![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,152
|
![]()
I sent detailed pictures off to a museum in Germany who finally confirmed that this sword isn't a Jaeger hanger. The gentleman found a near identical French grenadier sword, matching the details of my hilt. I had originally thought about the brass-hilted grenadier swords, but the typical variety had a different pattern to the hilt. It took this professor digging through the museum archives to find one similar. I am perfectly happy with the outcome and am just glad to have some clarification.
Now, the grenadier swords all had curved blades, so it seems mine is similar, but not an exact fit. Going back to my original argument, this still could be a naval/maritime hanger. The brass hilted naval swords of the 1780-1800 period were Plain Janes like this. The spear-point, double edged blade fits the bill. French merchantmen, privateers and such were very prevalent during this period. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,152
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sweden
Posts: 755
|
![]()
Well the interesting thing about your sword in my mind is that it’s straight single edge (?) with a false edge at the point, and has a knuckle bow. The contemporary Feld Jäger picture you pasted shows the footsoldiers carried what appears to be similar swords.
Infantry hangers and naval cutlasses often have curved blades for chopping/cutting. Hunting hirschfänger don’t (I think) have knuckle bows but often have straight blades for thrusting. So your sword seems intended for something in-between? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,152
|
![]()
Thank you for your comments and input,Victrix. I guess with the expert at the museum going by the old standard that records report 'hirschfangers', I ust accepted his word. (granted, he reported that there were apparently no positively identified jaeger sabers in the whole collection to show me). Then he provided the 'grenadier' pic, which is spot on, IF we accept that it is indeed French. It is still very strange to me, because Neumann shows several well-documented German swords with the brass bird hilt grip and weird straight 'tea drop' quilon. I've never seen this on a French sword until they sent me the pic above.
Maybe you are onto something, though, with your comment about an in-between. After all, sea service swords incorporated everything from marines to coast guard to port authority/dock security. I will continue to do research- ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,152
|
![]()
Interestingly, the French grenadier sword he identified on the site acknowledges that it was made in Saxony.
http://www.dhm.de/datenbank/dhm.php?...fld_0=MI003624 I understand that Germany at the time was a top sword producer. Now I understand why so many elements of the hilt could be seen on contemporary German swords. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Sweden
Posts: 755
|
![]()
Yes, that’s an interesting point. Also in 18thC uniforms and weapons had not yet been standardized. It’s possible that less formal units were allowed to use their own personalized sidearms, or that these were acquired privately for them by their commander. It could explain why museums have no jaeger swords to show in their collections.
I found this interesting info about jaeger: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jäger_(infantry) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,152
|
![]()
Excellent point, Victrix. Your point that there wasn't standardized issue weapons and regiments could either pick and choose or at least contract out to a local outfitter for groupings of weapons. Interestingly, this is the SAME case for naval weapons pre-1800 and private purchase maritime weapons as well, no standard pattern.
I'll have to check out that reference you posted when i have time. Thanks for responding! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|