After the Anglo-Sikh wars

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

Ibrahiim al Balooshi · 12th December 2016, 07:37 PM

A fair thing and moving to read is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden where it recounts a British Army corporals story on the Highland Charge that day which ended in disaster...

"When we saw them coming towards us in great Haste and Fury, we fired at about 50 Yards Distance, which made Hundreds fall; notwithstanding which, they were so numerous, that they still advanced, and were almost upon us before we had loaded again. We immediately gave them another full Fire and the Front Rank charged their Bayonets Breast high, and the Center and Rear Ranks kept up a continual Firing, which, in half an Hour's Time, routed their whole Army. Only Barrel's Regiment and ours was engaged, the Rebels designing to break or flank us but our Fire was so hot, most of us having discharged nine Shot each, that they were disappointed".

Regards,
Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

Jens Nordlunde · 15th December 2016, 04:22 PM

Ken,
If you know who bought the lot with the swords and katar, please give me a PM.
Jens

Kmaddock · 15th December 2016, 05:18 PM

Hi Jens
Sorry I do not know who purchased the lot
Did you get my pm on the price the lot sold for
It was a lot of money so whom ever it was saw something of value in the lot.
Ken

Jens Nordlunde · 15th December 2016, 06:07 PM

Hi Ken,

No I dont think I got your PM - as I dont seem to be able to find it. Please send it again.
Jens

12th December 2016, 05:16 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,532	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	#2
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	#4
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

12th December 2016, 07:37 PM	#5
Ibrahiim al Balooshi Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Buraimi Oman, on the border with the UAE Posts: 4,408	A fair thing and moving to read is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Culloden where it recounts a British Army corporals story on the Highland Charge that day which ended in disaster... "When we saw them coming towards us in great Haste and Fury, we fired at about 50 Yards Distance, which made Hundreds fall; notwithstanding which, they were so numerous, that they still advanced, and were almost upon us before we had loaded again. We immediately gave them another full Fire and the Front Rank charged their Bayonets Breast high, and the Center and Rear Ranks kept up a continual Firing, which, in half an Hour's Time, routed their whole Army. Only Barrel's Regiment and ours was engaged, the Rebels designing to break or flank us but our Fire was so hot, most of us having discharged nine Shot each, that they were disappointed". Regards, Ibrahiim al Balooshi.

15th December 2016, 04:22 PM	#6
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Ken, If you know who bought the lot with the swords and katar, please give me a PM. Jens

15th December 2016, 05:18 PM	#7
Kmaddock Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Ireland Posts: 543	Hi Jens Sorry I do not know who purchased the lot Did you get my pm on the price the lot sold for It was a lot of money so whom ever it was saw something of value in the lot. Ken

15th December 2016, 06:07 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hi Ken, No I dont think I got your PM - as I dont seem to be able to find it. Please send it again. Jens