A peculiar 1796 Pattern 'Spadroon'

Radboud · 8th October 2021, 07:38 PM

Here are the photos the vendor sent me of the markings plus a couple of the sword

Radboud · 8th October 2021, 07:44 PM

Apologies, I meant to add this one as well:

Jim McDougall · 9th October 2021, 04:02 AM

This is more bizarre than I thought. This is a heavy cavalry M1796 sword scabbard of the standard troopers form, also of the 'ladder hilt' pattern carried by officers.
Apparently in little known circumstances which have been remarkably researched by Richard Dellar (author of "The British Cavalry Sword: Some New Perspectives"2013) and presented in his "Did the French National Manufactory at Klingenthal Make British Blades ?" ("Man at Arms" Vol.43, #4, Aug. 2021),
there are some interesting possibilities.

As the author notes, despite the compelling evidence that some blades were mounted with Klingenthal markings, these may have been Solingen blades may have been acquired from there as surplus after the end of the Runkel enterprise.

This was during the post Waterloo occupation of Paris. Several British officers had weapons that needed refurbishing and contacted the Klingenthal works, known for high quality blades. However as they did not have the necessary patterns to produce the British heavy cavalry blades , they used contacts in Solingen to acquire a number of blades. As noted these 'anomalies' have turned up with Klingenthal markings.

After this "...other British officers followed suit and ordered replacement blades either as a result of damage or for ENHANCEMENT".

Could it be that this blade, which is basically of the width and profile of a heavy cavalry blade of the heavier form of 1796 for combat, was made at Klingenthal or in France in this situation ? If being commissioned privately for 'enhancement' the Andrea Ferara might have been so placed.

Clearly this is a tenuous suggestion, but the remarkable evidence in the Richard Dellar article offers compelling plausibility.

These swords all have such stories to tell!

This image (from MDL, for informational purposes only, not in stock) is the M1796 heavy cavalry officers 'honeysuckle' or 'ladder' hilt noted.,

Radboud · 9th October 2021, 06:27 AM

Hi Jim,

Thank you for your comments. I still think this is more of a backsword blade of the profile of the basket hilt swords from the time, especially with the double fullers. Most 1796 HC undress swords I’ve seen have the single broad fuller and follow the shape and style of the trooper version.

But like you say the scabbard is of the heavy cavalry style.

Truely a puzzle, but then this era did create some unique designs. I recently passed on a flank officers (grenadier) sabre with a boatshell guard combined with a P-shaped knuckle bow and a 1796 light cavalry like blade marked to J J Runkel.

As it will be coming up for auction soon I can’t post photos alas.

Bryce · 9th October 2021, 12:05 PM

G'day Guys,
This sword is a cracker. I would love to have it in my collection. I would say it is definitely an heirloom blade from the 17th or maybe early 18th century. It could be a 1796 heavy cavalry officer's dress sword, or maybe something like a general officer's sword. I have seen a few of these types of swords. Similar type of blade to this 1788 HCO sword with heirloom blade of mine.
Cheers,
Bryce

Radboud · 9th October 2021, 12:58 PM

Thanks for the feedback Bryce, that 1788 of yours is an amazing sword as well!

Jim McDougall · 10th October 2021, 12:56 AM

Guys, these are all totally amazing swords! and Bryce and Will I was glad to see you guys come in as you are pretty much specialized in this field of British regulation swords.

I see what you mean Bryce, on the heirloom blade thing, and the fullering is remarkably similar except for the extra 'flute' at ricasso. What puzzles me, beyond the pristine appearance of the blade, is that the width and length seem to correspond to the 1796 heavy cavalry blade size......enough to 'appear' to fit this regulation pattern neatly.

The heirloom blades, which would have dated pre 1746, seem a bit more slender as backswords if I am not mistaken.

The M1788 is outstanding Bryce! I had one of these many years ago, but the pommel had been replaced with a spherical one that seemed from a much earlier rapier, the blade was huge, 40" long! Wish I still had it.

8th October 2021, 07:38 PM	#1
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 285	Here are the photos the vendor sent me of the markings plus a couple of the sword Attached Images

8th October 2021, 07:44 PM	#2
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 285	Apologies, I meant to add this one as well: Attached Images

9th October 2021, 04:02 AM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,283	This is more bizarre than I thought. This is a heavy cavalry M1796 sword scabbard of the standard troopers form, also of the 'ladder hilt' pattern carried by officers. Apparently in little known circumstances which have been remarkably researched by Richard Dellar (author of "The British Cavalry Sword: Some New Perspectives"2013) and presented in his "Did the French National Manufactory at Klingenthal Make British Blades ?" ("Man at Arms" Vol.43, #4, Aug. 2021), there are some interesting possibilities. As the author notes, despite the compelling evidence that some blades were mounted with Klingenthal markings, these may have been Solingen blades may have been acquired from there as surplus after the end of the Runkel enterprise. This was during the post Waterloo occupation of Paris. Several British officers had weapons that needed refurbishing and contacted the Klingenthal works, known for high quality blades. However as they did not have the necessary patterns to produce the British heavy cavalry blades , they used contacts in Solingen to acquire a number of blades. As noted these 'anomalies' have turned up with Klingenthal markings. After this "...other British officers followed suit and ordered replacement blades either as a result of damage or for ENHANCEMENT". Could it be that this blade, which is basically of the width and profile of a heavy cavalry blade of the heavier form of 1796 for combat, was made at Klingenthal or in France in this situation ? If being commissioned privately for 'enhancement' the Andrea Ferara might have been so placed. Clearly this is a tenuous suggestion, but the remarkable evidence in the Richard Dellar article offers compelling plausibility. These swords all have such stories to tell! This image (from MDL, for informational purposes only, not in stock) is the M1796 heavy cavalry officers 'honeysuckle' or 'ladder' hilt noted., Attached Images Last edited by Jim McDougall; 9th October 2021 at 04:20 AM.

9th October 2021, 12:05 PM	#5
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 189	G'day Guys, This sword is a cracker. I would love to have it in my collection. I would say it is definitely an heirloom blade from the 17th or maybe early 18th century. It could be a 1796 heavy cavalry officer's dress sword, or maybe something like a general officer's sword. I have seen a few of these types of swords. Similar type of blade to this 1788 HCO sword with heirloom blade of mine. Cheers, Bryce Attached Images

9th October 2021, 06:27 AM	#4
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 285	Hi Jim, Thank you for your comments. I still think this is more of a backsword blade of the profile of the basket hilt swords from the time, especially with the double fullers. Most 1796 HC undress swords I’ve seen have the single broad fuller and follow the shape and style of the trooper version. But like you say the scabbard is of the heavy cavalry style. Truely a puzzle, but then this era did create some unique designs. I recently passed on a flank officers (grenadier) sabre with a boatshell guard combined with a P-shaped knuckle bow and a 1796 light cavalry like blade marked to J J Runkel. As it will be coming up for auction soon I can’t post photos alas.

9th October 2021, 12:58 PM	#6
Radboud Member Join Date: Sep 2021 Location: New Zealand Posts: 285	Thanks for the feedback Bryce, that 1788 of yours is an amazing sword as well!

10th October 2021, 12:56 AM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,283	Guys, these are all totally amazing swords! and Bryce and Will I was glad to see you guys come in as you are pretty much specialized in this field of British regulation swords. I see what you mean Bryce, on the heirloom blade thing, and the fullering is remarkably similar except for the extra 'flute' at ricasso. What puzzles me, beyond the pristine appearance of the blade, is that the width and length seem to correspond to the 1796 heavy cavalry blade size......enough to 'appear' to fit this regulation pattern neatly. The heirloom blades, which would have dated pre 1746, seem a bit more slender as backswords if I am not mistaken. The M1788 is outstanding Bryce! I had one of these many years ago, but the pommel had been replaced with a spherical one that seemed from a much earlier rapier, the blade was huge, 40" long! Wish I still had it.