Bandsman's sword?
Now I have to justify my comment, and its not that easy. This may be one of many old British collector's myths whereby the conclusion is drawn from the characteristics of the sword rather than an extraneous source.
If we are talking about the band of a light cavalry regiment then Fernando has already stated the basis of the argument;
" Its blade curvature may not be the greatest out there, but is already within the not practical but exhibionist range. I wouldn't be surprised if the owner had this one for showing off in the streets and palace corridors and used a more 'reasonable' example for going into battle"
- and for showing off, is what a band sword is.
I have seen a few of these shorter, lighter and more curved versions of the 1796 Light Cavalry sabre that seem so designed NOT to drag on the ground and to minimise the inconvenience of having to carry it around. I have one with a brass hilt and scabbard (which unfortunately I can't get to today) which is so light and curved it is almost impossible to think of it as anything other than a band sword. A smaller, less clunking, version of the standard pattern for a specific purpose would not be unique. For example, British horse Artillery drivers were issued with a shortened version of the standard 1821 light cavalry sabre designed to minimise interference when going about their "gunning" duties.
Band swords weren't regulated until the mid 19th Cent. and Fernando's sword predates that.
It could also be a Infantry Flank Company Officers sword. In the light company, with greater emphasis being placed on mobility, a shorter, lighter sword would seem a logical choice. It seems to be well well documented that Rifle Regiment and light infantry officers had a penchant for the 1796 light cavalry sword
I will keep looking, in the meantime I attach a picture of the Coldstream Guards Band in 1851. I know the hilt is different but the blade configuration seems to fit.
Regards
Richard
|