Basket hilted backsword

M ELEY · 7th October 2010, 06:26 AM

This is the way I like them. Old, plain fighters that were NOT dress swords, Victorian era "rank" pieces, piece-together or tinkered with, brass-hilted "band" swords, etc. I have always wnated to have one of these for the collection...maybe someday

.

No expert, but isn't this the 1798 pattern that was issued to Scottish troops serving under the English??

On a second look, yours has the iron vs brass basket and perhaps a precursor of the pattern-

www.swordforum.com/fall99/1865.html
(I love this sword type!)

Ron Anderson · 7th October 2010, 07:05 AM

Thanks for your reply.

It's similar, yes. But not the same. Perhaps it is a precursor. Notice the bars in the front, which are much more prominent. Also the guard's a little different in shape.

This is steel not brass.

And the grip is silver wire wrap – the kind you find on18th century rapiers.

This sword is huge. The blade is very long.

It was actually described as an English (yes, English!) backsword - cavalry.

But it's so Scottish in it's look I have to wonder. As you say, there's that 1798 pattern to consider, for a start.

Jim McDougall · 8th October 2010, 08:57 PM

This is indeed a beauty! and it is indeed English. Technically there were no such things as truly 'Scottish' baskethilts after the fateful '45 rebellion of 1745. However the British king did very much favor these attractive and well protecting basket guards and as he began raising cavalry units of dragoons comprised of Scottish men, the production of basket hilt type straight backswords increased. Technically, there are no Scottish baskethilts with the straight backsword blades either. Obviously these statements are generally made, and there may be exceptions.

The brass hilts mentioned used by British infantry actually were superceded by iron/steel hilts in about 1828, and these kinds of patterns continued through the 19th century, however this example seems either a variation or as noted, precursor to the brass hilt types. The styling, grip, and presence of turks heads on the grips seem of 18th century affectation. The blank, rather than pierced saltire plates also suggest 18th century English origin.
There was a British armoury at Edinburgh and other lowland armourers that were producing and some hilts I believe, but most were being produced in Birmingham by makers such as Drury and Jeffries, these being the more familiar pierced steel exceptions in the c.1770 infantry swords.

Extremely nice fighting example, and would like to see better photos of the blade...wondering if it corresponds to the M1796 heavy cavalry sword blade.

All best regards,
Jim

Ron Anderson · 9th October 2010, 12:15 AM

Hi Jim

Thanks for that info.

Here are more pictures, including blade. My feeling is this is not a 1796 pattern blade. The fuller is different and doesn't extend all the way to the spear tip the way I've seen in those 1796 pattern swords. I've just checked my Robson reference book to confirm.

Personally, I've never been impressed with the 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword. For its size, it seemed lightweight and weak and clumsy. As I used to own a Heavy Cavalry French Pallasch circa 1811, I was surprsied when I first picked up the English equivalent, and disappointed.

The blade on this sword seems of a much better quality to me. This is a nice blade indeed.

Jim McDougall · 9th October 2010, 02:16 AM

Thanks for the updated photos Ron, and seeing the blade detail, it is of course obvious this has nothing to do with the M1796 blade. With the elliptical fuller terminus it seems more like a Continental type blade, so likely a Solingen product.

I know what you mean on the M1796 heavy cavalry swords, and quite honestly they received similar reviews to what you have noted when they were first introduced. These did however exact horrifying results on the French forces at Waterloo with the immortal charge of the Royal Scots Greys. Despite these accounts, for the most part these were regarded exactly as you note, as being clumsy and ineffective, quite contrary to the ambitious hopes of LeMarchant when he sought to create these official patterns for light and heavy cavalry.

The French pallasch as you have also noted, was a superb weapon indeed.

All the best,
Jim

Norman McCormick · 11th October 2010, 08:23 PM

Hi Ron,
Can you post the stats of the blade, length etc? Is the blade absolutely straight or is there a slight curve?
Regards,
Norman.

Ron Anderson · 11th October 2010, 11:10 PM

Hi Norman

I'll do the measurements when I get home tonight.

I think the blade is completely straight.

7th October 2010, 06:26 AM	#1
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,141	Very nice baskethilt! This is the way I like them. Old, plain fighters that were NOT dress swords, Victorian era "rank" pieces, piece-together or tinkered with, brass-hilted "band" swords, etc. I have always wnated to have one of these for the collection...maybe someday . No expert, but isn't this the 1798 pattern that was issued to Scottish troops serving under the English?? On a second look, yours has the iron vs brass basket and perhaps a precursor of the pattern- www.swordforum.com/fall99/1865.html (I love this sword type!) Last edited by M ELEY; 7th October 2010 at 06:39 AM.

9th October 2010, 12:15 AM	#4
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Jim Thanks for that info. Here are more pictures, including blade. My feeling is this is not a 1796 pattern blade. The fuller is different and doesn't extend all the way to the spear tip the way I've seen in those 1796 pattern swords. I've just checked my Robson reference book to confirm. Personally, I've never been impressed with the 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword. For its size, it seemed lightweight and weak and clumsy. As I used to own a Heavy Cavalry French Pallasch circa 1811, I was surprsied when I first picked up the English equivalent, and disappointed. The blade on this sword seems of a much better quality to me. This is a nice blade indeed. Attached Images

7th October 2010, 07:05 AM	#2
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Thanks for your reply. It's similar, yes. But not the same. Perhaps it is a precursor. Notice the bars in the front, which are much more prominent. Also the guard's a little different in shape. This is steel not brass. And the grip is silver wire wrap – the kind you find on18th century rapiers. This sword is huge. The blade is very long. It was actually described as an English (yes, English!) backsword - cavalry. But it's so Scottish in it's look I have to wonder. As you say, there's that 1798 pattern to consider, for a start.

8th October 2010, 08:57 PM	#3
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	This is indeed a beauty! and it is indeed English. Technically there were no such things as truly 'Scottish' baskethilts after the fateful '45 rebellion of 1745. However the British king did very much favor these attractive and well protecting basket guards and as he began raising cavalry units of dragoons comprised of Scottish men, the production of basket hilt type straight backswords increased. Technically, there are no Scottish baskethilts with the straight backsword blades either. Obviously these statements are generally made, and there may be exceptions. The brass hilts mentioned used by British infantry actually were superceded by iron/steel hilts in about 1828, and these kinds of patterns continued through the 19th century, however this example seems either a variation or as noted, precursor to the brass hilt types. The styling, grip, and presence of turks heads on the grips seem of 18th century affectation. The blank, rather than pierced saltire plates also suggest 18th century English origin. There was a British armoury at Edinburgh and other lowland armourers that were producing and some hilts I believe, but most were being produced in Birmingham by makers such as Drury and Jeffries, these being the more familiar pierced steel exceptions in the c.1770 infantry swords. Extremely nice fighting example, and would like to see better photos of the blade...wondering if it corresponds to the M1796 heavy cavalry sword blade. All best regards, Jim

9th October 2010, 02:16 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Thanks for the updated photos Ron, and seeing the blade detail, it is of course obvious this has nothing to do with the M1796 blade. With the elliptical fuller terminus it seems more like a Continental type blade, so likely a Solingen product. I know what you mean on the M1796 heavy cavalry swords, and quite honestly they received similar reviews to what you have noted when they were first introduced. These did however exact horrifying results on the French forces at Waterloo with the immortal charge of the Royal Scots Greys. Despite these accounts, for the most part these were regarded exactly as you note, as being clumsy and ineffective, quite contrary to the ambitious hopes of LeMarchant when he sought to create these official patterns for light and heavy cavalry. The French pallasch as you have also noted, was a superb weapon indeed. All the best, Jim

11th October 2010, 08:23 PM	#6
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,613	Hi Ron, Can you post the stats of the blade, length etc? Is the blade absolutely straight or is there a slight curve? Regards, Norman.

11th October 2010, 11:10 PM	#7
Ron Anderson Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Australia Posts: 228	Hi Norman I'll do the measurements when I get home tonight. I think the blade is completely straight.