Basket hilted swords

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Ibrahiim, outstanding note referring to the 'Border Reivers' of these northern regions! These are the unconventional groups that inhabited border regions and in essence did not claim allegiance nor favor to either English nor Scottish nationality. They were independent raiders whose raids and activity was not restricted to either side of these borders.
While Shotley swordsmiths had mostly removed to Birmingham it would not be surprising that local armourers would have been in place locally to keep the widely varied range of arms and armour serviceable.

It seems quite likely many variances in swords might derive from these contexts.

Salaams Jim, I am tracking through various accounts of Border Reivers and note at; http://www.electricscotland.com/history/other/border_reivers7.htm

Quote" Chains were drawn 4 or 5 times around the thighs of the horses which helped deflect spear thrusts. A scarf was wrapped around and around the neck for protection against getting one's throat cut. There was no leg armor but thigh-high thick leather riding boots worn with spurs. Sometimes small shields called bucklers were carried. In the early 1500s helmets were worn for protection of the upper part of the face and neck. In the 16th century, these were replaced with light, open helmets called burgonets -- the steill bonnets. These provided protection without a loss of vision. They were peaked on top with protective cheek plates and a flared rim to protect the neck. They were padded inside with leather.

Border Laws required that all men must appear at Muster Days with all arms and armor. The Borderer probably did not show the government on these days all the weapons he had. The lance or the lang spear was the most common weapon and was about 8 to 12 feet in length. Basket hilted broad swords were predominately used among the less wealthy at the end of the 16th century. The nobility wore rapiers and parrying daggers. Dirks, which were long narrow daggers, were carried by everyone, including the clergy.

Longbows and arrows were used even as late as 1580. The Scots also used the bow but not as effectively as the English and preferred a small light crossbow known as the latch.

Scots on foot carried 16 foot pikes. A Jeddart Staff was a 4 foot blade of steel and was slim, providing a long cutting edge with a spike at the bottom for piercing.

Pistols were carried by the Border men but with some trepidation since these weapons were tedious to load and reload and if not in good condition could result in losing a good hand. Also they were not particularly accurate unless at a very close range".Unquote.

From another source at http://wwwborderreiverstories-neblessclem.blogspot.com/2013/01/scottish-and-english-border-reivers_7.html I note;

Quote."Broad swords fitted with basket hilts to protect the hand were in general use and jealously guarded because of their cost by their owners. Often they were handed down from generation to generation. That the sword was of supreme importance can perhaps by gauged from the argument and feud that raged between the Scotts of Teviotdale, Scottish Borders and the Charltons of Hesleyside, Tynedale, Northumberland, England.

In 1596 Thomas Lord Scrope, English West March Warden, when writing to the English Privy Council of his sour relationship with his opposite number on the Scottish side, Sir Walter Scott of Buccleuch, Keeper of Liddesdale, complained that Scott even made an argument for his grandfather’s sword which had been stolen by the English Charlton’s of Hesleyside some years before.

I am led to believe that the present Lord and Lady Charlton are still in possession of this sword today, four hundred years later.

The dirk, a long narrow dagger, in general use, made up the store of the Border Reivers armoury".Unquote.
Below a selection of artwork showing Border Reivers and a map of their operational areas called Marches..separate Clan like regions for the different Reiver groupings. See also http://www.sorbie.net/border_reivers.htm

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

[Ibrahiim al Balooshi]

Salaams All...Following on from the above post ~ The swords below seem to be associated with Border Reiver style...

Please see http://fallingangelslosthighways.blogspot.com/2013/01/swords-of-borderers.html from which I extract the pictures below and Quote"All three of the weapons illustrated are "backswords." that is to say that they are sharp on the forward (cutting) edge, and blunt on the back edge.

However in each case, the last four to six inches of the back edge are sharp, in order to provide a thrusting point.
The sword on the left of the picture, is one of the most important surviving British Basket hilts, and dates from the second quarter of the 16th century.

The large "Globe pommel" is both light in weight, and hollow, and the guard is asymmetrical being of a different form on the outside of the hand than the inside."Unquote.

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi

[Richard G]

Came across this the other day, (a bit grisly, I know)
Montrose was James Graham, a Scottish Royalist, (the Great Montrose) hung, drawn and quartered in Edinburgh in 1651, if I remember rightly. The sword was reputedley Montrose's
Regards
Richard
PS Will try to attach a pdf file. Page 69 describes the sword.

[fernando]

Cathey, you have a PM.

[Cathey]

Hi
If you are a seriously addicted to Basket Hilted swords then Volume 1 of The Baron of Earlshall's "The Scottish Basket Hilted Sword" is a must. Privately published, this limited print run is restricted to 200 total copies worldwide. last time I heard there was only 30 left. Volume 1, covers the years 1450-1600, contains three chapters consisting of 479 pages, 325 black & white plates, 11 colour plates & 39 figures (line drawings). At 12" X 8.5" and 1.5" spine width, it weighs slightly over 2.5 kilograms.

Personally, I have been waiting for this book for a long time, and now it has arrived I can’t wait for Volume 2 to be released. Rex would have preferred more consistency in the quality of the photographs, however the information contained in Volume 1 has exceeded my expectations. If you would like the details of how to purchase a copy send me a PM or look in Swap and Sell.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

[Cathey]

Hi Guys, thought it was time to post another Basket hilt.


Date: Pattern 1828, manufacture date 1857
Nationality: British
Overall Length: 102 cm (40.2 inches) in scabbard, 98 cm (38.6 inches) sword only
Blade length: 82.2 cm (32.4 inches)
Blade widest point: 3.256 cm (1.3 inches)
Hilt widest point: 14.6 cm (5.7 inches)
Inside grip length: 10.3 cm (4.1 inches)
Marks, etc. Back-edge of blade, bottom of ricasso, is stamped with the serial number "8512". Etched onto ricasso, right is, "HENRY / WILKINSON / PALL MALL / LONDON"; in left ricasso is the Wilkinson "proof plug" (slightly damaged); etched into blade panel on left is the Argyll 'Boar's Head' over the motto of the 91st Regiment, "Ne Obliviscaris" over "PRINCESS / LOUISE'S / ARGYLL / & / SUTHERLAND / HIGHLANDERS"; the right blade panel is etched with the Sutherland 'Wild Cat' over the motto of the 93rd Regiment "Sans Peur"

Description
Scottish basket hilt in correct steel field scabbard. This sword belonged to a field officer in, "Princess Louise's Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders". It is believed this was a family sword and used before the creation of this particular unit in 1881. The sword was manufactured by Henry Wilkinson, the serial numbered 8512 for 1857. It is also believed this sword was likely shipped back to Wilkinson for the subsequent new unit designation etching circa 1881. The blade has scattered dark oxidation and some scattered minor edge wear; hilt does not appear to have any fractures.

General Remarks
Princess Louise's Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders was formed in 1881 by combining the 91st (Argyllshire Highlanders) and the 93rd (Sutherland Highlanders), both Regiments of Foot. The 91st and 93rd Regiments of Foot were first formed in 1759. The 93rd - originally known as the 1st Sutherland Fencibles - became the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders in 1800. These two regiments were merged during the Childers Reforms in 1881 - the 91st becoming the 1st Battalion, the 93rd becoming the 2nd Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. It is very likely this sword was originally carried by a Field Officer in either the 91st or 93rd Regiment of Foot before the merger.

Research to date
The Wilkinson Proof docket says McNeill or Mr Hart (it has been suggested that they meant McNeill for Mr Hart) in which case the sword belonged to Hart. At some time after 1881 the sword has been re-designated/engraved with the regimental emblems etc. of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. By this time both McNeill and Hart had long retired. There is a Malcolm McNeil in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders at this time, perhaps a son or grandson of the original Malcolm McNeill linked to the sword.

The only regiment that had a McNeill and a Hart in it at the same time was the 78th Ross Shire Buffs. Both a Malcolm McNeill and a James Hart are in the Harts Army list for 1860. Wilkinson Sword purchase is dated 6 February 1858, Malcolm McNeil was gazetted Ensign in 18 December 1857 but Mr. (Ensign) James Hart was not gazetted until 10 September the following year (1858).

James Hart was promoted from the ranks, Sergeant-Major James Hart to be Ensign, without purchase, vice Ewing. Dated 10th September, 1858.

Both Men retired in 1861, James still an Ensign, however having seen considerable action Malcolm a Lieutenant with no record of serving in action found to date.

According to the 1860 Hart Army list “Ensign Hart served in the Persian war in 1857, including the night attack and battle of Kooshab, and bombardment of Mohumrah (medal and clasp). Served in Bengal with Havelock’s column from its first taking the field in 1857, including the actions of Futtehpore, Aoung, Pandoo Nuddee, Cawnpore, Onao, Buseerutgunge (1st and 2nd), Bithoor, and the several actions leading to and ending in the rleif of the Residency of Lucknow and subsequent defence; with Outram’s force at Alumbagh, including the repulse of the numerous attacks, and operations ending in the final capture of Lucklow; the Rohilcund campaign in 1858 and capture of Bareilly (Medal and Clasp).

I have found no record of a Hart in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders.

At this stage I am leaning towards the view that McNeill gifted the sword to James Hart, who latter re-gifted it to a son or grandson of Malcolm McNeill serving in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders


Cheers Cathey and Rex

[fernando]

Beautiful sword, in excelent condition and with a well researched background :cool: .

[Cathey]

Hi Guys’

This sword has been in our collection for many years and we have never come across the blade mark before. Any assistance regarding this odd mark will be most appreciated. I have found some marks that are vaguely similar but they date from 1380 onwards. The references for these are:

GYNGELL, Dudley S. Hawtrey ARMOURERS MARKS pp25
KINMAN, Steffan European Makers of Edged Weapons, their Marks A Handbook for Museums and Collectors pp23
LENKIEWICZ, Zygmunt S. 1000 SWORD MARKS OF EUROPEAN BLADEMAKERS pp80, 88, 94,

Nationality Scottish
Overall Length 96 cm (37.8 inches)
Blade length 83.2 cm (32.8 inches)
Blade widest point 3.3 cm (1.3 inches)
Hilt widest point 5” 12.7 cm
Inside grip length 3 ¾” 9.5 cm
Marks, etc. Deep blade mark stamped just below hilt.

Description
BASKET-HILT Scottish Circa 1615 Cavalry Broad Sword. Blade is pitted and has dark patina, possibly predates hilt. ‘S’ type basket. The same style of basket is featured in the September 1994 “Scottish Sword & Shield“ catalogue on page 12 no. 25 described as “Scottish basket hilted sword of the Saltire Group. S type basket Circa 1610 – 1625.”

This sword has more neatly formed frontal saltire bars and the mid-point notches on the vertical sides of the junction plates are more U Shaped than those seen on other examples, but the pommel is cone shaped with grooving and fluting at the front and the rear but not, apparently at the sides. The lobes at the centre of the lateral linking bars are extremely long. Interestingly, the extended horizontal S bars are welded at the very top of the aperture formed by the rear and front vertical bar; the upper curve of the S bar nestling between the juncture of the rear vertical bar and where it joins the shoulder linking it with the forward vertical bar.

The grip is a replacement 18th century one with plain iron collars at top and bottom. The double edged blade has single central groove stamped at the top with curious mark resembling a fleur-de-lys lacking its central stem. An additional curiosity is the arrangement of how the linking bars and lower rear arms of the saltires are welded behind the forward vertical bar instead of being merged directly into it.


Regards Cathey and Rex

[Cathey]

Hi Guys

Another pattern 1828 Scottish Basket

Date: Pattern 1828 (19th Century)
Overall Length: In Scabbard 104 cm, (40.9 inches) Sword only 99cm (39 inches)
Blade length: 82.7 cm (34.3 inches)
Blade widest point: 2.9 cm (1.1 inches
Hilt widest point: 14.9 cm (5.9 inches)
Inside grip length: 11.6 cm (4.6 inches)

Maker is S MAYNARD & HARRIS LEEADENHALL ST LONDON, Army and Navy Agents which are listed as Maynard and Harris 1851-1862

Description
Basket Hilt-Scottish-Pattern 1828-Highland Officer-Black Watch
Victorian officers regimental broadsword attributed to Harry Richard Stanhope Foley, as the ricasso has been engraved H.R.S.F over the original makers details, the blade is etched on one side with a crowned VR cipher and a Prince of Wales feather with By Appointment and on the other with the battle honours of the 42nd to Sevastopol, the hilt with a regulation steel basket retaining the original red faced leather liner, and with the field service scabbard, this has wear to the top leather.

Harry Richard Stanhope Foley
4/6/1864 joined the 42nd (the Royal Highland) Regt of Foot (the Black Watch).
14/6/1864 Appointed Ensign
9/11/1866 Appointed Lieutenant
9/11/1866 THE LONDON GAZETTE, NOVEMBER 9, 1866. 42nd Foot, Ensign Harry Richard Stanhope Foley to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice John Allatt Drake, who retires. Dated 9th November, 1866.
17/3/1869 Retired from the Black Watch.
2/4/1869 Joined the West Kent Light Infantry as Captain.

Not a terribly interesting chap, but a nice sword and we have recently acquired a photo of him, although sadly not in Uniform.

Cheer Cathey and Rex

[fernando]

Very nice sword, Cathey,
Its owner might not be an interesting chap but, the 42nd Black Watch certainly was.
They played an important role in the Peninsular War, as etched in your sword blade. Eventually one of the battles in which they were part of the allied forces (Buçaco) is a place hardly 100 miles from my home town.

[Jim McDougall]

The 42nd Highland Regt of Foot ("Black Watch") is definitely a most distinguished and well known unit of the famed 'Highlanders' of the British military.
There is considerable debate about the origin of the name of this regiment, typically presuming it had to do with the dark tartan they are said to have worn. Actually it derives from a colloquial expression from the time the ancestral unit was formed, in the turbulent climate of the Scottish Highlands post '15' (the Scottish rebellion of 1715).
In 1725, George II authorized units of Highlanders from various clans loyal to the crown to patrol ("watch") areas of the Highlands for potential troubles and further organizing of insurgence.

These units were termed 'Am Freiceadan Dubh', (= the dark, or 'black' watch) much as in modern terms we refer to covert activity in the intelligence communities as 'black ops'.
The well known knife traditionally hidden in the sock of kilted clansmen is the skean dubh ( = hidden, dark, or 'black' knife, dubh meaning dark or black).

In 1740, more units were added and formed into an official military infantry regiment which became the famed 42nd .

This regiment, which fought with distinction and valor through many campaigns, including as Fernando noted at Bucaco in 1810 during the Peninsular campaigns, is also well known from one of the most famed paintings of the Napoleonic Wars.
Lady Butler painted her rendition of the immortal charge of the Royal Scots Greys cavalry at Waterloo, titled 'Scotland Forever'.

In this fabulous painting, she portrays the spirited charging of these horsemen in this charge in which Highlanders (the 42nd) were said to have tried to go into the breach with them by grabbing their stirrups. This was more of course an elaborate exaggeration, but in fact the cavalry did break through the ranks of the Highlanders in moving toward the French, but the Highlanders cheered them through, and in that spirit, Lady Butler simply portrayed them very much wanting to 'go with them'.

I recall in 1983, I went to a performance of the Black Watch bagpipe band . It was exciting and fabulous, and there are no words to describe the emotion as they dedicated their music and a standing crowd to the Marines who died in the barracks bombing in Lebanon the week before.

From the early days of these Highlander regiments, the bagpipes always accompanied them, and before battle, the pipes stirred the troops, much as what I witnessed that day in 1983.

[kronckew]

bit more contemporary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2gDkcpYnMc

a slightly better version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8LPu8Jzjxg

we even have our own tartan :)

(i'm prejudiced. they are somewhat better fed - and a tad older ;))

[Cathey]

Hi Guys

Not all basket hilts are actually Scottish, but how can you tell if its a Scottish Basket Hilt or a British Basket Hilt. Even the Baron of Earlshall in Volume 1 of his new book is cautious about a definitive answer as such and whilst his book is titled "The Scottish Basket Hilted Sword" it contains just as many British Basket hilts. Just to add to our confusion it may be British in manufacture but used by a Scottish Regiment and of course the Scott's where not renowned for blade making so a British manufactured blade on a Scottish Basket is not unusual either.

Whilst their will always be anomalies, two principle indicators are worth considering. 1st the pommel shape, many British military swords have what "Mazansky" refers to as a bun pommel. Scottish swords, more often than not have a more conical shaped pommel often with incised decoration. The second indicator can be found on the underside of the guard. In most British basket hilts the tang fits neatly into the sword slot, whilst in Scottish examples there is often a longer recess that may even be wider than the actual blade, thus comfortably seating the blade as such.

I have probably explained this rather badly so I have attached some pictures that I hope will better convey what to look for. The Baron does say in his book that whilst some Scottish swords do not have this extended sword recess, he has never seen the feature on a British example. So whilst we still can't be sure a basket is Scottish, if it has the extended recess under the guard we can be reasonably confident that it isn't British.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

[Cerjak]

Dear Cathey and Rex
Really useful information many thanks .
Best
Cerjak

[NeilUK]

I'll second Cerjak's comment. I had not appreciated that point about the blade/tang slot in the base of the basket. Thank you.
Neil

[Cathey]

Hi Guys

Running out of old Baskets to post, now moving into the Victorian era.

Date: Pattern 1828 Wilkinson number for 1857
Maker/Retailer: Wilkinson
Overall Length: 42 1/16” 106.8 cm
Blade length: 36” 91.4 cm blade only
Blade widest point: 1 5/16” 3.3 cm
Hilt widest point: 5 5/8” 14.4 cm
Inside grip length: 4” 10.2 cm
Marks, etc. Engraved Death when struck to death from sleepless grave, great Jesu stoop a sin stained soul to save’ then in Gaelic ‘NA TARRAIN MI GUN AOBHAR NA CUIR SUAS MI QUN CHLIU’ Also has crest and moto for Godley ‘Sans Dieu Rien’. Wilkinson Number 8214 or 1857

Description
Basket Hilt-Scottish-Pattern 1828-HRC Godley
Victorian officers regimental broadsword attributed to Henry Robert Crewe Godley, the ricasso is engraved H.R.C.G below the family crest and moto ‘Sans Dieu Rien’. The blade is etched on one side with Death when struck to death from sleepless grave, great Jesu stoop a sin stained soul to save’ then on the other in Gaelic ‘NA TARRAIN MI GUN AOBHAR NA CUIR SUAS MI QUN CHLIU’ which translates to Draw me not without cause and sheath me not without honour. The blade also features the maker Henry Wilkinson Pall Mall London number 8124. The hilt with a regulation steel basket retaining the original red faced leather liner.

Provenance
Major Godley served with the 28th Regiment in the Eastern campaign of 1854 and up to the5th July 1855, including the battles of Alma and Inkerman, siege of Sebastopol, and affair in the Cemetery – severely wounded (Medal and three Clasps, Brevet Major, 5th Class of the Medjidi, and Turkish Medal.

Service History – Henry Robert Crewe Godley
1828: Birth Year (Estimated)
25/9/1846: Ensign, Henry Robert Crewe Godley, Gent, to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Shute. Dated 25th September 1846
2/7/1848: Lieutenant, Ensign Henry Robert Crewe Godley to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Jeffery. Dated 21st July 1848.
17/2/1854: Captain
18/6/1855: Godley, Henry Robert Crewe Captain 28th Foot (North Gloucestershire) Severe Wound 1st Attack on the Redan 18 June 1855
6/6/1856: Brevet-Major Captain H. R. C. Godley, 28th Foot Dated 6th June 1856
17/4/1860: Retired by Sale of Commission
20/1/1869: Deceased Surname Godley, Deceased Forename Henry Robert Crewe, Primary Beneficiary/Executor Frances Eliza Godley, Date of Death20 Jan 1869, County of Death Dublin
Photograph 1 Fenton Photograph of Captain Godley mounted on a horse facing left. He is wearing military uniform and has a sword by his side. There is an area of open land behind him. Captain Godley served with the 28th Regiment during the Crimean War.

The Mystery is what prompted Godley to purchase a claymore in 1857?

Cheers

Cathey and Rex

[Cathey]

Hi Guys

Picked up this Sergeants Basket Hilt Crimea Period recently by Garden.
Nationality: British
Date: 1852 pattern
Maker/Retailer: GARDEN
Overall Length: 40 3/8” 102.4 cm in scabbard 39” 99cm sword only
Blade length: 33” 83.9 cm, fuller 8 ½” 21.7 cm
Blade widest point: 1 ½”
Hilt widest point: 7” 17.5 cm
Inside grip length: 4 ¼” 10.5 cm
Marks, etc.: Stamped I over 4 on the Wrist Guard, Etched GARDEN 200 Piccadilly LONDON in the fuller

Description
Scottish Staff Sergeant Sword Mark I.
Large Steel Basket with Fishskin grip bound with copper wire. Plain Broadsword blade with short central fuller engraved GARDEN 200 Piccadilly LONDON. Leather scabbard with two steel mounts and frog.

Interestingly it is marked with a 1 over 4 on the wrist guard, no idea what this means but probably confirms that this is a NCO sword not an Officers.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

[Cathey]

Hi Guys

Need to update my description due to new information about this Sergeants Basket Hilt Sword by Garden.

Nationality: British
Date: 1857 pattern official introduction, Sword appears to pre-date pattern introduction
Maker/Retailer: Hugh GARDEN
Overall Length: 40 3/8” 102.4 cm in scabbard 39” 99cm sword only
Blade length: 33” 83.9 cm, fuller 8 ½” 21.7 cm
Blade widest point: 1 ½”
Hilt widest point: 7” 17.5 cm
Inside grip length: 4 ¼” 10.5 cm
Marks, etc.: Stamped I over 4 on the Wrist Guard, Etched GARDEN 200 Piccadilly LONDON in the fuller
Description

Scottish Staff Sergeant Sword Mark I.
Extremely Large Steel Basket with Fishskin grip bound with copper wire. Plain Broadsword blade with short central fuller etched GARDEN 200 Piccadilly LONDON. Leather scabbard with two steel mounts and frog.

Interestingly it is marked with a 1 over 4 on the wrist guard, no idea what this means but probably confirms that this is a NCO sword not an Officers.

General Remarks
Due to chat with Gordon Byrne this morning I need to edit my description of this sword. Firstly the pattern as such was introduced in 1857 not 1852. However, too much emphasis is placed on recorded pattern dates, swords could have evolved prior to the actual official date of introduction. As this sword in etched GARDEN not Garden and Sons it is likely by Hugh Garden 1827-1851 200 Piccadilly, Army Accoutrements and Saddler. Whilst this sword appears to comply with the general description of the sword introduced in 1857, the maker would have been Hugh Garden who died in 1852, and there are similar examples that pre-date the Indian Mutiny.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

[daggpil]

Hello,

I have in my Collection a sword that is of British origin, a late relative to me brought this home from London in the mid 1960's.

Could anyone give me some information regarding the type and/or the presumed age and use?

Best regards/Ulrik Sjöberg, Sweden.

[kronckew]

See page one of this thread, http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11394 post no. 6.

Looks like a good modern (Mid-'60's is modern, or recent, at best just at 'vintage'.) copy of the sword there from the mid 18c.

Personally, it looks new, much too clean, no wear, or patina & the blade mark is very crisp & looks almost laser cut.

Not my best area tho, I don't know if the British Scots regiments use this pattern again; if so they'd likely have a lot of other stamp marks on it. Nice sword tho. I like it.

[Will M]

I agree this sword has irregularities compared to originals. The pommel looks new, the grip wire has been flattened something not seen on originals.
The slotted hilt looks cut from flat stock, rounded where cut but flat sided.
Copies of swords have been made for centuries from the Victorian era to fill castles and onwards.
There are some fine copies being made in Europe and with a bit of aging appear quite authentic if you don't know what to look for and this has become less obvious.

[Battara]

Oh I agree. This looks either to be a new replica or a newly minted piece. English style not Scottish.

[Will M]

By looking at pommels in this post it occurred to me that the pommel of my sword may show it's earlier than 1780's? The marking A57 on both guard and scabbard mouth would be A troop # 57. Should be more of these swords out there?

[Jim McDougall]

This is an interesting variant of the British 'four slot guard' which began around 1750s in the Birmingham horseman/dragoon swords it seems, The clipped tip blades on these were as previously discussed several years ago, a German favored blade feature.

The added guard bars to the hilt do not suggest earlier in my view, and it seems that the 1780s + date previously considered seems more likely.
The WYATT name stamped in the blade seems unusually configured and it does not seem to occur on other blades of this period. It does seem likely a cutlers mark and these of course may have been in a number of trades in business but assembled swords.

In past discussions it seems there was a Joseph Wyatt in England, but no record of his assembling swords.....and a Joseph Wyatt in Philadelphia, a silversmith I believe, working c. 1791-98. I think it is often difficult to consider that although post Revolution, people were still essentially British colonists, and goods from England were still supplied. As we know even into the Federal period swords were traded from England.

Components for swords were used by assemblers in a variety of combinations, and as pommels were often sundry items bought or traded in lots or from other sources, interchanged with other components.
This makes it difficult to estimate the date of a sword which is such an assembled sword, and this pommel is indeed atypical to the taller 'olive' types usually seen on these.

I agree with an earlier comment that unit or regimental numbers on hilts typically suggest British weapon. With the braided wire this sword seems to be intended for an officer, and officers swords were personal property, not issued..so a unit marked hilt seems unusual in this context.

So possibly earlier Solingen blade, British hilt, rewrapped grips, different pommel, assembled in America......Wyatt????
Forensically that would be my speculation at this point, if these components are indeed antique.
Always more research to go.


As for Victorian period reproductions for parlors and smoking rooms in baronial displays...….these regulation type swords and weapons were not among the favored selections.

[Will M]

Thank-you Jim for your insight. When I first acquired the sword I thought having a name on the blade would make it easy to research, not the case.
I'm told similar examples are in the Royal Armouries but I have no way to see these short of flying over the ocean.
If it's true the sword was used in the American Revolution I'd love to be able to place it there.
Finding a similar example has become quite challenging and without success.
I'll keep plugging away at it as I'm sure the end result will be rewarding.

[Bakerbarang]

I'm new to the forum and am an experienced collector of British Ordnance Flintlock weapons. My experience of swords is, however, very limited and I am seeking to learn from the obvious experience represented in this thread.
A few weeks ago I stumbled on an add on Craigslist - a person was selling three swords. Two of them were tourist trinkets (not actually swords), one appeared to be a British Victorian sword with the grip broken off but the third was a basket hilt. The Craigslist photo was terrible with the swords being almost silhouettes, but the outline of the basket hilt made me suspicious that it wasn’t junk. So, I met the person in a dark and gloomy house but even in the darkness I could see enough to know it was a real sword. I purchased it and took it out to the car in a garbage bag where I could have a real look in the daylight – I was not disappointed. It is a nice sword but I’m still not quite sure what I have. I was initially thinking a 17th century blade with a late 18th century hilt. The hilt, at first, looked like a later style but the presence of small curved quillons and short langets tends to point to something earlier. Am I right here? The more I looked at it (the overall condition and pommel riveting) it looked original and un-messed with. A gentle clean of the blade revealed markings which look old. So, do I have a 17th century Scottish sword? Internet searches reveal very little to guide me and the only text reference I can find to anything similar in form are on page 61 and 62 of Mazansky’s British Basket-Hilted Swords. But all of this represents my guesswork. I'm hoping some of you can guide me since the sword learning curve is extremely steep and Im having trouble putting this sword in some sort of age and ethnic context.

Any ideas/advice would be appreciated?

Anyway, I’m thrilled to have found this sword in a pile of unrecognized junk on Craigslist!

Thanks for your time.

[fernando]

Welcome to the forum Baker ...
I am not the indicated person to enlighten you on your sword but, being a fan of marks, let me ask you if you have tried to decipher what that mark on the blade is about ?

[Battara]

Nice catch! I too got a great catch from Craigs list long ago. :D

Anyway, though your piece is truly old, it is an English and not Scottish basket hilt. The symbols? - I'll leave that to others.

[Jim McDougall]

It is hard to say with certainty with basket hilts whether English or Scottish as these denominators were pretty transcendent in these times and regions, but most characteristics suggest it is made by Scottish artisans. It is most certainly, as typical, a Solingen blade. The cross and orb coupled with the 'anchor' is atypical but commonly placed as here at the fuller terminus as far as I have seen on most blades of this time period.
This does seem a 17th century blade, and the hilt latter 17th-early 18th. The arms of the saltires entering the pommel is characteristic of Scottish hilt making, and makers in the garrison centers often produced for Highland units in the British army, but there are features which suggest profound Scottish symbolism such as the heart and especially the scallop shell....which if I recall had Jacobite associations. This was a relatively rarely seen symbol for the Spanish allies to the Jacobite cause.

Without going into notes and research, my inclination is toward a very Scottish basket hilt of at early 18th c. and most probably from border or lowland regions during the risings. It must be remembered that the distinctions between opposing sides were not truly delineated between Highland and Lowland; Scottish or English nor Jacobite against Government..so such classification is at this stage improbable.

This is a FANTASTIC piece!!! and Bakerbarang, I cannot thank you enough for sharing it here...….and I envy your fortitude in taking a chance on what is truly an amazing find! Congratulations! This is a truly valuable find.

I am hoping that the 'real' experts here like Cathey and Eljay might come in with their views, but in the meantime I add what I can based on what I can recall of previous researches.


PS. Personally I would avoid restoration beyond stabilizing any active corrosion, I have a ribbon hilt intact like this but the grip gone, and of the same period c.1690s, or earlier. I like its static condition as it to me represents history incarnate, and is rustically beautiful.

[Cathey]

Hi Bakerbarang

I can honestly say I have not seen one of these before. You are correct in that it does closely resemble the one featured on Page 62 of MAZANSKY Cyril British Basket-hilted Swords. I have not seen this pear shaped pommel with a hilt featuring this degree of decoration before on a sword of this age. Would you mind posting more pictures, particularly the entire sword and blade and some dimensions, ie, blade width length etc. I will go back though my data base and see what I can find. Also have you tried to flex the blade or is it stiff.

Cheers Cathey

[E.B. Erickson]

This nice sword got posted on MyArmoury a couple of days ago. My initial response is below.

You found that on Craigslist!!?? If I wasn't in Thailand I'd pay more attention to CL ads! Nice sword!

At any rate, my initial thought is English, very late 1500s/early 1600s (assuming that someone hasn't done an absolutely great job of forgery on the basket). There are a number of English characteristics on the hilt that are similar to other hilts of the period, like the quillons, which are actually fairly long, but bent back upon themselves.

The main item that would make me think Scottish is the pommel; it has rectangular slots to receive the ends of the hilt, which, as far as I know, may be an indicator of Scots manufacture. The little "langets" at the blade shoulder is also something that hints at Scotland.

Interestingly, look at the crude, undecorated, though nicely shaped, pommel and the rather nice workmanship on the basket. And yet everything appears to have a similar amount of pitting, and the pommel shape is certainly consistent with the early 1600s.

So I guess my vote is English, as per paragraph 2 above. That is not a dogmatic statement, though: feel free to sway me to Scotland with evidence!

By the way, how long is the blade?

--ElJay

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks very much Eljay! I would not have imagined this hilt being that early!
I agree though, there are very English factors but the pommel attachment method rings Scottish. Also, the scallop shell ornament, any thoughts?
Very Spanish.....not something often seen in English use as far as I have known.
Cathey looking forward to your results!! Your data base is phenomenal !!!

[Cathey]

Hi Guys

Nothing in my data base so this one has me a bit puzzled. It appears to combine elements from at least three early swords featured in Mazansky. No20A Certainly a very similar basket, VII Pear-Shaped Pommel page 23, A15d again same pommel, but very different basket as is the case with A17.

I agree with Eljay this is an early sword but the degree of sophistication of the hilt as apposed to No 20A has thrown me. I am going to try and get contact details for Cryril Mazansky and see if he has access to better pictures of Sword No20A, particularly the underside of the guard. Its times like this that I really miss the Baron of Earlshall.

With regard to British or Scottish refer to post #263, whilst it has features generally attributed to both the seating on the blade has me leaning towards Scottish at this stage.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

[Cathey]

Hi Guys

The Baron has come to our aid after all. It appears this basket hilt dates between 1575-1600 and is referred to by the Baron of Earlshall in his book "The Scottish Basket Hilted Sword Volume 1 c1450 to 1600" as a Slitted Guard basket hilt. The pages to refer to if you have the book are 187-270.

It is described here as Scottish due to the blade slot begin larger than the tang.

Great find as I have never seen one of these in the flesh before, please share more pictures and details such as blade length and width etc.

Cheers Cathey and Rex

[Bakerbarang]

Humble apologies, everyone, I have been off line for a bit. Work responsibilities has a way of interrupting a perfectly good hobby sometimes!
Thanks to you all for jumping in and offering your knowledge and being so helpful. My knowledge base was just enough to know I had something I needed to take seriously.

However unofficial, I really like the name Slitted Guard Basket Hilt - just nice to have some sort of name to put to this sword.

To answer some questions raised…
I totally agree with leaving this thing alone. I have no intention of “cleaning” it more than in the photos. The active rust is removed it is lightly oiled ant there I’ll stop. Before a police career in forensicscience I was trained as a conservator and worked in a national museum so I have a complete aversion to over cleaning historic objects rather than preserving them. So no worries this sword won’t be messed with.

Re measurements… Over all length 41.25”(1047mm), Blade length 35.1” (894mm), Blade width 1 9/16 (40mm). It is hard to describe how flexible the blade is. I would not describe it as stiff. It has about the same flex as several my mortuary swords but the blade is wider and thus somewhat heaver. (I don't actually collect 17th century swords but have ended up with some mortuary swords which I love and understand better.)

I have added some photos of the blade markings. One photo of the blade as found the rest after a light clean and oiling which, ironically creates reflection that makes them harder to photograph. The markings in the central fuller are the same on both sides of the blade. They appear to be an alternating series of letters I expect more decoration than having any meaning.
X X X o X C X o X C X o X X X
Forgive the poor quality of photos I only have my cell phone handy right now and the lighting is challenging. If there are any indications of blade age or maker from such marks I would be very keen to hear opinions.

Thanks for the references and page numbers particularly to "The Scottish Basket Hilted Sword Volume 1 c1450 to 1600" pages 187-270. I don’t have this reference but will try an interlibrary loan next week and see if I can track one down.

I will attempt to get some more phots up in a few days just for interest and will post one of the original terrible Craigslist photos just for fun so you can see what I first saw that got me in the car driving.

Thanks everyone. I so am enjoying this rather steep learning curve.

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you for adding more detail and specifications on this phenomenal example! I cannot emphasize enough how important this find is, and I am so grateful that you have shared it here.
As Cathey has noted, the book by the Baron of Earlshall is a powerfully important reference which has brought forward the knowledge and key details on these weapons.

The running wolf on the blade is actually believed to be a kind of talismanic device placed on blades made in Solingen, and became a recognized symbol associated with quality. The 'anchor' (cross with multiple arms) is also a device often used on Spanish blades and adopted in German blade motif.

The curious X's and letters are German applications often imitating the indecipherable groupings of such letters found on many blades. These are typically magic/talismanic acrostics or letters with sometimes numeric values. Often these were patriotic slogans or religious invocations which were 'coded' in this manner. The 'X' represents a cross, and in the position of the letter X may have been perceived as St. Andrews cross in Scotland, and as such among favored symbolism just as the famed 'ANDREA FERARA' markings.

[Victrix]

I have a sword (presumably 18thC Solingen made blade) with a motto stamped in the single fuller on each side of the blade. Between each letter in the motto is an ”o” separating them. So I think the o in Bakerbarang’s sequence of letters may be meant as separators.

[Jim McDougall]

I have a sword (presumably 18thC Solingen made blade) with a motto stamped in the single fuller on each side of the blade. Between each letter in the motto is an ”o” separating them. So I think the o in Bakerbarang’s sequence of letters may be meant as separators.

Indeed I think you are right. These repeated 'letters' (usually X's) are intended as separators in a punctuated manner between these often complex acrostics.
The 'anchor' was used as a terminating element as well at the end of such phrases, names etc. in fullers originally with Spanish blades.

On earlier Frankish blades, such as in the 'Ulfberhrt' period, the cross was often placed as enclosure to this and other names in this same convention.

[Bakerbarang]

Just for fun…
Just so you can see what I saw on Craig’s list. The photo shows two of the swords. (the other one in the photo was a William IV pipe back with broken grip and the blade “sharpened” by some artist with a grinder!!) Not knowing much about basket hilts, what actually influenced me more was the outline of the blade. It just looked like an old blade with the rounded point - so I figured I’d gamble and go for a drive to see it. The house was dark but what I could see, I liked. I bought it and walked out to the car and took it out of it’s garbage bag for a proper look in the daylight. At that point I realized I may have landed on a really nice sword. I took some photos in the car and emailed them to a friend immediately asking what he thought. He indicated it was old and likely 18th century with what could be a 17th century blade. I was thrilled!
The photos from the car show the condition as found. All told, very well preserved. Not part of a collection, not understood, but fortunately not “sharpened” by the guy with the grinder! I’m amazed that this thing, while lightly rusted and missing the grip, does not appear to have been “improved” by anyone over the years. All the more amazing given that it appears to be a late 16th century weapon – that is a lot of years to have escaped being made into a fire place poker. I’m thrilled it is now found, preserved and, thanks to you all, being appreciated. I, like all of you is suspect, have stories about "the one that got away" I'm so glad I was actually able to catch this one.

[Bakerbarang]

Cathey, you had asked for an overall photo to go with the measurements. - sorry I for got about that. Here is a photo.

[Jim McDougall]

Baker, THANK YOU so much for this story!!!
This one did not get away thanks to you and we can all learn from it!! :)
It truly is magnificent, and I can just hear the stories it wants to tell.

[M ELEY]

A Scottish basket hilt broadsword with 'S' bars incorporated in the hilt. The rounded thin bars indicative of the Stirling smiths. Leather grip with a single thin wire wrap. 31" blade marked with four Wundes king's heads each side of blade, possibly attributed to Peter Wundes the Elder (1580-1630) or Peter the Younger (1630-1685).

Based on the pommel style and primitive heart punches, it appears to date to the first quarter of the 18th c.

[E.B. Erickson]

This type of blade with the king's heads and the shallow fullers either side of the centerline are usually engraved "Andria Ferara" between the king's head stamps. Are there any traces of this on your sword?

--ElJay

[M ELEY]

Hello Eljay and thanks for responding. The sword is not in hand yet, but when it does arrive, I will search closely for the Ferara marking. From the pic, there might also be a faded orb (?) to the right of one of the heads, but my weary eyes might be playing tricks... :o
Mark

[BlackcapBob]

Good Evening, This is my first post and first basket hilted sword which I recent bought, any comments or advice will be gratefully received.

The sword from my limited research I believe dates from around 1600 ?? and is English, with a Solingen blade made by Clemens Deinger which is stamped to both sides of the blade, it appears to have brass or similar decoration remaining in the stamp marks of some letters or symbols, it also has a stamp on the ricasso of a bird in a shield shaped armourers mark, the blade is 36” or 91.5 cm long and 1 1/16” or 2.7 cm at its widest point and of a backsword style, it is still sharp, there are no fullers.

The pommel is a solid spherical shape, there are no decorations on the two shields of the hilt and no apparent makers mark, the grip has its wires intact and in good condition with 3 separate types of wire thickness, there are Turks heads knots top and bottom. There is only one screw holding the hilt to the pommel.

I have noticed that one of Cathey’s many swords post 162 has a blade by Clemens Dinger which also appears to have a number of similarities in the shape of the hilt as mine, the blade is very different being a broadsword with several fullers.

I have a copy of 1000 Marks of European Blademakers and the similarities between the spelling of Clemens Deinger on my blade and Clemens Dinger on Cathey’s blade are striking with the N’s being reversed and both having a bird as there symbol in a shield stamp on the ricasso, is it possible that my blade with Deinger which appears a simpler design is slightly earlier than Cathey’s when for some reason they had dropped the E and developed a finer Swan shaped stamp also seen on the ricasso in addition to the bird shield stamp. Obviously over time trademarks change and newer sharper images could be stamped in addition.

According to Lenkiewicz, Clemens Dinger traded in Solingen between 1590 and 1617 during which period it appears to me that Deinger dropped the E and became Dinger and the swan stamp was developed later ??.

I have tried to obtain a copy of Solinger Schwertschiede des 16 und 17 Jahrhunderts und Ihre Erzeugnisse by Weyersberg from Ken Trotman but he has sold out and will not be reprinting any more so I am unaware of what if anything Weyersberg knows about Clemens Deinger or Dinger of this period, any assistance would be appreciated, Cheers Bob.

[fernando]

Welcome to our forum Bob :) .
Great sword you show us. Let us see what the members have to say about it.

[BlackcapBob]

Hi Fernando, Thank you for allowing me to join the forum and make a post, this place is full of interesting swords and much much more, time for me to browse some more.
See you around, Cheers Bob.

[Jim McDougall]

Hello Bob, and welcome to the forum.
Your basket hilt indeed has resemblances in the hilt form to a number of examples. It must be remembered that these kinds of nuances are pretty much the closest to any sort of specific identification with these swords, as there were not regulated patterns but simply favored designs.

This seems to be a hilt for British dragoon use about mid 18th century but possibly earlier. The spherical pommel seems an earlier affectation and the screw attachment of quillons was characteristically English. However, as military swords were being made in garrison towns in Scotland for Scottish forces in British service, it is hard to distinguish.

As always, swords were basically assembled in these locations using mostly German blades, and the hilts produced by various makers and shops,.
In "British Basket Hilted Swords" (Mazansky) there are examples (p.141, and p.81 (D10) in which the hilt plates have similar 'notching' and were noted c. 1750s.

In the case of the blade , I found good reference to the markings in "European Makers of Edged Weapons, Their Marks: by Staffan Kinman, 2015.
This is one of the most comprehensive and detailed books on markings in recent years and well augments the Wallace Collection (Mann, 1962) with newer evidence and details.
On p.104:
A sword with standing swan in cartouche and inscription CLEMENS DEINGER was carried by King Gustaf II Adolf at Dirschau in 1627 during the Polish campaign.
It is noted that a reference was made in 1640, to a 'decrepit swordsmith Clemens Dinger', which of course suggests he was at end of his days by then. Perhaps the 'N' was inadvertently reversed )?).There appears to be a son carrying on in Solingen after with variations of the swan etc.

In my thinking, the roughly applied name with appropriate crosses and the swan mark may suggest the Clemens Deinger the older, and place the blade c. 1640 or earlier.

Whatever the case, I would say this blade was in use for obviously a very long time, and perhaps, as a heirloom found its way into a cavalry officers sword of mid 18th century. This was very often the case for Scottish officers in the British cavalry.

[BlackcapBob]

Hello Jim, Thank you for your reply.

I have a copy of Mazansky and discounted both D10 p81 and p141 as they have additional rear guard extensions and wrist guards which are absent from my hilt. I would approximate the overall style and shape, appears to me to be similar to B1C page 67 which dates from 1610-40.

I fully accept that these hilts will have been made all over the UK and at best we are guessing, I agree that it is munitions quality and a trooper would have been please to have had it at the time. Each hilt in Mazansky are unique to the maker and no doubt the purchaser.

My rational for Deinger the elder was simply your rational in reverse, the simply style of the blade, no fullers and stamping of a bird in a shield mark and no swan mark suggests early work, if Catheys was slightly later and by the same maker then we know that the E has been dropped but the reversed N still exist, the Swan mark in addition to the bird shield stamp are his trade marks or those of his son, they also show up on the 1627 blade which I was unaware of, does it still exist it would be interesting to compare marks.

The 1640 quote decrepit maker Clemens Deinger reference could easily have been the younger, if his father, the elder worked from 1590-1617 then assuming he started his business at 30 he would be 80 or more in 1640 a gigantic age then, his son would have been well in his 50-60's more likely his son in my opinion, all assuming they are the same family.

Isnt history wonderful, as Clemens was a popular name then but not now. Cheers Bob.

[kronckew]

Thought I'd add my two cents (or maybe a tuppenny).

Interesting, I shall attempt to add a thought on the mix and matching world then. What a mess the sword mfg. was in at the end of the 18c! England over-extended on three fronts, adoption of a set 1796 pattern for swords was imposed to replace the mess to try to sort out all the variations into a more uniform mess, to increase supply which was falling behind, at least for troopers and ground pounders, Navy and officers came later. Officers had a wide leeway in selecting their swords, as they were and are still never 'issued' but bought privately.n Even std. Post 1796 blades varied amongst officers, as long as the hilts looked vaguely true to the patterns from a distance.

My 'American' revolutionary sword was originally a French dragoon sword, had part of it's brass 'basket' removed, possibly due to damage, in the transition to American service. British Royalist/Royal Dragoon swords were also made by Pooley or Pussey (sp?) in New York based on English 4-slot designs but a round grip and a urn pommel. You see replicas in the Mel Gibson film used by the wicked UK Dragoon leader. The film history is suspect, but the swords were fairly correct.

Mine was discussed HERE (https://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23066&highlight=dragoon+sword) a while back and may be a naval variant. Oh what a tangled web we weave, etc.

[Jim McDougall]

Hello Jim, Thank you for your reply.

I have a copy of Mazansky and discounted both D10 p81 and p141 as they have additional rear guard extensions and wrist guards which are absent from my hilt. I would approximate the overall style and shape, appears to me to be similar to B1C page 67 which dates from 1610-40.

I fully accept that these hilts will have been made all over the UK and at best we are guessing, I agree that it is munitions quality and a trooper would have been please to have had it at the time. Each hilt in Mazansky are unique to the maker and no doubt the purchaser.

My rational for Deinger the elder was simply your rational in reverse, the simply style of the blade, no fullers and stamping of a bird in a shield mark and no swan mark suggests early work, if Catheys was slightly later and by the same maker then we know that the E has been dropped but the reversed N still exist, the Swan mark in addition to the bird shield stamp are his trade marks or those of his son, they also show up on the 1627 blade which I was unaware of, does it still exist it would be interesting to compare marks.

The 1640 quote decrepit maker Clemens Deinger reference could easily have been the younger, if his father, the elder worked from 1590-1617 then assuming he started his business at 30 he would be 80 or more in 1640 a gigantic age then, his son would have been well in his 50-60's more likely his son in my opinion, all assuming they are the same family.

Isnt history wonderful, as Clemens was a popular name then but not now. Cheers Bob.


Very good points Bob, and interesting to see our own versions of ratiocination in unison, and well noted on the age issue! I have reached out to see if I can get more information on the 1627 King Gustaf sword so hopefully I can add here.

Wayne, well observed on the 'mix and match' sword production situation in Great Britain prior to the latter 18th c. Basically swords were 'produced' (assembled) by 'cutlers' who used of course primarily imported blades while they fashioned hilts and scabbards.
The 'American' swords of the Revolution period were of course mostly British forms, and as George Nuemann ("Swords and Blades of the American Revolution", 1973) well shows, a hodge podge of Continental European swords including German, French, Spanish and sundry others.

The New York swords you mention were the famed 'Potter' (not Harry!) sabers of the four slot form, and well noted on the spurious Tarleton history in the film though swords were OK.

[kronckew]

V
...

The New York swords you mention were the famed 'Potter' (not Harry!) sabers of the four slot form, and well noted on the spurious Tarleton history in the film though swords were OK.
Thanks for that Jim, I had a minor brain fart :rolleyes:, I'll remember (Harry) Potter tho.

[BlackcapBob]

Hi Jim and Wayne, Thanks for replies it would be interesting to know if the 1627 sword still exists to check out the stamps.

If my sword is pre or around the English Civil War time 1642-1651 then which side would have had Basket hilts or was it simply a case of bring what you have and choose a side.

Basket Hilts, Mortuary swords were in fashion and obviously the Rapier and Short swords were very popular never mind Blades from one era being re-hilted with a more modern style. Reworking old swords has happened for centuries, family swords being upgraded.

Would enlisted men have been given a hanger for infantry and cavalry would get a sword of some description, it appears that even organised armies had numerous options.

I have often wondered, in the British army officers and gentlemen bought their own swords I assume pre 1750 they could buy what they wanted either a Rapier, Broadsword or Backsword or were there regulations then giving guidance.

I assume that people often had more than one sword anyway, as the occasion dictated.

History is so interesting................for some people !! Cheers Bob.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jim and Wayne, Thanks for replies it would be interesting to know if the 1627 sword still exists to check out the stamps.

If my sword is pre or around the English Civil War time 1642-1651 then which side would have had Basket hilts or was it simply a case of bring what you have and choose a side.

Basket Hilts, Mortuary swords were in fashion and obviously the Rapier and Short swords were very popular never mind Blades from one era being re-hilted with a more modern style. Reworking old swords has happened for centuries, family swords being upgraded.

Would enlisted men have been given a hanger for infantry and cavalry would get a sword of some description, it appears that even organised armies had numerous options.

I have often wondered, in the British army officers and gentlemen bought their own swords I assume pre 1750 they could buy what they wanted either a Rapier, Broadsword or Backsword or were there regulations then giving guidance.

I assume that people often had more than one sword anyway, as the occasion dictated.

History is so interesting................for some people !! Cheers Bob.



History, for many of us....is ADDICTING! :)

In history, war, battles etc. there are no fine lines, rules or categories in 'sides' in conflicts. During the English civil wars (a comprehensive term to describe not only the primary conflict, but many rebellions and insurgences before, after and during.........weapons were obtained by any means.
The well known Hounslow shops producing swords were taken over by Cromwell, and many of the makers left to go with the Royalists at shops in Oxford and London, many remained at Hounslow (though Cromwell turned the mills into powder mills).

While the 'Royalists' were regarded as 'dandies', cavaliers, they were of course inclined to more elegant rapiers etc. while the Cromwellians were more pragmatic and munitions grade arms and armor.
The so called 'mortuary' ( a misnomer) was used thoroughly on both sides.
Naturally basket hilts (which are not entirely Scottish) found use by most everyone. Actually the Scottish basket hilt was termed the 'Irish hilt' into Victorian times.

In border regions between England and Scotland, you might look into the groups known as 'Border Reivers'. These groups might be on 'one side' or the other, depending on the situation or times, and here the amalgam of weapon forms, styles etc. was completely catch as catch can. Through these channels weapons filtered through to any and ALL sides, and through all the many conflicts and actions.

The notion of 'regulation' patterns is in many regards, a kind of myth, though obviously such administrative protocols do of course exist, mostly from 19th century on. The commanders of units chose, commissioned and bought the arms they supplied thier troops with....it was entirely thier choice. However, obviously the favored forms being bought by others were easier to concede to, so some uniformity prevailed.

Officers were typically of high station or gentry, often nobility, so clearly the choice of weapons for them was carte blanche. However, often for battle or campaign, they used 'fighting weapons' which were in many cases similar to the forms used in other ranks.
While the ranks had weapons 'issued' from the racks, officers often had a 'stable' of swords to choose from. In actuality, many officers would take their dress type swords into battle as they were not expected to participate in combat....but direct troops and actions, so the sword was more used in that capacity. Naturally that often changed as situations developed.

I am hoping to hear more on the 1627 sword soon.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks for that Jim, I had a minor brain fart :rolleyes:, I'll remember (Harry) Potter tho.

You bet Wayne.....I only remembered them because research on them just came up a month ago!!!
Harry who??????!!!! :)

[kronckew]

I never actually watched more than a few minutes of a few episodes. Thought they were mostly silly and a bit childish for adults. I preferred Highlander, Gladiator, The last legion, and the Eagle more, tho i'd have liked the last 3 more if they'd used Pila and plumbata, as they would have in reality. Crassus against the Parthians, with it's golden ending would make a cool movie. As would the Romans revenge 60 years later.

[victoriansword]

Date Circa 1750-70 (18th Century)
Nationality Scottish Black Watch 42nd Highland Regiment

English basket-hilted backsword A Scottish military basket hilted backsword issued to the 42nd Highlanders, circa 1750-1770, older straight single edged fullered blade marked FARARA. Regulation hilt, panels pierced with triangular and circular openings. Truncated conical pommel (marked with an ?) with special button, wire bound leather grip.

If anyone can work out what is on the pommel I would be very grateful. I think they are numbers.

Cheers Cathey

Why are these frequently attributed to the 42nd even without regimental markings? Is it because the blades are not of the Jefferys/Drury backsword type and therefore presumed to be earlier (when the 42nd were the only Highland regiment in the British Army)?

Thank you,
VS

[Jim McDougall]

Why are these frequently attributed to the 42nd even without regimental markings? Is it because the blades are not of the Jefferys/Drury backsword type and therefore presumed to be earlier (when the 42nd were the only Highland regiment in the British Army)?

Thank you,
VS

I think that the 'hilt form' is what is attributed to the 42nd, which is the collective regimental designation for the "Black Watch" battalions which were formed in 1739 as the 43rd but later renumbered 42nd. It seems there are few of these regimentally marked, but the hilt form is well established as being produced by Nathaniel Jeffries (3500 swords in 1759) and as a 'pattern' of 1757 . The Highland units comprised of 42nd went to North America in 1758 (to 1767) with enlisted men carrying these in French-Indian war.

Later, the last purchase of these was in 1775, and after battle of Long Island in 1776, the swords were collected and stored. The Black Watch at the end of the war went to Nova Scotia in 1783, and swords were only carried by officers and NCO's.

By 1770s, Dru Drury had taken over the business and both he and Nathaniel Jeffries had produced these swords.

I think this is the reason for the collective classification of these particular enlisted mans basket hilt as 'Black Watch' is because of this rather broad classification for the Highland Regiments in America using them.

This is a very large thread so not sure which post you are referring to as far as the sword with Farara . Most of the blades are marked Jefries or Drury and if Farara it would be an import from Solingen.

[victoriansword]

Thank you, Jim. I can understand the hilt form being attributed to the 42nd. I’ve seen some sales listings which seem to imply the swords (with non-Jefferys/Drury blades) are for the 42nd. Without regimental markings or other very strong evidence, I personally wouldn’t confidently state that a sword with this pattern hilt was used by someone in the 42nd.

Thanks again,
VS

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you, Jim. I can understand the hilt form being attributed to the 42nd. I’ve seen some sales listings which seem to imply the swords (with non-Jefferys/Drury blades) are for the 42nd. Without regimental markings or other very strong evidence, I personally wouldn’t confidently state that a sword with this pattern hilt was used by someone in the 42nd.

Thanks again,
VS


I agree VS, that would be a bit irresponsible to classify any type of sword to a regiment etc. without markings or provenance, though it is OK to note that it is 'of the type' used accordingly. What I was noting is that Jeffries and later Drury were prolific suppliers of this munitions grade hilt form (it seems Harvey had a few).

I have one that I've had since the 70s which was remounted with a M1788 light cavalry saber blade, and would suspect it was taken from the stores of these collected after 1784 when they ceased being issued to infantry.
Possibly it was remounted for militia or yeomanry during the 1793+ concerns over possible French invasion etc. hard to say really, but pretty interesting saber.

I got most info from "Swords for the Highland Regiments 1757-1784". Anthony Darling, 1988.

[victoriansword]

Jim,
I was also using Darling as a reference, which is why I was confused since Darling is careful to not offer conjecture and only states regimental affiliation when his examples have the proper markings. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective on these interesting early regimental swords,

All the best,
VS

[Jim McDougall]

Jim,
I was also using Darling as a reference, which is why I was confused since Darling is careful to not offer conjecture and only states regimental affiliation when his examples have the proper markings. I appreciate you sharing your knowledge and perspective on these interesting early regimental swords,

All the best,
VS

Absolutely, and as you well note, Darling was extremely cautious, in fact as you know, he had that one instance of '42' on the one example, which was noted as specifically 'unusual'. Though I've learned so much all these years, I still learn virtually every day, thanks to queries and discussions as here with you.

The regimental markings situation with British weapons in the 18th century are fascinating because they are so mysterious and not necessarily standardized nor always accurately recorded.