Please help on 1796 HC sword marks

Jim McDougall · 7th March 2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Fernando,
Great sword

.Could the 'V' on the guard be the Roman numeral for 5 ?

Regards David

Outstanding David!! You're always thinkin' !!! Very good question, did units in Portugal use Roman numerals in marking weapons?

All the best,
Jim

fernando · 7th March 2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Outstanding David!! You're always thinkin' !!! Very good question, did units in Portugal use Roman numerals in marking weapons?

All the best,
Jim

Don't you know Jim, David is a born thinker

Hi, i am glad you popped in, David

I don't think this is a roman five. Maybe some kind of symbol, even an owner's mark, to distinguish it from others; i wish i knew.
Regimental/rack numbers are composed of a few letters and numbers. In fact i have just learnt that the 1796 pattern swords that were distributed to Portuguese cavalry bear such regimental markings, eventually in the scabbard(see example attached), so the probabability that this specific one was used by my country fellows is now more remote, although surely many thousands were used by local regiments and even military police, so i have also learnt.
Definitely this was a popular weapon around here; even King Dom Pedro IV (who became Emperor of Brazil), used one of the kind.
Oh, i have forgotten to mention that my example came with a leather sword knot, in a very bad shape ... much too dry and braking in certain parts. I have soaked it in castor oil, to try and return some 'life' to it, and next Monday i will take it to the shoe maker to try and sew the broken parts.
This knot by could in a way define the age of the sword, assuming that the sword user would not mind to acquire a new one in case the original got lost or destroyed. It happens that a webpage that is selling sword knot replicas pretends that the knot version i have, with an optional brass button, is the second model for this sword and appeared in 1821. I am therefore a bit disapointed, as i presumed that this sword was an earlier example. I will try and double check this knot information.
Well, at least the scabbard can't be newer than 1821, as this is the date Osborn & Gunby partnership ceased.
Fernando

.

Jim McDougall · 9th March 2009, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Don't you know Jim, David is a born thinker

Hi, i am glad you popped in, David

I don't think this is a roman five. Maybe some kind of symbol, even an owner's mark, to distinguish it from others; i wish i knew.
Regimental/rack numbers are composed of a few letters and numbers. In fact i have just learnt that the 1796 pattern swords that were distributed to Portuguese cavalry bear such regimental markings, eventually in the scabbard(see example attached), so the probabability that this specific one was used by my country fellows is now more remote, although surely many thousands were used by local regiments and even military police, so i have also learnt.
Definitely this was a popular weapon around here; even King Dom Pedro IV (who became Emperor of Brazil), used one of the kind.
Oh, i have forgotten to mention that my example came with a leather sword knot, in a very bad shape ... much too dry and braking in certain parts. I have soaked it in castor oil, to try and return some 'life' to it, and next Monday i will take it to the shoe maker to try and sew the broken parts.
This knot by could in a way define the age of the sword, assuming that the sword user would not mind to acquire a new one in case the original got lost or destroyed. It happens that a webpage that is selling sword knot replicas pretends that the knot version i have, with an optional brass button, is the second model for this sword and appeared in 1821. I am therefore a bit disapointed, as i presumed that this sword was an earlier example. I will try and double check this knot information.
Well, at least the scabbard can't be newer than 1821, as this is the date Osborn & Gunby partnership ceased.
Fernando

.

Hi Fernando,
Indeed he is!!!! a true weapons forensics scholar!! He always has me thinking too.....the words, 'why didnt I think of that?'

Good notes on the 'V', and I agree that this mark/numeral seems quite 'sterile' in the sense of that possible application, but still was a very good idea. Perhaps it might be a mark of acceptance as the weapon entered Portuguese stores? I dont think it would be an owners mark, as these troopers weapons were somewhat impersonally issued as I understand.
I think the closest they got to personal issue was a rack number.

The sword knot sounds interesting, good tip on the castor oil...although the presence of an original sword knot seems almost miraculous! It is incredibly seldom that these survive with these older swords, and suggests that this one was likely collected originally a very long time ago, and has remained relatively static since then. Such weapons tend not to repeatedly change hands, and then more personally rather than the saleroom circuits, where they get passed around indiscriminately, tending to lose such components and provenance related information along the way.

Again, a fantastic weapon with outstanding history, and its great to have it here to discuss. Thank you so much for sharing it!

All the best,
Jim

fernando · 10th March 2009, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...Good notes on the 'V', and I agree that this mark/numeral seems quite 'sterile' in the sense of that possible application, but still was a very good idea. Perhaps it might be a mark of acceptance as the weapon entered Portuguese stores?

I guess maybe yes ... but quicker maybe not ... i don't know. One particularity is that this symbol is perfectly punched and in a very accurate position, like for a technical purpose ... just wondering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I dont think it would be an owners mark, as these troopers weapons were somewhat impersonally issued as I understand.
I think the closest they got to personal issue was a rack number...

Maybe this is circumstancial; weapons would have rack numbers if they were used by personel residing in barracks and their weapons were stored in the racks in the end of the day or in other periodic context. Supposing they were distributed permanently to guys ? If you are on the field, in operational conditions, you tend to make a (micro) mark in your gear, not to be confused with that of your mates, or to avoid those that lost their items from grabing yours. I saw this happened (the marking), with gear that was not numbered ... bush knives, cartridge magazines and the like. What we consider impersonal is the heavy stuff we pick from the armoury to take in a operation and return by the end of the day, like the machine gun, the mortar and things like that; those that are not permanently distributed to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... The sword knot sounds interesting, good tip on the castor oil...although the presence of an original sword knot seems almost miraculous! It is incredibly seldom that these survive with these older swords, and suggests that this one was likely collected originally a very long time ago, and has remained relatively static since then. Such weapons tend not to repeatedly change hands, and then more personally rather than the saleroom circuits, where they get passed around indiscriminately, tending to lose such components and provenance related information along the way ...

Yes, this knot is authentic but also very tired; and amazingly it has some faded letters painted on its reverse. (I will try and picture those letters, after i try and sew the broken parts). This would reinforce the fact that the weapon was marked by its owner/user, but it then places the V punch in a riddle position.
I don't think this piece has been in sales rooms or auction circuits; more probably from somebody´s colletion or ancestor, i would guess.
I am dead waiting to visit the seller and hear what he has to say about this sword provenance. I will surely come back here to tell you guys all that i gather.

All the best

Fernando

M ELEY · 10th March 2009, 10:12 AM

Hmmm...I am also NOT a violent person, nor crave the bloodier aspects of edged weapons, but I do wish to argue the point of thrust being more deadly than slash. IN GENERAL, I would agree with you in that the sword, especially the rapier or heavy cavalry types used on horseback at full thrust, is mor lethal. BUT a skilled swordsman slashing at vital areas could be just as deadly or more. After all, a thrust to the thigh might be lethal, but a slash would more than likely sever the femoral artery. A thrust to the abdomen might puncture the liver, spleen or kidney, but the slash could disembowel or sever the mesenteric arteries. The thrust could puncture a lung or piece the heart, but the slash could sever the carotid arteries, lacerate the trachea or esophagus (a surprisingly fatal injury), plus it would seem that slashing injuries would be more prone to festering/sepsis/infection. I've been in the medical field for nearly 20 years and have seen my share of traumatic injuries from edged impliments (machetes, swords, switch blades, axes, etc) and can attest that it all comes down to the skill of the attacker. I did not mean to be so gruesome here, so I hope no one takes offense, but I do think this point needs to be made, especially in regards to fighting styles and different cultural forms of sword fighting. After all, nearly the entire samurai sword-fighting system relies on slashing/slicing blows and cuts vs the traditional thrust. I personally wouldn't want to be on the end of either one of them!

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

10th March 2009, 05:31 PM	#7
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,785	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.

10th March 2009, 10:12 AM	#5
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,076	Hmmm...I am also NOT a violent person, nor crave the bloodier aspects of edged weapons, but I do wish to argue the point of thrust being more deadly than slash. IN GENERAL, I would agree with you in that the sword, especially the rapier or heavy cavalry types used on horseback at full thrust, is mor lethal. BUT a skilled swordsman slashing at vital areas could be just as deadly or more. After all, a thrust to the thigh might be lethal, but a slash would more than likely sever the femoral artery. A thrust to the abdomen might puncture the liver, spleen or kidney, but the slash could disembowel or sever the mesenteric arteries. The thrust could puncture a lung or piece the heart, but the slash could sever the carotid arteries, lacerate the trachea or esophagus (a surprisingly fatal injury), plus it would seem that slashing injuries would be more prone to festering/sepsis/infection. I've been in the medical field for nearly 20 years and have seen my share of traumatic injuries from edged impliments (machetes, swords, switch blades, axes, etc) and can attest that it all comes down to the skill of the attacker. I did not mean to be so gruesome here, so I hope no one takes offense, but I do think this point needs to be made, especially in regards to fighting styles and different cultural forms of sword fighting. After all, nearly the entire samurai sword-fighting system relies on slashing/slicing blows and cuts vs the traditional thrust. I personally wouldn't want to be on the end of either one of them!

10th March 2009, 01:41 PM	#6
katana Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kent Posts: 2,653	....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