact Juan José Perez for the same purpose.
Yours humbly

fernando · 27th December 2011, 04:19 PM

Hi Wayne,
Thanks for your observations

Yes, many weapons were left back by the French, during their disastrous way back home. But i have a different feeling about this specific blade exercise ... like it being a formal import, result of some noble or (also) rich owner having ordered it from France, to show signs of wealth, a custom common at the time.

Oh, i was about to second you in surprise about the fixation of the cup being 'screwed' by the outside and 'riveted' by the inside, but i took the sword to the (Portuguese

) sun and discerned some thread in its (half rounded) end.

.

fernando · 27th December 2011, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannonmn

... I'm going to put a link back to this thread on my "regular" forum where I am the moderator, the Company of Military Historians Forum, because we have some folks interested in Spanish weapons there. ...

Just help yourself

Quote:

Originally Posted by cannonmn

... I'm not sure where or if antique artillery is an appropriate subject here...

Oh yes, why not ? As long as it is antique, let it come

kronckew · 27th December 2011, 04:35 PM

we have had some rather long discussions about cannon balls and chain/bar shot recently, including my links to the US artillery manual of the 1860's...

i'd think things that go boom with a mix of charcoal, sulphur and saltpetre are quite appropriate for the forum...like fernando's grenade avatar...

fernando · 27th December 2011, 04:36 PM

The way Juan José Pérez puts it in his website:

http://perso.wanadoo.es/jjperez222/tropacab_e.htm

kronckew · 27th December 2011, 04:42 PM

juan's sentence:

"All the previous patterns, excepting perhaps the one of 1728, took part in the Wars against Napoleon's troops, along with lots of arms obtained from older blades and newer hilts, some of them of non-official French types."

was quite interesting....

fernando · 27th December 2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kronckew

juan's sentence:

"All the previous patterns, excepting perhaps the one of 1728, took part in the Wars against Napoleon's troops, along with lots of arms obtained from older blades and newer hilts, some of them of non-official French types."

was quite interesting....

So i see !
My hope remains that the specificity of my example is not devoured by the generality mentioned by Juan's

.
I have just emailed him. In case he suggests mine is one of his quoted cases, i will the first to post his/your opinion

.

cannonmn · 27th December 2011, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Does the Company of Military Historians still produce the material in either newsletter or published articles? It has been a long time but as I recall there were quite a few venerable articles still sought after on various topics, many of them pertaining to uniforms and equipment.

Jim, I think our articles in the quarterly Journal are better, lots of color photos, more and more varied content, etc.

If anyone wants to join, please visit this page within our website:

http://www.military-historians.org/join/join.htm

Meanwhile, anyone may visit our online Forum, here:

http://www.military-historians.org/c...ber/member.cgi

Also, because of your interest in The Company, we're giving you (all) a free copy of our world-famous journal "Military Collector and Historian;" to download it:

http://gs19.inmotionhosting.com/~mil....cgi/read/9671

Thanks!

John

Jim McDougall · 27th December 2011, 05:05 PM

Note to 'Cannonmn'........"fire for effect"!!!! Absolutely, bring it on. We very much welcome all topics on arms as well as ordnance. Thank you for noting your intent to link us to your readers. Does the Company of Military Historians still produce the material in either newsletter or published articles? It has been a long time but as I recall there were quite a few venerable articles still sought after on various topics, many of them pertaining to uniforms and equipment.

Thank you so much Fernando for adding this detail.....outstanding information!!
Also thank you for adding the link to Juan's work on these swords...I was having trouble locating...or just didnt look it up

Clearly, and as noted by him, there was a great deal of conflict in establishing exact form for the various 'regulation' patterns and which dates they would be designated.
As with many regulation patterns adopted in military 'organization' the prescribed or more likely accepted patterns were often of forms which had already been in use, so assigning pattern dates was often a matter of perspective.
It seems that in the 1790s into opening years of the 19th century, there were actually several types in use by the Spanish military so though we know the period in use for them, designated date/pattern remains speculative.

By analogy, this was the case in England as well as they worked toward establishing regulation military patterns, beginning with the M1796 groups (though there were the M1788 patterns unofficially). While the heavy cavalry swords (from the Austrian M1769 pallasche) were clearly defined, the variations in some of the officers swords, Horse Guards etc. remained vaguely established and the light cavalry sabres had considerable variations, again primarily where officers were concerned.

Whatever one choses to designate this sword, it is a fantastic example of the sturdy Spanish cavalry fighting swords of the 1790s and early 1800s.
The French blade only heightens the intrigue in this historic piece !!

27th December 2011, 10:37 AM	#2
cannonmn Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 161	Nice! I'm going to put a link back to this thread on my "regular" forum where I am the moderator, the Company of Military Historians Forum, because we have some folks interested in Spanish weapons there. I don't collect Spanish small arms (yet) myself but only artillery and I'm not sure where or if antique artillery is an appropriate subject here. Last edited by cannonmn; 27th December 2011 at 11:07 AM. Reason: correction

27th December 2011, 04:19 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Wayne, Thanks for your observations Yes, many weapons were left back by the French, during their disastrous way back home. But i have a different feeling about this specific blade exercise ... like it being a formal import, result of some noble or (also) rich owner having ordered it from France, to show signs of wealth, a custom common at the time. Oh, i was about to second you in surprise about the fixation of the cup being 'screwed' by the outside and 'riveted' by the inside, but i took the sword to the (Portuguese ) sun and discerned some thread in its (half rounded) end. . Attached Images

26th December 2011, 09:59 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	An absolutely magnificent acquisition Nando!!!!! and outstanding observations by Kronckew.There were indeed powerful French influences in play near the turn of the century, and actually the dragoon sword that was referred to as the M1799 was influenced by contemporary French sabres with the 'birdhead' type pommel/backstrap. This was the model that appeared in the 1803 text regulations. This particular form of cuphilt was I think as you mention possibly called a M1798, but it seems that its classification is a bit sketchy. I think that Juan Perez has more on that but I hevent really reviewed his material from some years ago. According to Chamberlain (p.83, plates 150,151) this type cuphilt was more in accord with earlier forms and as always revealed Spain's inclination to adhere to traditional forms. It seems these were possibly in use much earlier than the 1798 benchmark, and probably contemporary with the M1728 forms which have become known as the 'bilbo' for thier bilobate shellguard basic in hilt. These 'bilbo' type swords were the form most well known in New Spain as far as military dragoon swords, while the cuphilt style broadswords were well known among infantry officers primarily. Naturally in frontier environments there were few set standards observed conclusively. With reference to your observation on the Alamo it is indeed unlikely this hilt form was present in the Mexican dragoon regiments there in 1836, there were possibly two, but offhand I can only think of one from Laredo. Mexico had won independance in 1821, and while still Spanish in basis as far as the regimental structure, arms were largely residual and imports. The presence of the French cuirassier blade on this sword affirms it Continental provenance rather than Colonial. These early Spanish swords, especially this particular 'M1798' is probably one of the most desirable and hardest to obtain examples of these 18th century cavalry Spanish cavalry swords as I have understood (when I tried to find one once!. Bravo!!!!!! and what a wonderful Christmas gift........for me in just seeing it. All the best, Jim

27th December 2011, 03:42 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Jim, Thanks a lot for your input . Concerning the model number/year ... This specific model appears in Barceló Rubi's ARMAMENTO PORTATIL ESPAÑOL, listed as model 1796. On a footnote he quotes Salas mentioning this sword in a rather resumed description without giving any measurements, and also Enrile, this one citing it as a disused model. But the same note adds however that the catalogues of Museo de Artilleria not only describe it (example #1726), but also refer to another one called model 1797 (example #1725), identical in all parts except the pommel which had a spherical shape. Juan L.Calvó, in one article of his website CATALOGACION DE ARMAS, dedicated to Mounting Swords with Garrison of Barquilla con Vela, also consider this model as 1796. When Calvó pretends that, according to his research, this model 1796 only appeared in service in 1803, he also reminds us that, the nomination of both fire and white arms being given according to the year of their introduction, like in France, only started being used in Spain in the kingdom of Fernando VII (so after 1808) and not before. While i am expecting Don Juan Calvó to answer my email, telling me what he thonks about the blade being French, i will try and contact Juan José Perez for the same purpose. Yours humbly

27th December 2011, 04:35 PM	#6
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,215	we have had some rather long discussions about cannon balls and chain/bar shot recently, including my links to the US artillery manual of the 1860's... i'd think things that go boom with a mix of charcoal, sulphur and saltpetre are quite appropriate for the forum...like fernando's grenade avatar...

27th December 2011, 04:36 PM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	The way Juan José Pérez puts it in his website: http://perso.wanadoo.es/jjperez222/tropacab_e.htm

27th December 2011, 04:42 PM	#8
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,215	juan's sentence: "All the previous patterns, excepting perhaps the one of 1728, took part in the Wars against Napoleon's troops, along with lots of arms obtained from older blades and newer hilts, some of them of non-official French types." was quite interesting....

27th December 2011, 05:05 PM	#11
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Note to 'Cannonmn'........"fire for effect"!!!! Absolutely, bring it on. We very much welcome all topics on arms as well as ordnance. Thank you for noting your intent to link us to your readers. Does the Company of Military Historians still produce the material in either newsletter or published articles? It has been a long time but as I recall there were quite a few venerable articles still sought after on various topics, many of them pertaining to uniforms and equipment. Thank you so much Fernando for adding this detail.....outstanding information!! Also thank you for adding the link to Juan's work on these swords...I was having trouble locating...or just didnt look it up Clearly, and as noted by him, there was a great deal of conflict in establishing exact form for the various 'regulation' patterns and which dates they would be designated. As with many regulation patterns adopted in military 'organization' the prescribed or more likely accepted patterns were often of forms which had already been in use, so assigning pattern dates was often a matter of perspective. It seems that in the 1790s into opening years of the 19th century, there were actually several types in use by the Spanish military so though we know the period in use for them, designated date/pattern remains speculative. By analogy, this was the case in England as well as they worked toward establishing regulation military patterns, beginning with the M1796 groups (though there were the M1788 patterns unofficially). While the heavy cavalry swords (from the Austrian M1769 pallasche) were clearly defined, the variations in some of the officers swords, Horse Guards etc. remained vaguely established and the light cavalry sabres had considerable variations, again primarily where officers were concerned. Whatever one choses to designate this sword, it is a fantastic example of the sturdy Spanish cavalry fighting swords of the 1790s and early 1800s. The French blade only heightens the intrigue in this historic piece !!