![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,178
|
![]()
Despite the commonness of the briquet, i think the history behind it is quite fascinating. Already, I have been illuminated by information presented by others here. For a munitions grade weapon, this little booger spread to multiple nations across the globe (I even recall seeing an example in the past with Turkish or at least Arabic markings!). Mexico, Central America, the Germanic states, Denmark, Sweden, etc, all had this pattern. When you think about this sword, it really was kind of the beginning of mass production of a simple sword type. The pattern of swords that came from these, including the forestry swords with their saw-back blades, were the ultimate utility items of the period, used to chop wood, build fascines, and as a weapon in a worst case scenario. Do I have a whole collection of these? No, but I still think they are cool and hope to get one of the rarer naval anchored pieces someday-
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 189
|
![]()
G'day Jim,
Apart from the references you cited I haven't found any convincing evidence that these briquets were used by British royal artillery gunners. There is plenty of evidence that they were using the "Spanish" pattern sword, which has a straight blade from around 1800 - 1820. A quick search of the internet throws up numerous examples with British maker marks from this time period. There is a good article by Henry Yallop on the Royal Armouries site here: https://collections.royalarmouries.o...ative-498.html Perhaps they may have used the briquet earlier than this? I think you would need to find a clearly British marked example to convince me. Cheers, Bryce |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,380
|
![]()
Hi Bryce,
There is nothing wrong with skepticism, as an obsessive researcher myself, I often entertain same, which compels me to look harder for evidence. As has been noted, these extremely common weapons, produced cheaply and in remarkable volume, seem somewhat disdained (of course) by the other ranks who used them in artillery units. As I noted in my post #25, from Brian Robson, 1975, but did not note the page (154), concerning the briquet in British service, I think adding more of the context might help: "...in the early years of the 19th c. ordinary artillerymen were armed with a short curved sword with a straight brass knucklebow hilt, CLOSELY SIMILAR TO THE FRENCH INFANTRY SWORD (BRIQUET) OF ANIX (1800-01) AND ANXI (1802-03)." * ref: Bottet, plate II, #3 "...this type of sword is shown in a painting at Windsor Castle by Denis Dighton,dated 1813, entitled "Royal Horse Artillery dislodging French Cavalry". ref: Royal Library Catalog #15044 "...and in Charles Hamilton Smith's "Costumes of the Army of the British Empire" ref: Royal Artillery plate 46, issued 1 Feb. 1815. Here is where is gets confusing: "...this is almost certainly the sword referred to in the report of the Select Committee on Artillery Equipment (1819), 'the Sub-Committee beg to remark that the sword with which the Artillery men are now armed is in itself a very inefficient weapon for any purpose". ref: Proceedings of the Royal Artillery Institution , PRAI, Vol. 1. pg. 94 "...it was also the sword referred to as THE SPANISH PATTERN HANGER, which was in use in 1820 and which continued to be worn by gunners and drivers attached to field guns until 1826". ref: PRAI Vol.1, pg. 186. The Bottet ref. was, De l'Arme Blanche 1789-1870 et De l' Arme Feu Portative 1718-1900, M. Bottet, Paris, 1959. In this Robson reference, it seems these 'briquets' were in use by British artillery in the early 19th century, about the time of the presumed Storr production I have theorized, probably more at the turn of the century. The type or character of the briquet in British use is illustrated in the painting by Denis Dighton (1813) COMPARING IT TO THE FRENCH BRIQUET OF 1801-03. What I am wondering is if the 'Spanish pattern hanger' could be incorrectly termed as here my impression is that the briquet (of French form) is the sword described in these proceedings. The Spanish pattern illustrated in the article linked has a hussar style cavalry hilt similar to the light dragoon sabers of 1780 (pattern) for British cavalry, noting again that the 'Spanish' association was simply for use in the Peninsula. Or, were there two types? one of briquet form as my example, or the one in the article and multiple examples of its form suggested. I think the best analogy to describe the situation with the dearth of these briquets, in general, let alone British examples, and especially marked ones, is simply as Fernando noted, these are hardly collectible, or sought after (except for a few of us ![]() The brass in the hilts was a useful commodity, and these were undoubtedly melted down as scrap. Military history accounts and narratives seldom EVER describe edged weapons used in campaigns or battles, but firearms, cannon and even thier ammunition is included in detail. Few are interested in the lowly privates, or their weapons save a few of these valued artists . In my early years of collecting (60s and 70s) the authors I have mentioned were 'the' authorities on the regulation military patterns, forms and unusual types in use. Blair was renowned as an arms historian, and Wilkinson-Latham was well placed with his access to records to accomplish his incredible knowledge. Naturally all authors face revision and rebuttal as new evidence comes available, but I felt that these observations of these gentlemen were sound so have remained in acceptance of what they have said and shown as well as the work of Robson in 1975. However, I too would welcome a significantly marked example with British provenance, but the evidence I have gathered over these years for me is OK at this point. The 'ref' notes from the Robson text are the footnotes for each of these comments. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 189
|
![]()
Thanks Jim,
I knew I had seen the illustrations you quoted, but I couldn't find them. Here they are and both show a straight bladed sword with a brass, straight stirrup guard and black grip, not a briquet. Cheers, Bryce |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,380
|
![]()
Hi Bryce,
Thank you for these illustrations, which very much show the kind of 'Spanish pattern' you have described and in the article you linked. Now my quandry is............why did Robson describe the 'briquet' as compared the the French ANIX and ANXI swords, which he was described as short and CURVED? Further, why did highly reputable authors such as Blair and Wilkinson-Latham show illustrations (Blair's was in a panel of line illustrations); Wilkinson-Latham's was a photo...........while his caption notes there is a marking on the blade which he believes may be 'Trotter', who I think was a cutler of the late 18thc early 19th period. While the 'Spanish pattern' evidence is profound, and there seems no doubt of course that the artillery men were using it, I am wondering if there is a case for some alternate situation in artillery ranks. The wording FOOT ARTILLERY seems to have been applied to the captions in the briquets I have used as cites, which both match my example. Could there be some difference in unit structure or simply terminology? Again, why the comparison to 'curved' French ANIX and ANXI briquets as were well known in their infantry. Could there have been infantry units assigned to artillery in some capacity to afford defense to the working gun crews? I guess after having this sword unresolved in identification with its curious initialed cartouche, and finally coming up with a good (and exciting) hypothesis, I am reluctant to let go yet ![]() There have been numerous cases like this with my often unusual collection from decades ago (the briquet I got in 1966), one other was a M1796 British light cavalry saber. I know it was British (made by Thomas Bate). It was well worn and darkly patinated, with a curious squared notch in the exact tip of the blade, not damage but a deliberate square. Most baffling was the langet had the letters CsA 4 inscribed. Naturally I thought I had 'scored' a Confederate sword (they were known to use numbers of British swords). However, every venue of research and contacts with authorities on Civil War arms insisted, these were NOT Confederate markings. Disappointed, I then came up with the convoluted idea that it might be Spanish colonial (Charles IV)....but no sound conclusion. Then a revelation, it was suggested that perhaps the letters COULD be marks for the armory of Castel sant Angelo, in the Vatican! In the wars of unification in late 1860s, men came from throughout the Catholic realm including Great Britain to defend the Pope. So while not conclusive, still compelling and I published it as such in the Swedish journal 'Varia' (2004). It had been nearly 30 years in research. Such are my 'cold cases' and this one is clearly another. Obviously, the true story behind these and many old weapons can seldom be confidently resolved. But compelling resolution is at least of some use as long as options are all offered. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,626
|
![]()
Hi Jim,
Here is another ANXI sabre of mine for comparison of a similar vintage to the first and has not been modified. The P.D.L. is a later stamp that signifies Propriete De L'Etat meaning Property of the State and was probably marked as such when it was assigned to the National Guard post 1831. My Regards, Norman. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]()
For whatever is worth, Jim's Briquet, potentially not being British production, shows no undeniable evidence of being French, as it does not bear the traditional poinçons, those applied at KLINGENTHAL.
Notwithstanding plenty other casters/makers produced them in non State facilities ... as it appears. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 | |
(deceased)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 9,694
|
![]() Quote:
Only later they came out with 'short' sabers resembling Briquets, with slightly longer blades; the first one in 1818 and another (similar) in1822; the 1818 later in 1879 ressurected with a slighly different blade. Despite their hilt being practically a twin of the Sabre Briquet, never a word is written about such 'inspiration'; at least in my Barceló Rubí's work copy. . |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 189
|
![]()
G'day Jim,
We have one great advantage now that previous generations of sword researchers didn't have - the internet! With a few clicks of the mouse we can view more examples of any particular type of sword in one morning, than these older guys could have seen in a lifetime of collecting. Cheers, Bryce |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,380
|
![]() Quote:
Absolutely Bryce! I recall some years ago when I spoke of my early days of research B.C. (=before computers), and Andrew quipped, "..yeah Jim, but they still had papyrus didn't they?" ![]() I can recall sending snail mail letters with overseas postal reply coupons, and my letters eventually responded to in weeks (if lucky), many months, and incredibly some took years. As I recount my 'years' of research on these weapons, those factors considered as well as the dearth of books on the arms gave limited possibiility for the kind of outcomes we have today. As one of those 'older' guys (I am 75 now) ![]() Still I treasure my hardbound books, many by the wonderful old sages of arms now gone, and still have the yellowed old letters in the pages. It is wonderful to have those memories, and at the same time have the amazing new technology and honestly the astute brilliance of the 'new centurions' coming into the world of arms study. I still welcome learning every day, and often actually from them ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|