After the Anglo-Sikh wars

Jens Nordlunde · 11th December 2016, 03:51 PM

I dont know what happened, but maybe someone at the Capenoch House would have a family story about these weapons.
It is vandalism any way you see it, and some of the weapons are not only old, but very old - 500 years or more.

Jim McDougall · 11th December 2016, 06:01 PM

This circumstance reminds me of another such travesty toward weapons, almost a deliberate derision of a vanquished foe.
In the tragic Scottish Rebellion of 1745, after the Battle of Culloden, many Scottish basket hilt swords were picked up off the battlefield.
In "The Swords of Culloden" Sir Archibald Campbell describes his horrifying discovery of a painted iron fence around at least one residence in England which was incredibly comprised of cut down blades off these Scottish swords.
On these blades were the familiar markings of the Solingen blades such as the running wolf, Andrea Ferara and others. It was heartbreaking viewing these once stalwart blades now rendered simple elements of a mundane fence.

To dishonor these weapons in this way is in my view a disgrace. There are so many occasions in military history where the victorious commander, as a gesture of honor and respect would refuse the traditional surrender of the sword from the other.

David R · 11th December 2016, 08:10 PM

The fence you refer to was around the London residence of the Duke of Cumberland, Commander of the Crown forces at Culloden. What else were they going to do with them? Sell them on the open market and find them arrayed against the Crown on yet another occasion!.... I would also point out that legally the Scots were in rebellion against their lawful government, so these would be regarded as the arms of traitors, not a respected enemy.

Jim McDougall · 12th December 2016, 01:03 AM

Thanks for the correct location of the fence.....now that makes sense.
Also for the interesting perspective Re: Culloden . I guess there are at least two sides to every story, and did not intend to get political. Perhaps there was just not enough iron around to build a fence without so cleverly using these blades.
With these weapons from India, it does make sense that they were altered to fit wall decoration settings. I guess pretty much the same concept. I would not imagine such captured weapons being marketed or sold for the obvious reason you note.
In India, huge hoards of arms and armour were captured in battles etc and taken to armouries such as Bikaner.

Jim McDougall · 12th December 2016, 05:16 AM

I found the book I was referring to, which is "Scottish Swords from the Battlefield at Culloden" by Lord Archibald Campbell (1894) and was edited, annotated and published by the late E. Andrew Mowbray in 1971.

Mowbray notes in his introduction (p.13). "...frequently a family heirloom-often in its second or third hilting- the Highlanders sword was far more than just a weapon. The great symbolic value of these arms was not lost upon the Duke of Cumberland. A bounty was paid from the royal purse of one shilling for every broadsword picked up from the battlefield".

He notes that along with cannon, ammunition and 2320 muskets, there were about 190 broadswords claimed. Considering the dead and wounded from both during and after the battle, that seems a paltry number of swords.

In any case, Campbell in his original work of 1894 describes a very curious fence from Twickenham House, a former residence of Sir John Hawkins.
The fence had been acquired in 1893 by a Mr Edward Ross who in turn had obtained it from a Lord Tweedale. The fence was formed of sword blades gathered from the field at Culloden and this particular nobleman had "...caused them to be put up in this extraordinary and barbaric way".

Perhaps this Lord Tweedale acquired this ghastly fence from Cumberland?
which Campbell describes further in that, "...the taste of the period at which the railing was formed was about as bad as taste could be. The style of rail can be seen in many hideous examples still extant".(p.19).

The author notes that 137 blades came into his possession from this railing when it was finally dismantled.

It was from this perspective that I added this instance to the topic here, the wanton destruction or rudely disfigured display of the treasured weapons of a people . As a lifelong arms historian, it is these kinds of treatments of these valued icons of history that I find disturbing regardless of the circumstances which compelled them.

ariel · 12th December 2016, 11:43 AM

Well, using swords of the vanquished foe as a lowly fence was purely symbolic and analogous to dragging their captured flags on the ground during the victory parade: a show of derision. Such practice was known from time immemorial: Alexander burned Persepolis, Tamerlane paraded Bayazet in the cage etc.

Destroying Indian arsenals, on the other hand, was purely practical : disarming, not disrespect.

The cultural effects were the same: loss of historical objects.

colin henshaw · 12th December 2016, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

I found the book I was referring to, which is "Scottish Swords from the Battlefield at Culloden" by Lord Archibald Campbell (1894) and was edited, annotated and published by the late E. Andrew Mowbray in 1971.

Mowbray notes in his introduction (p.13). "...frequently a family heirloom-often in its second or third hilting- the Highlanders sword was far more than just a weapon. The great symbolic value of these arms was not lost upon the Duke of Cumberland. A bounty was paid from the royal purse of one shilling for every broadsword picked up from the battlefield".

He notes that along with cannon, ammunition and 2320 muskets, there were about 190 broadswords claimed. Considering the dead and wounded from both during and after the battle, that seems a paltry number of swords.

In any case, Campbell in his original work of 1894 describes a very curious fence from Twickenham House, a former residence of Sir John Hawkins.
The fence had been acquired in 1893 by a Mr Edward Ross who in turn had obtained it from a Lord Tweedale. The fence was formed of sword blades gathered from the field at Culloden and this particular nobleman had "...caused them to be put up in this extraordinary and barbaric way".

Perhaps this Lord Tweedale acquired this ghastly fence from Cumberland?
which Campbell describes further in that, "...the taste of the period at which the railing was formed was about as bad as taste could be. The style of rail can be seen in many hideous examples still extant".(p.19).

The author notes that 137 blades came into his possession from this railing when it was finally dismantled.

It was from this perspective that I added this instance to the topic here, the wanton destruction or rudely disfigured display of the treasured weapons of a people . As a lifelong arms historian, it is these kinds of treatments of these valued icons of history that I find disturbing regardless of the circumstances which compelled them.

There is mention of this fence made of sword blades from Culloden, in the Jacobite displays at Chiddingstone Castle, Kent, England. For anyone interested in the subject, I can recommend a visit to the Castle, which contains the excellent collections of the late Denys Bower. Jacobite, Japanese, Buddhist, Egyptian material and more... See www.chiddingstonecastle.org.uk

A great day out !

ASingh · 12th December 2016, 03:48 PM

Hi,
A possible explanation for the destruction of blades could be to conform to the Indian Arms Act 1959 that requires privately owned blades above 9 inches in length to be licensed, if carried. Many old toradar matchlock muskets used as wall hangers in India are punched at the breach to be considered legal.
Regards,
ASingh

11th December 2016, 03:51 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I dont know what happened, but maybe someone at the Capenoch House would have a family story about these weapons. It is vandalism any way you see it, and some of the weapons are not only old, but very old - 500 years or more.

11th December 2016, 06:01 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	This circumstance reminds me of another such travesty toward weapons, almost a deliberate derision of a vanquished foe. In the tragic Scottish Rebellion of 1745, after the Battle of Culloden, many Scottish basket hilt swords were picked up off the battlefield. In "The Swords of Culloden" Sir Archibald Campbell describes his horrifying discovery of a painted iron fence around at least one residence in England which was incredibly comprised of cut down blades off these Scottish swords. On these blades were the familiar markings of the Solingen blades such as the running wolf, Andrea Ferara and others. It was heartbreaking viewing these once stalwart blades now rendered simple elements of a mundane fence. To dishonor these weapons in this way is in my view a disgrace. There are so many occasions in military history where the victorious commander, as a gesture of honor and respect would refuse the traditional surrender of the sword from the other.

11th December 2016, 08:10 PM	#3
David R Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 1,119	The fence you refer to was around the London residence of the Duke of Cumberland, Commander of the Crown forces at Culloden. What else were they going to do with them? Sell them on the open market and find them arrayed against the Crown on yet another occasion!.... I would also point out that legally the Scots were in rebellion against their lawful government, so these would be regarded as the arms of traitors, not a respected enemy.

12th December 2016, 01:03 AM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Thanks for the correct location of the fence.....now that makes sense. Also for the interesting perspective Re: Culloden . I guess there are at least two sides to every story, and did not intend to get political. Perhaps there was just not enough iron around to build a fence without so cleverly using these blades. With these weapons from India, it does make sense that they were altered to fit wall decoration settings. I guess pretty much the same concept. I would not imagine such captured weapons being marketed or sold for the obvious reason you note. In India, huge hoards of arms and armour were captured in battles etc and taken to armouries such as Bikaner.

12th December 2016, 05:16 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	I found the book I was referring to, which is "Scottish Swords from the Battlefield at Culloden" by Lord Archibald Campbell (1894) and was edited, annotated and published by the late E. Andrew Mowbray in 1971. Mowbray notes in his introduction (p.13). "...frequently a family heirloom-often in its second or third hilting- the Highlanders sword was far more than just a weapon. The great symbolic value of these arms was not lost upon the Duke of Cumberland. A bounty was paid from the royal purse of one shilling for every broadsword picked up from the battlefield". He notes that along with cannon, ammunition and 2320 muskets, there were about 190 broadswords claimed. Considering the dead and wounded from both during and after the battle, that seems a paltry number of swords. In any case, Campbell in his original work of 1894 describes a very curious fence from Twickenham House, a former residence of Sir John Hawkins. The fence had been acquired in 1893 by a Mr Edward Ross who in turn had obtained it from a Lord Tweedale. The fence was formed of sword blades gathered from the field at Culloden and this particular nobleman had "...caused them to be put up in this extraordinary and barbaric way". Perhaps this Lord Tweedale acquired this ghastly fence from Cumberland? which Campbell describes further in that, "...the taste of the period at which the railing was formed was about as bad as taste could be. The style of rail can be seen in many hideous examples still extant".(p.19). The author notes that 137 blades came into his possession from this railing when it was finally dismantled. It was from this perspective that I added this instance to the topic here, the wanton destruction or rudely disfigured display of the treasured weapons of a people . As a lifelong arms historian, it is these kinds of treatments of these valued icons of history that I find disturbing regardless of the circumstances which compelled them.

12th December 2016, 11:43 AM	#6
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Well, using swords of the vanquished foe as a lowly fence was purely symbolic and analogous to dragging their captured flags on the ground during the victory parade: a show of derision. Such practice was known from time immemorial: Alexander burned Persepolis, Tamerlane paraded Bayazet in the cage etc. Destroying Indian arsenals, on the other hand, was purely practical : disarming, not disrespect. The cultural effects were the same: loss of historical objects.

12th December 2016, 03:48 PM	#8
ASingh Member Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: India Posts: 10	Hi, A possible explanation for the destruction of blades could be to conform to the Indian Arms Act 1959 that requires privately owned blades above 9 inches in length to be licensed, if carried. Many old toradar matchlock muskets used as wall hangers in India are punched at the breach to be considered legal. Regards, ASingh