Please help on 1796 HC sword marks

[Jim McDougall]

Pretty amazing 'intermediary' stuff Fernando ! and thank you for the note on the field modifications you added as well. It is amazing how much info is available these days with the computer, as opposed to how we did things in the old days...lots of letter writing, and waiting...(no more cracks about parchment Andrew!!! )

Actually I had heard about the term 'woodchopper' which was sort of derisively used describing both the M1796 swords for British cavalry. I recall that from an article written by John Morgan in "Classic Arms and Militaria" back in the 90's about the M1796 swords, and I think it was titled 'chopping wood' or to that effect. At that time I was very fascinated by these huge British disc hilts, and was talking with him a great deal on the ancestry of these swords to the M1769-1775 Austrian disc hilts, handled by then Capt. LeMarchant on campaign in Flanders. He was a brilliant officer and wanted to bring standardization of swords to the British army and proposed both the light and heavy patterns based on these and other European examples.
He was deemed the 'scientific soldier' and was killed in cavalry combat at Salamanca during the campaigns there.

The stamped crown with number was the mark used when the weapon was viewed, and this configuration was used up to about 1820, when a letter was also added. According to Robson ("Swords of the British Army", p.191) individual viewers used different numbers at different times, so it would likely be hard to determine with any certainty. The 'V' is puzzling, as it does not seem that letter was ever used to denote 'viewing', and it seemed that it would be rather indiscriminate, although it would seem that organized control in those times were somewhat irregular. The crowned number stamp would seem to negate the need for the V as a view mark. I had thought perhaps it might be an arrow, which of course were ordnance marks then, but this seems more the letter V rather than the phaeon, and there is no BO (board of ordnance initials).

The Gill contract I referred to remains completely unsubstantiated so I can only presume my memory, or mind was sound concerning this reference.
The Gill family was profoundly one of the key producers of swords for the service, and I cannot imagine there were not other contracts. It seems there is a work in progress on the Gill swords, but I do not yet have further details.

Norman, you are right, these swords would have been horrendously consuming in actual combat, and the only driving force that enabled these troopers to use them as such was virtually pure adrenalin. The amount of skill in the average troopers swordsmanship was limited, which was what drew the derisive comment from the French, and probably did resemble chopping action. The French cavalry were keen swordsmen, and adamantly preferred the thrust, emphasizing the conflict over that cut vs. thrust over the next century in many European armies.
From what little I recall of fencing (many many moons ago!) working at strengthening various muscle groups was essential before handling a blade, and even with the very light sabre, one was spent quickly in combat.
A great movie was "The Duellists" where the combatants in a heated duel were incredibly evenly matched swordsmen in the French cavalry, and fought until both were so exhausted they could barely left the sabres.It was often said that after combat in an engagement, and intense action, horsemen could be seen just sitting motionless in thier saddles with tears streaming down thier faces, strictly from the anticlimatic release of adrenalin.

Well, I didnt mean to write a book oops,

All the best,
Jim