Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall
Fantastic sword!!!! and always regarded by many sources as the ultimate cavalry sword after a century of debate over cut vs. thrust.
What stands out is the leather covered scabbard, which reminds me of the one I had years ago but foolishly let go. I have regretted that ever since.
The one I had was entirely leather covered Wilkinson, including the hilt bowl. While the M1908 was not used to notable degree in WWI, it was most definitely in use in the theater of the war in Mesopotamia.
One quote from Field Marshal Edmund Allenby, which was apparently from contexts in accounts from Lawrence of Arabia, whose exploits coincided with these actions in Palestine, as Allenby admonished his cavalrymen,
"you may go into battle without your breeches, but you will by God have your sword!"
Allenby was known as the cavalryman's cavalryman, and adamant on use of the sword. It seems ironically that in the most noted charge at Beersheba 31 Oct 1917, the ANZAC forces used bayonets (long M1907 with 17" blades).
In the references to the sword in James Lunt's 1960 "Charge to Glory", it seems he notes that these swords (the M1908) were referred to as "Allenby Swords".
I had always presumed that the fully leather covered example I had may have been one of those used in Mesopotamian campaigns.It was supposed that the leather covering reduced heat effects and glint in the desert sun.
I think these are fascinating swords with a great deal of history aligned with them that is generally not noted by collectors nor many historians.
The M1912 version of these for officers was also a beautiful version with decorated bowl. I once visited the late Brigadier Francis Ingall ("Last of the Bengal Lancers") who led one of the last mounted cavalry charges on the plains in the Khyber regions in 1931. He carried this sword, and I was able to handle it, and noted it was slightly bent.
I asked, was this done in the charge ? He grumbled, "no, several years ago some young ruffians were making a disturbance, and I stormed outside with my sword, tripped and bent it on the curb!".  |
If you would like to see something truly abhorrent, the 10th Hussars out of all the Hussars, considered themselves to be the most special. The fanciest, the most valiant, the dandiest. So when the 1912 pattern was adopted, these proud light cavalrymen just could not or would not use a bowl guard. That is for the boring drab Heavy Cavalry. They are, after all, light cavalry. And so, they got a 1912 blade mated with an 1821 light cavalry hilt.
One hopes that the bars were thickened enough to equalize the weighting (I've a 1913 or 1914 dated 1912 with a rather thin guard as most guards minus the Patton sabre that went for total coverage tended to be thinner) of a normal 1912, or else they must have been burdened with thrust centric swords that had cutting centric POBs!
Frankly, I love non regulation swords. Especially by officers who'd been in the thick of it and knew what they wanted. But this? This is one of the ugliest things I have ever had the displeasure of seeing and knowing it exists in the world makes me sad.
On the other hand, the 7th Hussars? They had exquisite taste and knew what they wanted. I believe there is already a thread here on their patterns but to be brief: A semi-bowl guard, close to equi-balanced, flat engraving a la Household Cavalry troopers swords, and a semi canted grip with a thumb rest , closer to an Indian pattern 1908 grip or the experimental German designs. THAT, that is a good non regulation sword.