18th century Gunners Stilleto?

kahnjar1 · 16th November 2011, 05:51 AM

Not particularly my field, but it looks from the pics that the pommel, quillons and badge/plaque are brass, which would likely point to naval use. If "normal" military use I would have thought iron/steel for these. I'm not good at decyphering this type of script, but is it RN? (Maybe Royal Navy??)
Nice interesting piece.
Regards Stu

Jim McDougall · 16th November 2011, 08:08 AM

Excellent points guys, and Ricks note on puncturing the powder bag is noted as a distinct use for the stilettos. The reference to numbering of cannon on ships is also well placed. I think these were typically like L4 for 4th position port and S 6 for 6th position starboard , in that fashion.
As Mark points out, there was a strong tendancy for tradition in the navy and often weapons remained in use long after ceasing in other circumstances.
Stu's note on the initials or letters seems interesting and it does seem possible that an N could be transposed over an R in ligature form , but as noted its hard to make out.
Mark, could these strange crenellations on the blade have anything to do with rigging? It seems boarding axes and knives etc. sometimes have notches or unusual features thought to relate to the arcane handling of these by seamen.
Still a gunners stiletto....but why not naval? It seems that many naval dirks are with unusually thin blades as well, though I dont presume they were used with the guns...just an observation .

fernando · 16th November 2011, 03:22 PM

If the number in the plate were to refer to a gun's number or its position in the vessel, that stylized monogram is not a good match; certainly not that of the dagger's owner, neither the initials of Royal Navy or the like. More plausible would be if they were the initials of the vessel's name ... but still.

On the other hand, if the monogram is that of the dagger's owner, then the digits would refer his number... either in the service ranks or aboard ship, like gunner # 43.

Noteworthy is the fact that the crenellations (per Jim) are only grooved in one of the dagger faces, not all round. Could this be to facilitate the breaking of the dagger's point, after plugging the cannon touch hole, to disable the enemy to take it off ?
... Just fantasies of mine

My guess on the monogram initials is; A (in bold, as the first), plus a B and a N ... or vice versa.

fernando · 16th November 2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

...I'm not good at decyphering this type of script, but is it RN? (Maybe Royal Navy??) ...

PLUS

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

... My guess on the monogram initials is; A (in bold, as the first), plus a B and a N ... or vice versa...

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY ?

kahnjar1 · 16th November 2011, 05:22 PM

The Royal AUSTRALIAN Navy did not exist until 1909. Prior to that, units of the Royal Navy were deployed, so not likely any connection there.

Jim McDougall · 16th November 2011, 06:54 PM

Excellent perspective Fernando, the monogram truly does not match the gun position idea, and a 'rack number' seems possible. It seems often naval weapons were 'racked' on board until they were dispensed as required.
Like Stu, I have difficulty discerning fluorished letters as seem in this ligature.

Im not sure the crenallations would be for spiking a gun aboard ship in the same way as in onland gun emplacements, they could not abandon the cannon without effectively leaving the ship. A ship was not abandoned unless it was sinking, in which case it would be a moot point.

I still wonder if these might serve some other utilitarian maritime use.

fernando · 16th November 2011, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Excellent perspective Fernando, the monogram truly does not match the gun position idea, and a 'rack number' seems possible. It seems often naval weapons were 'racked' on board until they were dispensed as required.
Like Stu, I have difficulty discerning fluorished letters as seem in this ligature.

Im not sure the crenallations would be for spiking a gun aboard ship in the same way as in onland gun emplacements, they could not abandon the cannon without effectively leaving the ship. A ship was not abandoned unless it was sinking, in which case it would be a moot point.

I still wonder if these might serve some other utilitarian maritime use.

One thing everyone agrees with; the scoops are there for some use ... they are hardly a decoration, right?

And one question: why necessarily a maritime dagger? just because the mountings are in brass, it is not obliging, is it?

Rick · 16th November 2011, 08:15 PM

Sure, and they could be cannon in a fortification too .

I would expect that one of these utensils would be issued to each gun crew .
This would probably have been in the posession of the gun crew captain .

Therefore the numbers ?

Question:
Powder bags were silk ?

fernando · 16th November 2011, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

... Question:
Powder bags were silk ? ...

Jute ?

M ELEY · 16th November 2011, 08:34 PM

No, a good point well taken. Brass doesn't cinch it as being maritime. It's just that so many of the naval dirks from all countries in the period we are talking still used dirks and many had these almost archaic stiletto blades on them (remember the American one from my collection). 19th c. dirks of this period wouldn't seem to have blades on them unless they were, as stated, strictly a gunner's dirk and thus, more of a tool. However, has anyone ever seen a gunner-piece of this late period? On ships, there were always strange innovations going on (Jim brings up the unique axe designs of the American navy, with grooves on them for dragging debris out of the way). This one is still a puzzler.
If naval, the crenulations might have had many odd uses, from acting as a fid to loosen knots, strip rope, carving, etc?
If a true gunner's stiletto, could the crenulations have been used just as a numbered blade in older times?(i.e. By counting the notches?). Jim noted the blades on these could be used to puncture the powder bag and I like the idea of breaking off the blade to spike the cannon (it would be weak near the crenulated point, after all).
I have a pic of a naval sword or dirk with a very similar hilt...gotta find it.

templarnight · 17th November 2011, 03:56 PM

Ive very much enjoyed your replies to this piece and I thank you.
The Dagger is a total of 55cm long, with a Blade 41.5cm. The maximum thickness of the Blade at the Forte is 8mm.
With regards to the Monogram I would say that it is RN, with No.43 below.
The serrations on the Blade start just under 7cm from the tip and runs for a length 4cm, finishing 2.7cm from the tip.
The channel in between the grooves is about half the thickness of the Blade deep.
I do agree that is possibly Naval.

fernando · 16th November 2011, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

The Royal AUSTRALIAN Navy did not exist until 1909. Prior to that, units of the Royal Navy were deployed, so not likely any connection there.

... just joking, mate

.

16th November 2011, 05:51 AM	#1
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,730	Not particularly my field, but it looks from the pics that the pommel, quillons and badge/plaque are brass, which would likely point to naval use. If "normal" military use I would have thought iron/steel for these. I'm not good at decyphering this type of script, but is it RN? (Maybe Royal Navy??) Nice interesting piece. Regards Stu

16th November 2011, 08:08 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	Excellent points guys, and Ricks note on puncturing the powder bag is noted as a distinct use for the stilettos. The reference to numbering of cannon on ships is also well placed. I think these were typically like L4 for 4th position port and S 6 for 6th position starboard , in that fashion. As Mark points out, there was a strong tendancy for tradition in the navy and often weapons remained in use long after ceasing in other circumstances. Stu's note on the initials or letters seems interesting and it does seem possible that an N could be transposed over an R in ligature form , but as noted its hard to make out. Mark, could these strange crenellations on the blade have anything to do with rigging? It seems boarding axes and knives etc. sometimes have notches or unusual features thought to relate to the arcane handling of these by seamen. Still a gunners stiletto....but why not naval? It seems that many naval dirks are with unusually thin blades as well, though I dont presume they were used with the guns...just an observation .

16th November 2011, 03:22 PM	#3
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,649	If the number in the plate were to refer to a gun's number or its position in the vessel, that stylized monogram is not a good match; certainly not that of the dagger's owner, neither the initials of Royal Navy or the like. More plausible would be if they were the initials of the vessel's name ... but still. On the other hand, if the monogram is that of the dagger's owner, then the digits would refer his number... either in the service ranks or aboard ship, like gunner # 43. Noteworthy is the fact that the crenellations (per Jim) are only grooved in one of the dagger faces, not all round. Could this be to facilitate the breaking of the dagger's point, after plugging the cannon touch hole, to disable the enemy to take it off ? ... Just fantasies of mine My guess on the monogram initials is; A (in bold, as the first), plus a B and a N ... or vice versa.

16th November 2011, 05:22 PM	#5
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,730	The Royal AUSTRALIAN Navy did not exist until 1909. Prior to that, units of the Royal Navy were deployed, so not likely any connection there.

16th November 2011, 06:54 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	Excellent perspective Fernando, the monogram truly does not match the gun position idea, and a 'rack number' seems possible. It seems often naval weapons were 'racked' on board until they were dispensed as required. Like Stu, I have difficulty discerning fluorished letters as seem in this ligature. Im not sure the crenallations would be for spiking a gun aboard ship in the same way as in onland gun emplacements, they could not abandon the cannon without effectively leaving the ship. A ship was not abandoned unless it was sinking, in which case it would be a moot point. I still wonder if these might serve some other utilitarian maritime use.

16th November 2011, 08:15 PM	#8
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,268	Sure, and they could be cannon in a fortification too . I would expect that one of these utensils would be issued to each gun crew . This would probably have been in the posession of the gun crew captain . Therefore the numbers ? Question: Powder bags were silk ?

16th November 2011, 08:34 PM	#10
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,076	No, a good point well taken. Brass doesn't cinch it as being maritime. It's just that so many of the naval dirks from all countries in the period we are talking still used dirks and many had these almost archaic stiletto blades on them (remember the American one from my collection). 19th c. dirks of this period wouldn't seem to have blades on them unless they were, as stated, strictly a gunner's dirk and thus, more of a tool. However, has anyone ever seen a gunner-piece of this late period? On ships, there were always strange innovations going on (Jim brings up the unique axe designs of the American navy, with grooves on them for dragging debris out of the way). This one is still a puzzler. If naval, the crenulations might have had many odd uses, from acting as a fid to loosen knots, strip rope, carving, etc? If a true gunner's stiletto, could the crenulations have been used just as a numbered blade in older times?(i.e. By counting the notches?). Jim noted the blades on these could be used to puncture the powder bag and I like the idea of breaking off the blade to spike the cannon (it would be weak near the crenulated point, after all). I have a pic of a naval sword or dirk with a very similar hilt...gotta find it.

17th November 2011, 03:56 PM	#11
templarnight Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 87	Ive very much enjoyed your replies to this piece and I thank you. The Dagger is a total of 55cm long, with a Blade 41.5cm. The maximum thickness of the Blade at the Forte is 8mm. With regards to the Monogram I would say that it is RN, with No.43 below. The serrations on the Blade start just under 7cm from the tip and runs for a length 4cm, finishing 2.7cm from the tip. The channel in between the grooves is about half the thickness of the Blade deep. I do agree that is possibly Naval.