1822 British Lancer Mameluke

JT88 · 2nd February 2022, 07:03 PM

Understood, I think Osman was saying those Indian mounted blades are in fact Ottoman blades on Indian handles, but he can speak more to that.

I'm sure you've read Rivkin A Study of the Eastern Sword incredible book on this subject. Eastern Europe imitated the saber of the East, and I know Le Marchant derived his sword from Austrian Hussar blades, which they themselves copied the Hungarians who copied the Ottomans.

I know that when the British occupied Egypt in the early 1800s they looted a ton of mameluke blades (as did the French) it could've been acquired in that timeframe and likely put together in Britain.

I think we can assume the popularity of mamelukes arising from the completion of the Egyptian campaign in 1801. The French were surely bringing them home, but English troops in the area must've as well. So there is quite a wide range of time this sword could've been produced, if you have an idea when the 1822 regulation pattern went out of style that would be the top end, but they were being made earlier than that by a decade.

I think it can be ruled out from being a civilian sword, this is a fighting blade.

I don't own Robson, need to order it, but a friend did send the relevant pages to me to read.

The wootz sure does look good in those pictures! Need to update my guide, this sword was entirely different in its characteristics bringing the wootz out than the pala I posted earlier.

O. Baskurt · 2nd February 2022, 09:06 PM

Jack wootz has its own characteristic and chemistry also forging methods also heat treat methods effect its character so much. So etching it is really tricky. As you know personally i have many kilics from every period in my possession and almost all had different way to etch
Last kilic i own you withnessed by yourself end 15th century Mamluk kilic made by Mastersmith Misri which is really rare piece and only few in the world and its patterns was really hard comer as well cuz all his blades are like this cuz it is the chemistry. Another 16th century Ottoman kilics i owned i needed to etch them almost all with different etchants 18th 19th century blades i owned i had to etch with totally different and shamshirs were different as well cuz masterssmiths who made them were all different. But surely your blade has really amazing wootz patterns even style of Pattern is different than Indian Tulwars. Indian iron ores are so clean ores and their patterns are more smaller which is good thing actually. Wootz is precious for us nowadays and we want to see patterns so much cuz makes piece more unique and valuable in a way especially if it is watered patterns and big patterns but back in History it wasnt like this people were mirror polishing their blades ( prevent rust cuz they dont have access to tools like we do nowadays ) even at some point seeing patterns were kind of shame and smaller the pattern more quality the steel was.

Bryce · 3rd February 2022, 12:28 AM

Here is another example with a Persian? wootz blade, silver gilt mounts and leather scabbard.
Cheers,
Bryce

Bryce · 3rd February 2022, 02:44 AM

Here is one marked to an officer of the 82nd regiment of foot.
Cheers,
Bryce

JT88 · 3rd February 2022, 01:24 PM

Two good examples Bryce, is the first one marked to anyone? It does appear maybe to be a shamshir but Osman would know for sure.

Did either of these have dates? The few examples of leather worked scabbards are claimed to be before the 1822 regulation. All of the swords I've seen after are metal/velvet scabbards.

As for the .. let's call them acanthus leaves, that's what Cribb called them on the scabbard, this design I have solely seen on Lancer's marked blades see Dellar Pg 111-112 fig 12.6-7 12.9-10.

The other assumption we can possibly make is a timeframe, the blades in Dellar post about 1837 become slimmer and I would assume more a dress blade/ceremonial role instead of fighting blade Dellar fig 12.11-16. The same type of transformation the USN officer sword underwent in 1872.

So, a piece of this puzzle I cannot find maybe you can help with is the 1822 dress regulation written in full. Dellar paraphrases it, saying "the 9th, 12th, and 16th Lancer units were prescribed a "mameluke hilted" sword with a plain metal scabbard fr dress wear and a velvet-covered scabbard for full dress."

This adds to the evidence this sword is likely pre-1822 regulation with the leather. Or the leather was replaced, the leather does show a lot of age, so I take back my previous comments saying it could pre-regulation.

Bryce · 3rd February 2022, 09:24 PM

The first one was hall marked but I can't remember what the date was. I think it was in the range 1810-20. The second is dateable by the maker to 1813-17. Just to further emphasize how difficult your task to pin your sword to a particular regiment is, here is a mameluke in my collection marked to a Grenadier officer in the 45th regiment of foot circa 1811/12. It has a steel scabbard, but who is to say it didn't also have a leather scabbard for dress wear? I have seen this same type of hilt on several examples marked to cavalry officers. You are right in that the style of the scabbard bands on your sword are similar to those found on several examples marked to Lancer regiments, but there are also plenty of examples of other swords marked to Lancer regiments, with different styles of scabbard bands and hilts. Also the examples of lancer marked swords with the same scabbard bands as yours that I have seen, also have the same design on the cross guard, which yours doesn't. I am not saying that your sword didn't belong to a Lancer officer, it certainly could have, but it could also have belonged to an officer of any number of other regiments.
Cheers,
Bryce

JT88 · 4th February 2022, 04:26 AM

Fair points. At this point I think we can only break it down into knowns, possibilities and unknowns:

Known: ivory handle, ottoman blade 16-17th century by characteristics

Possibility: made pre 1822 regulation due to leather scabbard, Lancers by designs on scabbard

Unknown: maker of blade, maker of sheath

I think the designs on the scabbard NOT being found on anything other Lancers swords is semi-evidence of Lancer ownership. The regulation about scabbard material also points to pre-1822.

Incredible sword, was hoping to find more sources but doesn’t seem to be a ton on these anywhere. Dellars companion volume is in the mail.

kronckew · 4th February 2022, 02:41 PM

Bryce, I love that pipeback sword with the feathered tip!

I recall Prosser made similar wide pipebacks for officers in the very early 19c.

3rd February 2022, 12:28 AM	#3
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 174	Here is another example with a Persian? wootz blade, silver gilt mounts and leather scabbard. Cheers, Bryce Attached Images

3rd February 2022, 02:44 AM	#4
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 174	Here is one marked to an officer of the 82nd regiment of foot. Cheers, Bryce Attached Images

3rd February 2022, 01:24 PM	#5
JT88 Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 52	Two good examples Bryce, is the first one marked to anyone? It does appear maybe to be a shamshir but Osman would know for sure. Did either of these have dates? The few examples of leather worked scabbards are claimed to be before the 1822 regulation. All of the swords I've seen after are metal/velvet scabbards. As for the .. let's call them acanthus leaves, that's what Cribb called them on the scabbard, this design I have solely seen on Lancer's marked blades see Dellar Pg 111-112 fig 12.6-7 12.9-10. The other assumption we can possibly make is a timeframe, the blades in Dellar post about 1837 become slimmer and I would assume more a dress blade/ceremonial role instead of fighting blade Dellar fig 12.11-16. The same type of transformation the USN officer sword underwent in 1872. So, a piece of this puzzle I cannot find maybe you can help with is the 1822 dress regulation written in full. Dellar paraphrases it, saying "the 9th, 12th, and 16th Lancer units were prescribed a "mameluke hilted" sword with a plain metal scabbard fr dress wear and a velvet-covered scabbard for full dress." This adds to the evidence this sword is likely pre-1822 regulation with the leather. Or the leather was replaced, the leather does show a lot of age, so I take back my previous comments saying it could pre-regulation. Last edited by JT88; 3rd February 2022 at 01:36 PM.

3rd February 2022, 09:24 PM	#6
Bryce Member Join Date: Aug 2017 Location: North Queensland, Australia Posts: 174	The first one was hall marked but I can't remember what the date was. I think it was in the range 1810-20. The second is dateable by the maker to 1813-17. Just to further emphasize how difficult your task to pin your sword to a particular regiment is, here is a mameluke in my collection marked to a Grenadier officer in the 45th regiment of foot circa 1811/12. It has a steel scabbard, but who is to say it didn't also have a leather scabbard for dress wear? I have seen this same type of hilt on several examples marked to cavalry officers. You are right in that the style of the scabbard bands on your sword are similar to those found on several examples marked to Lancer regiments, but there are also plenty of examples of other swords marked to Lancer regiments, with different styles of scabbard bands and hilts. Also the examples of lancer marked swords with the same scabbard bands as yours that I have seen, also have the same design on the cross guard, which yours doesn't. I am not saying that your sword didn't belong to a Lancer officer, it certainly could have, but it could also have belonged to an officer of any number of other regiments. Cheers, Bryce Attached Images

2nd February 2022, 07:03 PM	#1
JT88 Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 52	Understood, I think Osman was saying those Indian mounted blades are in fact Ottoman blades on Indian handles, but he can speak more to that. I'm sure you've read Rivkin A Study of the Eastern Sword incredible book on this subject. Eastern Europe imitated the saber of the East, and I know Le Marchant derived his sword from Austrian Hussar blades, which they themselves copied the Hungarians who copied the Ottomans. I know that when the British occupied Egypt in the early 1800s they looted a ton of mameluke blades (as did the French) it could've been acquired in that timeframe and likely put together in Britain. I think we can assume the popularity of mamelukes arising from the completion of the Egyptian campaign in 1801. The French were surely bringing them home, but English troops in the area must've as well. So there is quite a wide range of time this sword could've been produced, if you have an idea when the 1822 regulation pattern went out of style that would be the top end, but they were being made earlier than that by a decade. I think it can be ruled out from being a civilian sword, this is a fighting blade. I don't own Robson, need to order it, but a friend did send the relevant pages to me to read. The wootz sure does look good in those pictures! Need to update my guide, this sword was entirely different in its characteristics bringing the wootz out than the pala I posted earlier.

2nd February 2022, 09:06 PM	#2
O. Baskurt Member Join Date: Oct 2015 Posts: 11	Jack wootz has its own characteristic and chemistry also forging methods also heat treat methods effect its character so much. So etching it is really tricky. As you know personally i have many kilics from every period in my possession and almost all had different way to etch Last kilic i own you withnessed by yourself end 15th century Mamluk kilic made by Mastersmith Misri which is really rare piece and only few in the world and its patterns was really hard comer as well cuz all his blades are like this cuz it is the chemistry. Another 16th century Ottoman kilics i owned i needed to etch them almost all with different etchants 18th 19th century blades i owned i had to etch with totally different and shamshirs were different as well cuz masterssmiths who made them were all different. But surely your blade has really amazing wootz patterns even style of Pattern is different than Indian Tulwars. Indian iron ores are so clean ores and their patterns are more smaller which is good thing actually. Wootz is precious for us nowadays and we want to see patterns so much cuz makes piece more unique and valuable in a way especially if it is watered patterns and big patterns but back in History it wasnt like this people were mirror polishing their blades ( prevent rust cuz they dont have access to tools like we do nowadays ) even at some point seeing patterns were kind of shame and smaller the pattern more quality the steel was.

4th February 2022, 04:26 AM	#7
JT88 Member Join Date: Jun 2021 Posts: 52	Fair points. At this point I think we can only break it down into knowns, possibilities and unknowns: Known: ivory handle, ottoman blade 16-17th century by characteristics Possibility: made pre 1822 regulation due to leather scabbard, Lancers by designs on scabbard Unknown: maker of blade, maker of sheath I think the designs on the scabbard NOT being found on anything other Lancers swords is semi-evidence of Lancer ownership. The regulation about scabbard material also points to pre-1822. Incredible sword, was hoping to find more sources but doesn’t seem to be a ton on these anywhere. Dellars companion volume is in the mail.

4th February 2022, 02:41 PM	#8
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,152	Bryce, I love that pipeback sword with the feathered tip! I recall Prosser made similar wide pipebacks for officers in the very early 19c.