Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post - The lowly (?) briquet, a story of resolution

Jim McDougall · 1st October 2020, 04:39 PM

Hi Bryce,
Thank you for these illustrations, which very much show the kind of 'Spanish pattern' you have described and in the article you linked.
Now my quandry is............why did Robson describe the 'briquet' as compared the the French ANIX and ANXI swords, which he was described as short and CURVED?
Further, why did highly reputable authors such as Blair and Wilkinson-Latham show illustrations (Blair's was in a panel of line illustrations); Wilkinson-Latham's was a photo...........while his caption notes there is a marking on the blade which he believes may be 'Trotter', who I think was a cutler of the late 18thc early 19th period.

While the 'Spanish pattern' evidence is profound, and there seems no doubt of course that the artillery men were using it, I am wondering if there is a case for some alternate situation in artillery ranks.
The wording FOOT ARTILLERY seems to have been applied to the captions in the briquets I have used as cites, which both match my example.

Could there be some difference in unit structure or simply terminology?
Again, why the comparison to 'curved' French ANIX and ANXI briquets as were well known in their infantry.

Could there have been infantry units assigned to artillery in some capacity to afford defense to the working gun crews?

I guess after having this sword unresolved in identification with its curious initialed cartouche, and finally coming up with a good (and exciting) hypothesis, I am reluctant to let go yet

There have been numerous cases like this with my often unusual collection from decades ago (the briquet I got in 1966), one other was a M1796 British light cavalry saber. I know it was British (made by Thomas Bate).
It was well worn and darkly patinated, with a curious squared notch in the exact tip of the blade, not damage but a deliberate square.

Most baffling was the langet had the letters CsA 4 inscribed. Naturally I thought I had 'scored' a Confederate sword (they were known to use numbers of British swords).
However, every venue of research and contacts with authorities on Civil War arms insisted, these were NOT Confederate markings. Disappointed, I then came up with the convoluted idea that it might be Spanish colonial (Charles IV)....but no sound conclusion.
Then a revelation, it was suggested that perhaps the letters COULD be marks for the armory of Castel sant Angelo, in the Vatican! In the wars of unification in late 1860s, men came from throughout the Catholic realm including Great Britain to defend the Pope.
So while not conclusive, still compelling and I published it as such in the Swedish journal 'Varia' (2004). It had been nearly 30 years in research.

Such are my 'cold cases' and this one is clearly another. Obviously, the true story behind these and many old weapons can seldom be confidently resolved. But compelling resolution is at least of some use as long as options are all offered.

1st October 2020, 04:39 PM	#33
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,747	Hi Bryce, Thank you for these illustrations, which very much show the kind of 'Spanish pattern' you have described and in the article you linked. Now my quandry is............why did Robson describe the 'briquet' as compared the the French ANIX and ANXI swords, which he was described as short and CURVED? Further, why did highly reputable authors such as Blair and Wilkinson-Latham show illustrations (Blair's was in a panel of line illustrations); Wilkinson-Latham's was a photo...........while his caption notes there is a marking on the blade which he believes may be 'Trotter', who I think was a cutler of the late 18thc early 19th period. While the 'Spanish pattern' evidence is profound, and there seems no doubt of course that the artillery men were using it, I am wondering if there is a case for some alternate situation in artillery ranks. The wording FOOT ARTILLERY seems to have been applied to the captions in the briquets I have used as cites, which both match my example. Could there be some difference in unit structure or simply terminology? Again, why the comparison to 'curved' French ANIX and ANXI briquets as were well known in their infantry. Could there have been infantry units assigned to artillery in some capacity to afford defense to the working gun crews? I guess after having this sword unresolved in identification with its curious initialed cartouche, and finally coming up with a good (and exciting) hypothesis, I am reluctant to let go yet There have been numerous cases like this with my often unusual collection from decades ago (the briquet I got in 1966), one other was a M1796 British light cavalry saber. I know it was British (made by Thomas Bate). It was well worn and darkly patinated, with a curious squared notch in the exact tip of the blade, not damage but a deliberate square. Most baffling was the langet had the letters CsA 4 inscribed. Naturally I thought I had 'scored' a Confederate sword (they were known to use numbers of British swords). However, every venue of research and contacts with authorities on Civil War arms insisted, these were NOT Confederate markings. Disappointed, I then came up with the convoluted idea that it might be Spanish colonial (Charles IV)....but no sound conclusion. Then a revelation, it was suggested that perhaps the letters COULD be marks for the armory of Castel sant Angelo, in the Vatican! In the wars of unification in late 1860s, men came from throughout the Catholic realm including Great Britain to defend the Pope. So while not conclusive, still compelling and I published it as such in the Swedish journal 'Varia' (2004). It had been nearly 30 years in research. Such are my 'cold cases' and this one is clearly another. Obviously, the true story behind these and many old weapons can seldom be confidently resolved. But compelling resolution is at least of some use as long as options are all offered.