1822 British Lancer Mameluke

[Bryce]

G'day JT88,
Why are you convinced that the scabbard was originally covered in velvet and that the current leather is a replacement? The majority of these mamelukes had leather, rather than velvet covered scabbards.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Jim McDougall]

In India, during the Raj, it would not be surprising to see velveteen used for a scabbard with a tulwar blade mounted for a British officer in the manner of contemporary style on native tulwars of quality.

As has been discussed there are numbers of these blades which are most certainly in Ottoman style with this stepped blade end (termed a 'latch back' in Bezdek)which were a traditional form seen on early Mamluk sabers. These were the model for many Polish and Hungarian sabers of 17th into 18th century using this blade profile.

Ottoman blades of this style are beautifully made, and seem almost invariably to have cartouches and calligraphy profusely decorating them.
If this is indeed an Ottoman produced blade, it would seem that such decoration or cartouche in some degree would exist. I have not been aware of the Ottomans producing 'trade' blades void of such motif, and would appreciate knowing more on the contrary.

In the 17th century into 18th, there was a notable confluence of Islamic style in the arms of the Deccan ("Arts of the Muslim Knight" ,B. Mohammed, 2008) which included copies of this style of Ottoman blade. Deccani influences were profound influences on Mughal regions to the north.

While I noted earlier that Indian tulwar blades typically had the blade edge blunted near hilt in the 'Indian ricasso', but I dont believe Rawson (1968) meant that 'every' blade had this feature. As Norman noted, it would not be surprising that in remounting, the edge was sharpened to full length.

Here I would point out that British officers in India during the Raj were incredibly flamboyant, and the carte blanche that was typically enjoyed by officers in Great Britain and elsewhere was carried to new dimensions there.
To have a fashionable mameluke hilt mounted with a fearsome tulwar fighting blade would be remarkably appealing to the hubris of many officers.

It is not necessarily the case that this style hilt should be attributed to any particular category of officers despite the regulations recommending them to certain units. Officers swords were privately commissioned and purchased, as was the case of course for civilian swords.
While an officer, especially of cavalry in that elite status, might well adopt a 'fighting sword' of elaborate character....it would be entirely unseemly for a civilian sector official to take such a step.

[JT88]

Jim the blade does have traces of gold writing on it, pictured below. The second picture was surely a maker's signature, only a faint piece remains sadly.

Osman is 100% sure it is Ottoman, I trust him on that point he is an expert on Ottoman blades.

As for the velvet, every single mameluke with this style of fittings I can find has velvet on the scabbard.

See Dellar PG 112 fig 12.9/12.10
More examples of similar swords:
https://www.michaeldlong.com/product...l-dress-sword/
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/487936940879693718/

There are many 9th lancer's that look almost the same, hard to differentiate if its the same sword being sold over and over again.
https://bid.antonycribb.com/m/lot-de...F29%3Fpage%3D9

Take note of the fittings on the previous swords and my sword, they're very similar. It's impossible to prove that it is for sure a Lancer's sword but much in the same of "stolen valor" in today's garb I doubt another officer would copy the lancer's style.

A non lancers mameluke with velvet
https://bid.antonycribb.com/m/lot-de...F29%3Fpage%3D9

As for leather I actually don't see many with leather, the vast majority are completely metal sheaths. The lancers generally seem to have velvet, but I still think the fittings point to likely a lancer's sword.

On the auction description Anthony Cribb points to a sword in Dellar pg 109 figure 12.2 as a similar sword. This one also has leather, an early make 1807-10 for an officer of the 22nd light dragoons. It is also entirely possible this is a pre 1822 regulation sword, hence the differences.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much JT, excellent references and well noted. I had missed your mention of the markings in the OP. I had no doubt of Osman's expertise which was well displayed in his entries, but took a devil's advocate approach based on what I know of India associated blades of this form.

It is interesting to see the profound influences this early Mamluk blade form had on European sabers such as Eastern Europe. The influence of Eastern European cavalry on other European armies, thus then to Great Britain by the transition of light dragoon regiments into the flamboyant hussars was of course profound. After the Napoleonic period, the further addition of lancers units followed suit.

So I am supposing that since this is an Ottoman blade, it could not have existed in India, and must have come from someplace else in the Ottoman Empire?
The reason I mentioned the notable duplication of these type blades in the Deccan was that that copying of the Ottoman style would suggest there must have been some presence of these in Mughal courts.

We know, as shown, that the period of 1790s was most innovative in England as LeMarchant sought to form regulation patterns for cavalry swords, which ultimately resulted in the M1796 light cavalry saber. If I recall from research, among the saber blades considered were those of the Indian tulwar.

It seems that apparently Solingen began producing blades of this 'Ottoman' style for British use for officers sabers prior to 1807.
These were used by cutlers, most notably Prosser, who mounted them on officers sabers in the expected variations in that period during the Napoleonic campaigns.

So getting back to this blade of your original post, the question remains, would this Ottoman blade have been mounted in India for a British cavalry officer? Which lancer units were in India.....obviously the 16th (Sikh wars, Aliwal), 5th, and the 21st (which were hussars at 1858 redesignated as lancers 1897).....the 17th in Lucknow. Did other cavalry officers adopt the mameluke hilt outside lancer regiments ?
With the elite hussar status and the administrative confusion of regimental amalgamations, it would be surprising if not.

Clearly this is not a civilian example, unless a diplomatic gift or presentation in which case, sometimes trophy or heirloom blades were used for their significance.

I am sure you have Robson (1975) and its revision (1996), but beyond that, the best resource for information of the kind you are seeking would be :Classic Arms & Militaria" magazine in England. The corpus of material on British sword patterns and history is pretty amazing, and reaching them for back issues, index or extracts would be best.

[JT88]

Understood, I think Osman was saying those Indian mounted blades are in fact Ottoman blades on Indian handles, but he can speak more to that.

I'm sure you've read Rivkin A Study of the Eastern Sword incredible book on this subject. Eastern Europe imitated the saber of the East, and I know Le Marchant derived his sword from Austrian Hussar blades, which they themselves copied the Hungarians who copied the Ottomans.

I know that when the British occupied Egypt in the early 1800s they looted a ton of mameluke blades (as did the French) it could've been acquired in that timeframe and likely put together in Britain.

I think we can assume the popularity of mamelukes arising from the completion of the Egyptian campaign in 1801. The French were surely bringing them home, but English troops in the area must've as well. So there is quite a wide range of time this sword could've been produced, if you have an idea when the 1822 regulation pattern went out of style that would be the top end, but they were being made earlier than that by a decade.

I think it can be ruled out from being a civilian sword, this is a fighting blade.

I don't own Robson, need to order it, but a friend did send the relevant pages to me to read.

The wootz sure does look good in those pictures! Need to update my guide, this sword was entirely different in its characteristics bringing the wootz out than the pala I posted earlier.

[O. Baskurt]

Jack wootz has its own characteristic and chemistry also forging methods also heat treat methods effect its character so much. So etching it is really tricky. As you know personally i have many kilics from every period in my possession and almost all had different way to etch
Last kilic i own you withnessed by yourself end 15th century Mamluk kilic made by Mastersmith Misri which is really rare piece and only few in the world and its patterns was really hard comer as well cuz all his blades are like this cuz it is the chemistry. Another 16th century Ottoman kilics i owned i needed to etch them almost all with different etchants 18th 19th century blades i owned i had to etch with totally different and shamshirs were different as well cuz masterssmiths who made them were all different. But surely your blade has really amazing wootz patterns even style of Pattern is different than Indian Tulwars. Indian iron ores are so clean ores and their patterns are more smaller which is good thing actually. Wootz is precious for us nowadays and we want to see patterns so much cuz makes piece more unique and valuable in a way especially if it is watered patterns and big patterns but back in History it wasnt like this people were mirror polishing their blades ( prevent rust cuz they dont have access to tools like we do nowadays ) even at some point seeing patterns were kind of shame and smaller the pattern more quality the steel was.

[Bryce]

Here is another example with a Persian? wootz blade, silver gilt mounts and leather scabbard.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Bryce]

Here is one marked to an officer of the 82nd regiment of foot.
Cheers,
Bryce

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...

We know, as shown, that the period of 1790s was most innovative in England as LeMarchant sought to form regulation patterns for cavalry swords, which ultimately resulted in the M1796 light cavalry saber. If I recall from research, among the saber blades considered were those of the Indian tulwar.

...

And I've heard it came full circle later, when the 1796s were replaced and surplus ones given to the Indian Sepoys. When the English confronted them in the 1857 rebellion, the Brits complained that the Sepoy's swords cut very much better than their own swords. Turned out they were the re-hilted 1796 LC sabres, but the Indians actually sharpened them. The Brits had theirs dulled, if ever sharpened, by contact with the metal scabbards when sheathing and drawing. Brits kept their sabres deliberately dull when not at war to avoid accidentally injuring themselves, and the command to sharpen sabres told them they were about to be deployed at the sharp end ().

[JT88]

Originally Posted by kronckew

And I've heard it came full circle later, when the 1796s were replaced and surplus ones given to the Indian Sepoys. When the English confronted them in the 1857 rebellion, the Brits complained that the Sepoy's swords cut very much better than their own swords. Turned out they were the re-hilted 1796 LC sabres, but the Indians actually sharpened them. The Brits had theirs dulled, if ever sharpened, by contact with the metal scabbards when sheathing and drawing. Brits kept their sabres deliberately dull when not at war to avoid accidentally injuring themselves, and the command to sharpen sabres told them they were about to be deployed at the sharp end ().

Yup, in detail in Swordsmen of the British Empire great book. I have a Rijksmuseum Gill 1796 on the way currently. Along with a Dawes officers, an 1811, and an Austrian hussar, I think I'm spent on the model now

I love these mamelukes though, I'd like to go for some more eventually, especially one with French Egypt campaign provenance.

[Bryce]

G'day Calien,
I am very interested in early British pipe-backs. What more can you tell us about your sword? Who made it and who owned it?
Cheers,
Bryce