British Infantry Officers Battle Swords in the 19th C...and up to 1914

[Peter Hudson]

These weapons became extinct as in 1914 a general order was issued instructing the withdrawal of these swords and their replacement by the Officers Cane. Swords remained in use as Parade items. Today the puzzle of what happened appears baffling to say the least however in opening this story it will become clearer that the 19th Century acted like a magnifying glass amplifying the quite amazing story ..In fact almost every type of British sword was resurected and variants of Cutlasses Rapiers Heavy and Light Cavalry spikes and even Colichemardes ...Amazingly almost the only style not to have been reintroduced was the Katana and Wakezashi types of Japan. The fact is that they had evolved a weapon system that needed two swords since fighting could require multiple designs. Was there a sword in the British Armoury that could have served in this task ..As it happens this is also ironic since quite clearly Japanese swords were excellent at chopping and slashing with the sharp edge and with the excellent Tanto point...as well as being good for running through a target...something that British had difficulty with since their swords were often too flexible and often would not penetrate Russian greatcoats in the Crimea War ...for instance...

For me this has been something of a journey down memory lane and since I was commissioned in 1969 and used a sword in The Royal Marines for a decade and for another ten years in The Sultan of Omans Land Forces both of similar design but of course only for Parade duties...In fact insofar as sword style and design was concerned and provided ones sword was clean and presentable almost any British sword was allowed provided it was of a Victorian or after style although I think the Omani swords were I think POOLEY designs...The Corps also required the other associated equipments to be of the standard Sam Brown Belt, Leather over wooden Scabbard, Brown Leather Sword Frog, and Sword Knot .

It must have been odd in the early days in 1914 in the trenches..when Officers were instructed to get rid of their weapons and even more odd to replace them with a short cane...but there is evidence that the attrition rate on the battlefield was very high ... Snipers targeted Officers and particularly in the Boer war the toll was incredible...

Some of the cornerstone factors or principles governing the subject of fieldcraft was that individuals ought not ignore things like shape... shadow... shine... silhouette as it gives their position away...to snipers...Sitting atop ones horse or simply moving around on foot and holding a shiny sword was equivalent to shining a massive lamp on yourself ...To combat the shine effect some even painted their scabbards and blades in a dark varnish or paint...To a reasonable sniper this was a waste of time and so the demise of the sword was assured....especially since the battle ranges in the earlier Boer confrontation their weapons were The German Mauser fitted with a telescope...meaning they could hit a target well over 1000 yards away ...In the Trenches in WW1 battle ranges were more often a fraction of that.. However I am not convinced that the use of a 2 foot long cane would have been of the slightest use but what weaponry would you have carried to be more effective? You have to remember that troops attacked in lines upright and at a walking pace......Canadians couldn`t believe this and quickly they at least switched to running and zig zagging ...

Personally on weaponry and looking at what was available I would have considered a sawn off carbine and a couple of revolvers.. It should be remembered that Officers in those days bought their commissions plus much of their equipment including weapons and ammunition. Cavalry Officers had also to buy their own Horse. It must have annoyed many and to others it was the giving up of his badge of office ...The entire century had been taken up with finding the best sword and in the complicated design testing and distribution of these weapons when suddenly a piece of paper arrives trashing the weapon forever...relegating the once famous swords to parade only...


Before I begin to unleash pictures of the myriad of different designs I will discuss in part 2 the following;
Why did British swords have a peculiar kind of half basket hilt ...?
Where did it originate? ....
How many new sword designs were there entering the British military say between 1796 and about 1914 and what was the net effect ?
While it was still a weapon what was the reason why sword style was designed as either a cut n thrust or a spike...and how could one system be better than the other ...?
What was the real reason for the demise of the British Battle Sword?

Peter Hudson.

[kronckew]

I have a 'two foot cane' -covered in brown leather. It has a nice stiletto blade inside it.

[Peter Hudson]

I have one inscribed TOLEDO... Actually a superb item but also illegal to even possess one in my day... The type of stick ordered to be used instead of a sword in 1914 was essentially without a spiked blade ...just a stick... covered in leather... A catastrophic end to the sword...

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

It has been said that the design of the Hilt on British Army Infantry Officers originated with the Scinde Irregular Cavalry in India. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Horse_(Scinde_Horse) It appears to be a sort of rolled Indian floral design usually called Leaf pattern but it originated in Persia and gave rise to what we know in the UK as Paisley Tie Pattern or in India as Mirri Botteh... Leaf Pattern.
Indian metalworking craftsmen often cut patterns out on miniature brass boxes... I have a racing grasshopper box with incised design all over it... It seems probable that the style and design was taken as perfect for the Irregular Scinde Cavalry Hilts and the same design was the origin for the Paisley concept... which can be compared favourably on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_(design)
View a good description on https://thelanesarmoury.co.uk/shop.php?code=25818 which shows the Leaf style and perhaps consider that the leaf pattern was a known Indian and Persian design and how it eventually influenced 19th Century British Sword Hilts... in Leaf Scroll or Leaf Pattern structuring...
Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

This is a fascinating topic Peter!! and wrought with complexity, especially as the detail expands into sword stick/cane and even more into the native regiments of East India Co. later into British Army.

I had no idea John Jacob was involved in creating this interesting sword hilt design in British cavalry officers swords. The notion of pierced work in the sheet guards of these heavy cavalry officers swords seems to have begun with the M1796 period types, which I believe were termed 'honeysuckle' pattern.

When the M1829 swords came out for both light and heavy cavalry, the M1821 swords both had the three bar design hilt for both troopers and officers.

The 1829 heavy cavalry had the sheet bowl hilts, with the troopers plain and the officers with pierced designs in the guard which I thought were extension of the designs on the 1796.
As these swords were of course produced until superceded in 1853 by the pattern of that year for ALL cavalry, light and heavy....it does seem quite possible that a design for the pierced work in the officers hilts might have been connected to John Jacob as noted.

He was a brilliant officer of the East India Co. and very innovative as in the famed battle of Meeanee in Sind in 1843, he had used straight swords attached to rifle barrels and intro the 'sword bayonet'.
After that campaign the remarkable pun supposedly issued by Sir Charles Napier...PECCAVI (Lat. -I have sinned) was issued noting his victory taking Sindh for the EIC.

The sword pictured is the heavy cavalry officers of 1829, which continued until 1853. Jacob went into Sind in 1838 forming irregular cavalry unit as these were termed, comprised of native forces commanded by British officers. This is of course the standard pattern for the British regular cavalry, so the pattern design for the Jacob sword was likely following this type work but using the more native related theme as described. The Sind regions were of course highly influenced by Persia, so quite understandable.

These men were keenly sensitive to the combining of tribal and ethnic forces and the cultural significance of many elements, so it would not be surprising that Jacob would propose designs using these kinds of themes.

The belt plate is from later in 1850s recognizing the battle honors from Sind, and the Scinde Irregular Horse (Jacobs Horse) as cavalry were termed.

Illustrated are John Jacob, and one of the Muslim Rissalders (NCO) of the Scinde Horse.

[Hotspur]

I have just one HC officers sword from 1869. My own thoughts on why a half basket would be access. A half basket goes back earlier, just like half heart counterguards.

The evolution of the swords are covered by lettered authors, such as Dellar. On Facebook, Steve Goodyear has done a lot of the variety of evolution.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1402...0008637461346/

Another reason for a half basket is wear

Cheers
GC

[Will M]

The Crimean War was responsible for officers ordering special order swords during and after the war. They realized their regulation swords with brass hilts and fullered blade was lacking. One example is a Wilkinson infantry sword with steel patent hilt and solid flat blade. The officer ordered this sword after the Crimea and wore it in Afghanistan into 1879.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Hotspur

I have just one HC officers sword from 1869. My own thoughts on why a half basket would be access. A half basket goes back earlier, just like half heart counterguards.

The evolution of the swords are covered by lettered authors, such as Dellar. On Facebook, Steve Goodyear has done a lot of the variety of evolution.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1402...0008637461346/

Another reason for a half basket is wear

Cheers
GC

HELLO Hotspur and thank you for the details ...I see your last illustration is the Reeves Hilt with the Tang the same width as the blade at the Forte. This ensured a full and heavy strike and a great block and must have been formidable as a Heavy Cavalry weapon. Thanks also for the other illustrations including the 5 ball guard. Certainly in terms of design in the 19th Century we see the famous 3 bar hilt...some call it a 2 Bar and in particular The Royal Artillery Officers Sword stuck to that format as up until today its the same. I have both the Heavy Cav and Light Cav version.
The full length blade on the Heavy Cavalry Sword would have suited most establishments with its slightly curved wide blade and spear point with raised central format and sharpened on both sides of the spear point back to about 12 inches ...and with the cutting edge fully sharp as far back as the hilt. This meant it was a great cutter and had an effective quite rigid spear point for giving point thus good in the melee...and you will note how this arguement caused a massive debate later...Regards Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Will M

The Crimean War was responsible for officers ordering special order swords during and after the war. They realized their regulation swords with brass hilts and fullered blade was lacking. One example is a Wilkinson infantry sword with steel patent hilt and solid flat blade. The officer ordered this sword after the Crimea and wore it in Afghanistan into 1879.

Hello Will... Your flat bladed Wilkinson looks formidable. This blade was designed to cut.There was no fuller, pipeback or raised back blade to impede cutting. Some variation was allowed and Officers could choose a fully criss crossed backstrap and either the same pattern on the pommel or polished.Cavalry quite often preferred the hilt to be of a pistol grip style turned down at the pommel so a straight profile could be offered in the charge...The Wilkinson I had in 1969 was literally a spike formed of a very sharp point supported by two I Beams either side of a fuller running three quarters of the blade length to a narrowing spear point.Flat blades though effective in the slash and cut were regarded as a bit heavy but frankly that is what heavy Cavalry needed in their role.Thus we see two different sorts of requirement here...so we begin to see the problem. Regards Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

This is a fascinating topic Peter!! and wrought with complexity, especially as the detail expands into sword stick/cane and even more into the native regiments of East India Co. later into British Army.

I had no idea John Jacob was involved in creating this interesting sword hilt design in British cavalry officers swords. The notion of pierced work in the sheet guards of these heavy cavalry officers swords seems to have begun with the M1796 period types, which I believe were termed 'honeysuckle' pattern.

When the M1829 swords came out for both light and heavy cavalry, the M1821 swords both had the three bar design hilt for both troopers and officers.

The 1829 heavy cavalry had the sheet bowl hilts, with the troopers plain and the officers with pierced designs in the guard which I thought were extension of the designs on the 1796.
As these swords were of course produced until superceded in 1853 by the pattern of that year for ALL cavalry, light and heavy....it does seem quite possible that a design for the pierced work in the officers hilts might have been connected to John Jacob as noted.

He was a brilliant officer of the East India Co. and very innovative as in the famed battle of Meeanee in Sind in 1843, he had used straight swords attached to rifle barrels and intro the 'sword bayonet'.
After that campaign the remarkable pun supposedly issued by Sir Charles Napier...PECCAVI (Lat. -I have sinned) was issued noting his victory taking Sindh for the EIC.

The sword pictured is the heavy cavalry officers of 1829, which continued until 1853. Jacob went into Sind in 1838 forming irregular cavalry unit as these were termed, comprised of native forces commanded by British officers. This is of course the standard pattern for the British regular cavalry, so the pattern design for the Jacob sword was likely following this type work but using the more native related theme as described. The Sind regions were of course highly influenced by Persia, so quite understandable.

These men were keenly sensitive to the combining of tribal and ethnic forces and the cultural significance of many elements, so it would not be surprising that Jacob would propose designs using these kinds of themes.

The belt plate is from later in 1850s recognizing the battle honors from Sind, and the Scinde Irregular Horse (Jacobs Horse) as cavalry were termed.

Illustrated are John Jacob, and one of the Muslim Rissalders (NCO) of the Scinde Horse.

Hello Jim, Thanks for your reply and I see you went straight into search mode and nailed it in regards to the Indian Scinde Cavalry link.
When looking at the 19th Century most people give up on seeing the difficulty or problems being tied to the everlasting arguement or discussion about two different kinds of blade. Often they give up! I can see why but thats not the whole story.

Please allow me the example seen in Samurai fight style. They realised that there were two sorts of fighting...and that to compete in both a warrior needed two swords...The Katana for fighting out in the open...and a Wakezashi for fighting in close quarter battles in buildings and Forts.

It also occurred to me that they better understood blade construction so that great care was taken in producing blades that could slash and chop with the ability to skewer or stab a target thus building into the blade in no particular order here thick backblade for blocking, a very sharp powerful blade and a well designed stabbing blade that could be used at very close quarters. But they also realised that you need two swords to do this...in fact they also had a dagger which was like a miniature of the main sword called the Tanto.The name given to all their 3 weapons points was in fact Tanto Point.

Part of the problem in Europe was that we also needed to fight in utterly different battle scenery...but we only had one sword.The plot thickens... My question to Forum laid out at the end of my Post at 1 in bold letters ...wasnt answered in 1914 ...They didnt answer it in my opinion because they were completely blinded by the arguement...They didnt understand that they actually needed two swords but worse than that they were thrown by not getting the question right...

In the 1900s through to WW1 Sword designers and specialists built more than 20 different sword styles so can anyone see the problem that this created... Meanwhile I will start placing sword pictures so members can best answer that burning question at my initial post....Thanks Jim.

Regards Peter Hudson.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
The officers heavy cavalry sword is actually the 1821 pattern with the 'honeysuckle' guard. I have a Wilkinson example dated to 1879. The 1821 pattern heavy cavalry officers sword was adopted by officers of the light cavalry in 1896 and was subsequently designated the universal cavalry officers pattern. The heavy cavalry continued to use the 1821 pattern until superseded in 1912.
The 1821 is still carried today by the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms. Attached is a photograph of the Wilkinson 1821 pattern H.C. (date 1879) sword against an 1821 pattern troopers L.C. sword by Osborn. You will notice the L.C. sword (pre 1840 production) is far more substantial than the later H.C. sword.
Regards,
Norman.

Ref., R. Dellar The British Cavalry Sword 1788-1912.