Please help on 1796 HC sword marks

katana · 10th March 2009, 01:41 PM

....A few thoughts..

I think we have to consider a sword's effectiveness by the 'damage' it can do. The evolution of weapons would be dictated by this. Also understanding the swords primary function ie cut or thrust also gives clues to the 'style' in which it was used and whether it was effective against opponents....for instance the British Government favoured the thrust in the late 19th C but a number of their adversaries prefered the 'cut' ....Indian Tulwars springs to mind.
I would think that the thrust would be an easier technique to master and any 'deep' stab wound would at least debilitate your enemy. The slash would require more skill, would be aimed at specific areas of the body but would be easier to 'parry'.

I also feel, that although 'gruesome', understanding the injuries (fatal or otherwise) received in battle gives us an insight into the world of the individuals that once wielded the swords. A sword fight is 'upclose' and 'personal' and I often wonder about the thoughts of those, standing on the battlefield , waiting for the order to attack .....

especially if they were the second wave ...with their comrades laying, dead or dying on the 'field'.

The symbolism of the sword was 'annointed' with blood ....and wielded with courage....without fully understanding the gruesome-ness ...we cannot fully appreciate that courage.

Regards David

Jim McDougall · 10th March 2009, 05:31 PM

Very good points Fernando, and I am really looking forward to seeing the knot as well as hearing more on provenance from the seller. I think there may be some good potential since as we agree, this weapon does not seem to have entered the 'general community' in antique arms salerooms.
What you note on the mysterious V stamp seems quite valid, and all the more puzzling as it seems far too professionally applied for a field mark that may have been placed by an individual trooper for identification. I know what you mean about a mans personal equipment, and trying to keep those items from being assimilated into others in the general population. As you note, the heavier and general items for distribution and return after use are quite another matter.
We will keep after the mystery on this as this sort of thing really gets me after a while, and I know there is surely some simple explanation out there!

Mark and David, outstanding perceptions on the actual effects of these weapons from the medical and observers standpoint, which as I noted are what I personally consider the most unsavory aspects of these studies.
It is indeed in some degree necessary to consider these in assessing the martial practicality of a weapon, how it is used, and of course does help us understand the dimension of the sheer horror, trauma and tragedy that these individuals faced.

I will admit, there is a certain 'train wreck' intrique within most of us in varying degree, which invariably draws our curiosity to reach into these depths in trying to gain dimensional understanding of what these battles and combats must have 'really' been like. As I noted, I have seen detailed studies that have dealt with the medical forensics of such things, and do provide an interesting , though disturbing approach. I think one of the most interesting treatments, which offered a great deal of the psychological effect of such trauma in battle, with some graphic detail, is "Face of Battle" by the late John Keegan. It is an outstanding view into these combats, that achieves, in my opinion, at least a good measure of what we are seeking in understanding these weapons and thier use, and one section is on Waterloo.

The comments by Mark on the thrust are well placed, and of course, the effects of cut vs. thrust were, as noted earlier, a controversy which was constantly debated in much the same technical approach in which modern weapons are often reviewed, quite impersonally. Concerning the matter of sepsis and the thrust, I will add that this was a factor well known, and that the lancers of cavalry units were much hated, due to the horrible and agonizing fate of thier victims, many of whom did not perish quickly and suffered the slowly fatal effects of septic thrust wounds. In battle and its aftermath, these troopers were given absolutely no quarter, and the rancor toward them typically brought immediate dispatch.

The symbolism of the sword is indeed multifaceted, and does represent the powerful elements of honor, tradition, chivalry and heroism, however, recognition of its annointment in blood presents the darker side of humanity and ironically recalls its unfortunate reason for being. In that perspective, we must of course, remember those who experienced the darkness and terror, and respect its sanctity in being held quietly at bay, in hopes that it need not go on.
I believe it was Gen. Robert E. Lee in the Civil War who said, it is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.

All best regards,
Jim

fernando · 15th March 2009, 05:02 PM

I have talked with the seller.
Not much on the provenance; only that it was part of a collection, inherited and sold by the family of militaries in Oporto.
The sword knot is back from the shoe maker. It was glued and not sewn, according to his opinnion; not an everlasting job, to my view, but it will do for the time being.
I wish i could discern those stamped letters. Possibly the first and larger one is a B; maybe some day this wil be the track for an ID .
It seems as the I GILL trade mark was active between 1803-1817. I still feed the conviction that this sword was on the field in Portugal, during Napoleonic invasions.

Fernando

.

Ian Knight · 16th December 2009, 08:39 AM

Hello guys,
This is my first post on this Forum although I have been a member on Sword Forum International for a number of years.
Fernando, I believe that I have just purchased a British P1796 HC sabre with Portuguese markings on the knuckleguard. The markings seem to attribute the sword to the 11th Regiment of Dragoons, 2nd troop. There is also a rack number or trooper number 45. I believe that this regiment was present at the Battle of Salamanca.
The sword was actually originally bought together with a French AN XI scabbard which had been altered to allow the sword to fit.
A very interesting piece.
Ian

Rick · 16th December 2009, 07:49 PM

Bump for Ian .

asomotif · 16th December 2009, 08:51 PM

Interesting thread, and congrats Fernando with this impressive sword !

Normally I go for the esthetics and beauty of weapons.
But some dicussion on usage and effects seems logical to me.

The "discussion" about thrust and slash intrigues me.
This is a HC (heavy cavalry) sword.
Straight, long, used for the thrust with a frontal attack.

Correct me if I am wrong, but in the same period armies would also have a "Light cavalry" ? The guys with the curved swords ie. mameluke sabres, being used for the slash.
So in a battle both techniques would be used.. Or not

Best regards,
Willem

Ps. excuse me for wandering of from the ethno forum. No offence intended

I have a 1908 pattern troopers sword in case you want me to change my avatar

Jim McDougall · 16th December 2009, 10:05 PM

Ian, thank you so much for joining us here!!!! not only that, but thank you for reviving this fantastic thread

I truly enjoyed the discussion on this one, and it brought forth some excellent details on these M1796 Heavy Cavalry swords.

As an interesting historical note, these huge cavalry swords were developed for the British cavalry from the Austrian M1769 disc hilt cavalry sword.
As a young officer serving with Austrian forces in Flanders, Major General John Gaspard LeMarchant saw the effective use of cavalry swords by the Austrians and sought to develop regulation sword patterns for the British cavalry.

The patterns of 1796 for light and heavy cavalry are of course known as the first officially recognized regulation pattern swords for the British cavalry, with the light cavalry sabre considered one of the deadliest sabres known in Europe at the time. The heavy cavalry sword was not so well received, but it cannot be denied that these were used with devastating effect.

While seemingly intended for thrusting, with the huge straight blades, the tips of the blades were radiused into a hatchet type point, which radiused into a deadly cutting profile intended for chopping type cuts.

The Battle of Salamanca was mentioned , and in a touch of tragic irony, Major General LeMarchant died at the head of his heavy cavalry brigade at this battle on 22 July 1812, with troopers of these regiments of dragoons carrying these very swords.

Again Ian, welcome!!! and Fernando, its great to see this fantastic sword again.
Ian could you please post photos of your M1796?

Willem, please do 'wander' here more often!!! and try to get some of the other guys to do the same

These forums are meant to complement each other , and hopefully the important connections between all these forms of arms and armor will be realized in both ethnographic and European context.

Very good questions you post, and as you have astutely noted, the European cavalry's did operate both heavy and light regiments in different functions in battle. The heavy was the shock action, intended to batter into the enemy positions, while the light was used in flanking attack, pursuit and before combat in reconaissance missions. The huge straight swords of the heavy were intended as earlier noted for heavy chopping action, as well as the thrust as required....while the light cavalry using curved sabres utilized slashing cuts in fast moving combat.

All very best regards,
Jim

P.S. Willem, dont change your avatar

but why not post your M1908?..a great pattern worthy of some interesting discussion

10th March 2009, 05:31 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Very good points Fernando, and I am really looking forward to seeing the knot as well as hearing more on provenance from the seller. I think there may be some good potential since as we agree, this weapon does not seem to have entered the 'general community' in antique arms salerooms. What you note on the mysterious V stamp seems quite valid, and all the more puzzling as it seems far too professionally applied for a field mark that may have been placed by an individual trooper for identification. I know what you mean about a mans personal equipment, and trying to keep those items from being assimilated into others in the general population. As you note, the heavier and general items for distribution and return after use are quite another matter. We will keep after the mystery on this as this sort of thing really gets me after a while, and I know there is surely some simple explanation out there! Mark and David, outstanding perceptions on the actual effects of these weapons from the medical and observers standpoint, which as I noted are what I personally consider the most unsavory aspects of these studies. It is indeed in some degree necessary to consider these in assessing the martial practicality of a weapon, how it is used, and of course does help us understand the dimension of the sheer horror, trauma and tragedy that these individuals faced. I will admit, there is a certain 'train wreck' intrique within most of us in varying degree, which invariably draws our curiosity to reach into these depths in trying to gain dimensional understanding of what these battles and combats must have 'really' been like. As I noted, I have seen detailed studies that have dealt with the medical forensics of such things, and do provide an interesting , though disturbing approach. I think one of the most interesting treatments, which offered a great deal of the psychological effect of such trauma in battle, with some graphic detail, is "Face of Battle" by the late John Keegan. It is an outstanding view into these combats, that achieves, in my opinion, at least a good measure of what we are seeking in understanding these weapons and thier use, and one section is on Waterloo. The comments by Mark on the thrust are well placed, and of course, the effects of cut vs. thrust were, as noted earlier, a controversy which was constantly debated in much the same technical approach in which modern weapons are often reviewed, quite impersonally. Concerning the matter of sepsis and the thrust, I will add that this was a factor well known, and that the lancers of cavalry units were much hated, due to the horrible and agonizing fate of thier victims, many of whom did not perish quickly and suffered the slowly fatal effects of septic thrust wounds. In battle and its aftermath, these troopers were given absolutely no quarter, and the rancor toward them typically brought immediate dispatch. The symbolism of the sword is indeed multifaceted, and does represent the powerful elements of honor, tradition, chivalry and heroism, however, recognition of its annointment in blood presents the darker side of humanity and ironically recalls its unfortunate reason for being. In that perspective, we must of course, remember those who experienced the darkness and terror, and respect its sanctity in being held quietly at bay, in hopes that it need not go on. I believe it was Gen. Robert E. Lee in the Civil War who said, it is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it. All best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 10th March 2009 at 05:57 PM.

15th March 2009, 05:02 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	I have talked with the seller. Not much on the provenance; only that it was part of a collection, inherited and sold by the family of militaries in Oporto. The sword knot is back from the shoe maker. It was glued and not sewn, according to his opinnion; not an everlasting job, to my view, but it will do for the time being. I wish i could discern those stamped letters. Possibly the first and larger one is a B; maybe some day this wil be the track for an ID . It seems as the I GILL trade mark was active between 1803-1817. I still feed the conviction that this sword was on the field in Portugal, during Napoleonic invasions. Fernando . Attached Images

16th December 2009, 08:51 PM	#6
asomotif Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,228	Thrust or slash ? Interesting thread, and congrats Fernando with this impressive sword ! Normally I go for the esthetics and beauty of weapons. But some dicussion on usage and effects seems logical to me. The "discussion" about thrust and slash intrigues me. This is a HC (heavy cavalry) sword. Straight, long, used for the thrust with a frontal attack. Correct me if I am wrong, but in the same period armies would also have a "Light cavalry" ? The guys with the curved swords ie. mameluke sabres, being used for the slash. So in a battle both techniques would be used.. Or not Best regards, Willem Ps. excuse me for wandering of from the ethno forum. No offence intended I have a 1908 pattern troopers sword in case you want me to change my avatar

16th December 2009, 10:05 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,194	Ian, thank you so much for joining us here!!!! not only that, but thank you for reviving this fantastic thread I truly enjoyed the discussion on this one, and it brought forth some excellent details on these M1796 Heavy Cavalry swords. As an interesting historical note, these huge cavalry swords were developed for the British cavalry from the Austrian M1769 disc hilt cavalry sword. As a young officer serving with Austrian forces in Flanders, Major General John Gaspard LeMarchant saw the effective use of cavalry swords by the Austrians and sought to develop regulation sword patterns for the British cavalry. The patterns of 1796 for light and heavy cavalry are of course known as the first officially recognized regulation pattern swords for the British cavalry, with the light cavalry sabre considered one of the deadliest sabres known in Europe at the time. The heavy cavalry sword was not so well received, but it cannot be denied that these were used with devastating effect. While seemingly intended for thrusting, with the huge straight blades, the tips of the blades were radiused into a hatchet type point, which radiused into a deadly cutting profile intended for chopping type cuts. The Battle of Salamanca was mentioned , and in a touch of tragic irony, Major General LeMarchant died at the head of his heavy cavalry brigade at this battle on 22 July 1812, with troopers of these regiments of dragoons carrying these very swords. Again Ian, welcome!!! and Fernando, its great to see this fantastic sword again. Ian could you please post photos of your M1796? Willem, please do 'wander' here more often!!! and try to get some of the other guys to do the same These forums are meant to complement each other , and hopefully the important connections between all these forms of arms and armor will be realized in both ethnographic and European context. Very good questions you post, and as you have astutely noted, the European cavalry's did operate both heavy and light regiments in different functions in battle. The heavy was the shock action, intended to batter into the enemy positions, while the light was used in flanking attack, pursuit and before combat in reconaissance missions. The huge straight swords of the heavy were intended as earlier noted for heavy chopping action, as well as the thrust as required....while the light cavalry using curved sabres utilized slashing cuts in fast moving combat. All very best regards, Jim P.S. Willem, dont change your avatar but why not post your M1908?..a great pattern worthy of some interesting discussion Last edited by Jim McDougall; 16th December 2009 at 10:17 PM.

10th March 2009, 01:41 PM	#1
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,658	....A few thoughts.. I think we have to consider a sword's effectiveness by the 'damage' it can do. The evolution of weapons would be dictated by this. Also understanding the swords primary function ie cut or thrust also gives clues to the 'style' in which it was used and whether it was effective against opponents....for instance the British Government favoured the thrust in the late 19th C but a number of their adversaries prefered the 'cut' ....Indian Tulwars springs to mind. I would think that the thrust would be an easier technique to master and any 'deep' stab wound would at least debilitate your enemy. The slash would require more skill, would be aimed at specific areas of the body but would be easier to 'parry'. I also feel, that although 'gruesome', understanding the injuries (fatal or otherwise) received in battle gives us an insight into the world of the individuals that once wielded the swords. A sword fight is 'upclose' and 'personal' and I often wonder about the thoughts of those, standing on the battlefield , waiting for the order to attack ..... especially if they were the second wave ...with their comrades laying, dead or dying on the 'field'. The symbolism of the sword was 'annointed' with blood ....and wielded with courage....without fully understanding the gruesome-ness ...we cannot fully appreciate that courage. Regards David

16th December 2009, 08:39 AM	#4
Ian Knight Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: East Sussex, England. Posts: 103	Hello guys, This is my first post on this Forum although I have been a member on Sword Forum International for a number of years. Fernando, I believe that I have just purchased a British P1796 HC sabre with Portuguese markings on the knuckleguard. The markings seem to attribute the sword to the 11th Regiment of Dragoons, 2nd troop. There is also a rack number or trooper number 45. I believe that this regiment was present at the Battle of Salamanca. The sword was actually originally bought together with a French AN XI scabbard which had been altered to allow the sword to fit. A very interesting piece. Ian

16th December 2009, 07:49 PM	#5
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	Bump for Ian .