1780 heavy Cavalry Officer Sword

[Jim McDougall]

Going through old files, I found this from nearly 30 years ago. It was listed as a dragoon officers sword when acquired in late 70s (1770-80).
Neumann (277.S) called it an English horseman sword 1780-95 with an identical hilt structure but with faceted pommel.
Robson, (1975) showed a similar hilt suggesting this was the M1788 'heavy' cavalry hilt if i recall.

As earlier noted, British cavalry were termed dragoons, with only the 'light dragoons' beginning after 1759, the heavier troops termed dragoon guards if I understand correctly. The terms light and heavy cavalry came into use with the 1796 regulations.

Obviously the spherical pommel is incorrect, and I never could figure where it might have come from.

[JT88]

Hi all, it's been awhile. I've been researching a new piece I own. It is a Drury-made eagle head with a short, cutlass/hanger-type blade.

I came to this thread because I noticed its guard I would call a "slotted S-type" very similar to these older cavalry blades.

However, the signature should date this to 1792 -

Despite no naval markings, the type of blade that is late points to naval service. The British infantry had already switched to a "cut and thrust" blade, and British naval swords wouldn't be standardized until 1805.

Now, there could also be a US connection, given the eagle/head. Someone knowledgeable about US weapons said the eagle head looked "Thurkle-like."

I'd possibly think a period composite, as Drury was a cutler and may have simply put the pieces together for a client. The peen is well-aged, and the gilt uniform where it is not worn.

Thanks for the look!

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting composite, and the pommel is indeed a 'Francis Thurkle" eagle head
("The American Eagle Pommel Sword 1794-1830" Andrew Mowbray ,1988, p.59-61).

Not sure why this blade would be deemed 'naval' though of course anything is possible. Officers had notable latitude in the style of their weapons, so the standardization of these typically did not apply beyond reasonable similarity to regulation forms.

Francis Thurkle was indeed a prominent supplier to US market and of course the 'eagle heads' were prevalent. While this style eagle head was attributed to Thurkle, it is known that Dru Drury Jr. and his son William, working at 32 Strand, corner of Villers street, Westminster, often subcontracted to goldsmiths/silversmiths to decorate their hilts.

Thurkle hilts seem to have been primarily ivory either reeded or checkered, and most often on spadroon type swords. The dragoon officer sword by Kinman I posted earlier had this type scrolled bars in guard and the banding over rayskin grip, but earlier than this example (1770s).

In the late 1790s these kinds of stepped tip (yelman, widened in the manner of Ottoman blades also as popular in India) were in vogue with British officers. This is likely a Solingen import using the talismanic/magic theme popular in Europe from mid 1700s.

This is apparently an officers sword using a Solingen blade and while mounted by the Drury firm using Thurkle pommel. I am not sure all eagle heads went only to American market, but obviously prevalent.

[JT88]

Thanks for the response Jim.

I agree the head must be a Thurkle.
Drury was a cutler, so I find it entirely possible someone commissioned an eagle-headed hanger from him and he contracted out the eagle head.

I lean towards Naval service because of when the sword was made. If it were 1760-70s I'd agree it could be an infantry hanger; however, in 1792 on, infantry had moved to small swords, "cut and thrust" swords.

If you're aware of anything similar with the blade I'd be interested to see. Maybe some of the early revolution French swords have similar styled blades.

The blade is small only 23.5 inches. The half basket is very small, my XL hand does not fit in there.

Cheers.

[fernando]

Members are recommended to reduce the size of each quotation to the part of the texts they wish to emphasize !

[Jim McDougall]

I think thats right, with these cutlers it does seem there was a bit of 'mix and match', and components such as pommels were likely among the easiest to place with other guards. In my earlier post with similar hilt and banded rayskin grip the dragoon sword has an lionhead, and is attributed to Kinman, with Drury (this would be Dru Drury Jr.likely).

Here is an example of the 'stepped back' late 1790s and a page from 'Swords & Daggers" (Wilkinson). In this period Henry Osborn had been working with LeMarchant in developing regulation pattern blade and had been considering Ottoman blade features among others. The 'stepped back' (yelman...widened point) was primarily to add weight impetus to the cut as I understand.

In the 1790s, a number of blades were procured by the Prince of Wales from Solingen for placement on sabers for his officers of the 10th Hussars. These had the stepped back point and talismanic motif described. In about 1807 he designed a new hilt with silver POW feathers in the langet, and this is believed to be one of those early sabers, a total of 27, with the order going to Prosser in London.

There were possibly a total number of 44 of these produced (Dellar), before the new 1822 patterns came in.

These are the only two examples I have of this feature, which as I noted seems to be aligned with such blades on some 18th c Indian tulwars, and more dramatically on Ottoman pala (kilij).

In looking at that scabbard as well as the shorter blade, I am inclined to agree this could very well be a naval officers. It is often noted that cavalry and naval officers swords were often in parity, and the absence of fouled anchor device is not at all disqualifying as a naval sword. However I once had a M1796 officers light cavalry saber (with pre 1801 arms in motif) which was notably short as this example. It seems I had read somewhere that officers were not necessarily expected to engage in combat, with sword primarily to direct etc., however it is of course well known that typically officers did indeed engage.

Toward the naval end, this Wooley & Deakin 1796 type saber (the date for that pairing generally held 1801-1803) when I acquired it long ago was listed as a cavalry officers saber. I always questioned this as the blade was much shorter than usual.
I would note here I have seen other examples like this, with reeded ebony grip and brass mounts, and I became inclined to think of it as naval, in this same manner.
One example with same hilt was in Wilkinson (ref not available) and to Durs Egg, who was noted for supplying naval swords if I recall.

What I have noted about James Wooley is that he seems to have followed French fashion, as seen in his M1788 sabers in the pommel form, langets and the blades, 'montmorency' section. I would point out this brass hilt saber also reflects the blade with that cross section.

[JT88]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I think thats right, with these cutlers it does seem there was a bit of 'mix and match', and components such as pommels were likely among the easiest to place with other guards.

Here is an example of the 'stepped back' late 1790s and a page from 'Swords & Daggers" (Wilkinson). In this period Henry Osborn had been working with LeMarchant in developing regulation pattern blade and had been considering Ottoman blade features among others. The 'stepped back' (yelman...widened point) was primarily to add weight impetus to the cut as I understand.

In looking at that scabbard as well as the shorter blade, I am inclined to agree this could very well be a naval officers. It is often noted that cavalry and naval officers swords were often in parity, and the absence of fouled anchor device is not at all disqualifying as a naval sword.

I think it likely this sword is from the 1790s, perhaps from a naval officer who saw some Indian service, thus aware of eastern yelman-designs.

But much of this is supposition. The peen appears well-aged, so I do not think its a modern composite of old parts. I think, as you said, it is most likely Drury made this piece with a Solingen blade, Thurkle eagle, and did the rest himself for private purchase.

The naval possibility is wholly due to the size and type of blade, very much like a non-regulation officer cutlass. We saw them in the US Navy quite late as well, even post-regulation, but are very rare and desirable to collectors.

This piece was listed in a French auction as a British cavalry sword, which after your comment does make me wonder. The blade is far far too short for actual battle service and is designed to be a battle blade, so I do find this very unlikely. Though the size of the basket tells us it was made for a small man, my hand will not fit in it at all.

Thanks for the thoughts!

Cheers

[Hotspur]

A five baller for Jim. I swear it must have been for the Knights of Columbus!