Weird Mameluke sword

GrozaB · 27th April 2020, 09:01 PM

Again, you probably right on blade origin. The central fuller on my blade is bit under 9". And whole sword handles like cutting, not thrusting weapon. Of course you can thrust with this one, but it is bit heavy and slow for the job. In handles more like palash or backsword.

Bryce · 27th April 2020, 11:01 PM

This style of blade was common om British 1798 pattern basket hilt swords and 1796 heavy cavalry officer dress swords. I haven't come across one mounted on a mameluke hilt before.
Cheers,
Bryce

GrozaB · 27th April 2020, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bryce

This style of blade was common om British 1798 pattern basket hilt swords and 1796 heavy cavalry officer dress swords. I haven't come across one mounted on a mameluke hilt before.
Cheers,
Bryce

You nailed it!
I completely forgot it was two different 1796 Heavy Calvary swords...
Quick google search and I found bunch with very similar blades(31-34" long) and absolutely the same scabbard. Mystery solved, thank you very much!

Hotspur · 28th April 2020, 07:36 AM

Yes, the 1796 HC dress swords. In turn copied by the US almost entirely as our 1832-1833 general officer sword with left overs in turn adopted by centurion pommel militia officer swords with a short ricasso and fuller. Not to be confused with lesser militia swords (which became quite skinny after the 1860s), Another common denominator of the slim fullered broadsword blade of the 1796 HC dress lineage were the pistol grip US militia swords and some eagle head pommel swords. My own eagle baby broadsword blade is slimmer still and no fuller but with a short ricasso.

Cheers
GC

GrozaB · 29th April 2020, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hotspur

Yes, the 1796 HC dress swords. In turn copied by the US almost entirely as our 1832-1833 general officer sword with left overs in turn adopted by centurion pommel militia officer swords with a short ricasso and fuller. Not to be confused with lesser militia swords (which became quite skinny after the 1860s), Another common denominator of the slim fullered broadsword blade of the 1796 HC dress lineage were the pistol grip US militia swords and some eagle head pommel swords. My own eagle baby broadsword blade is slimmer still and no fuller but with a short ricasso.

Cheers
GC

So, what is your opinion - my sword has British, US roots or it is just some later compilation?

Hotspur · 29th April 2020, 05:30 AM

I wouldn't necessarily claim the blade from the 1796 era (possibly earlier) but the assembly (imo) was more likely to be English or European in unification.

Cheers
GC

Richard G · 29th April 2020, 09:44 AM

That 'one ringed' scabbard, if that is what it is, would be exceedingly rare, if not unknown, with a British sword.
Regards
Richard

27th April 2020, 11:01 PM	#2
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 174	This style of blade was common om British 1798 pattern basket hilt swords and 1796 heavy cavalry officer dress swords. I haven't come across one mounted on a mameluke hilt before. Cheers, Bryce Attached Images

28th April 2020, 07:36 AM	#4
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 493	Yes, the 1796 HC dress swords. In turn copied by the US almost entirely as our 1832-1833 general officer sword with left overs in turn adopted by centurion pommel militia officer swords with a short ricasso and fuller. Not to be confused with lesser militia swords (which became quite skinny after the 1860s), Another common denominator of the slim fullered broadsword blade of the 1796 HC dress lineage were the pistol grip US militia swords and some eagle head pommel swords. My own eagle baby broadsword blade is slimmer still and no fuller but with a short ricasso. Cheers GC Attached Images

27th April 2020, 09:01 PM	#1
GrozaB Member Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Chicago Posts: 32	Again, you probably right on blade origin. The central fuller on my blade is bit under 9". And whole sword handles like cutting, not thrusting weapon. Of course you can thrust with this one, but it is bit heavy and slow for the job. In handles more like palash or backsword.

29th April 2020, 05:30 AM	#6
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 493	I wouldn't necessarily claim the blade from the 1796 era (possibly earlier) but the assembly (imo) was more likely to be English or European in unification. Cheers GC

29th April 2020, 09:44 AM	#7
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 402	That 'one ringed' scabbard, if that is what it is, would be exceedingly rare, if not unknown, with a British sword. Regards Richard