Let's Talk British Swords

[Brian Wolfe]

British Swords Spoken Here.

 

For some time now it has been my intention to write several posts regarding the British sword, keeping them as brief as possible, I think shorter posts are best.  Please feel free to leave comments as well as your opinions; this is intended to be a learning exercise, for me as much as I intend it to be for you.  It should be stated straight away that I am not an expert on swords, their identification, history or their use; just an obsessive enthusiast.

 

My background is in martial arts which includes the proper use of the Japanese Katana in the style of the 1650’s which involves, for lack of a better term, the “quick draw”.  This involves drawing your weapon and making an upward strike, left to right, or horizontal cut again left to right. After which you are going to block your opponent’s sword strike provided either you or your antagonist are still “alive”.  Of course no one is actually “fighting” or sparing in this form of practise. This form is called Iaito.  The other form I studied is called Toyama Ryu and is sparing with dull steel blades, actually we used wooden swords called a Bokken.  You can check out a good video on YouTube under Toyama Ryu.  It is a lot harder than it looks when you are on the Dojo floor in front of your Sensi and the class.  Yes the white belts always seem to back up a lot; really makes you work hard to “kill” the little buggers. 

 

The other sword form I studied was European fencing with an Epee. The word epee basically means “sword” and is the heaviest of the three swords used in the sport; the three swords are, foil, epee and sabre.  The foil and the epee are thrusting weapons only and only a hit with the tip counts.  The sabre scores with either the point or the edge of the weapon just like the real sabres of old.  A word of warning; I started fencing far too late in life (mid 30s) and today my right knee (forward knee if you are right handed) gives me a lot of trouble.

 

My point for giving my credentials is that I do know something about swords and their use, not just some of the history that I have read in books.  From Japanese sword use I learned the cut or slash and from Western style fencing I learned how to “give point” or the thrust. I chose the epee as it was the closest thing to using a British small sword of the mid to late 1700’s. Both systems taught me how to block or parry an opponent’s sword.

 

My intended range of my posts will be from around 1796 to 1912, which takes in the Battle of Waterloo up to the last Pattern developed, the 1912 Officer’s Cavalry Sabre.  Anything older such as medieval broad swords is just too expensive to own and I like to own what I study. If you like the older sword reproductions then two thumbs up from me but they are just not within my interest range.  I may also talk about other swords from different parts of the world in giving examples of parallel sword development, evolution if you will, in different countries at approximately the same time period.  In these cases I may have to use pictures from books as well as photos from books of swords I have yet to acquire. I’ll always give credit to the book and the author.

 

So If I have not frightened you off or bored you to tears let’s talk British swords.

 

Regards

Brian

 

Part of my collection is pictured below.

 

[Brian Wolfe]

Were British Cavalry Swords Substandard?

 

 

With the ending of the Napoleonic era (1815) peace settled over the island of England, but not over the whole of the Empire itself.  Many, if not most, historians will tell you there were numerous “small wars” flaring up keeping the British military busy putting out the flames before they turned into infernos.  With this era, the mid 1800’s, there came the Bayonet and Sword Scandals.  I covered the Bayonet Scandal in a resent blog but left the talk of swords, cavalry swords in particular, for discussion in this area of the forum.  I would say that the Indian Rebellion or Sepoy Mutiny of 1857 saw more use of cavalry and therefore cavalry sabres than had been seen since the Battle of Waterloo at the end of the Napoleonic Wars mentioned above.

 

Before we go any further I feel I must state why I am referring to this period in the long history of India as a “mutiny” and not a war of independence or a general rebellion of the Indian people as a whole against the British Raj.  While the struggle involved more than just Indian soldiers and troopers, there was the issue of a mutiny, that is to say any soldier upon taking an oath of allegiance is bound by that oath; deviation from those terms constitutes an act of mutiny.  I make no political observations by that statement only to say that for the sake of this discussion it is one military body against the other and involves the swords of both sides regardless of which side wields them.

 

One of the criticisms of the British Cavalry Sabre was that it was consistently dull, being unable to maintain a sharp edge for any length of time.  Compared with the Indian tulwar, the sword of choice by the Indian mutineers and their supporters, the British sabre was often called a “bludgeoning” weapon by its critics. Another flaw according to some was the incidences of the sword blade bending and even breaking upon impact with the enemy’s weapon.  The complaints regarding poor hand protection offered by hand guards of the era is a subject I will reserve for future posts.

 

Photo below shows the Pattern 1853 British Cavalry Troopers Sabre and an Indian Tulwar which we will use for the first discussion.

 

I have selected a tulwar that, while it looks quite a bit shorter than the British Cavalry Sabre (and it is) it is at the same time one of the larger tulwars you might find.  I do have a larger example which almost matches the 35¼ inch British sabre blade but I wanted discuss the two sword types that might have opposed each other on the battle field as my examples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian Wolfe]

Pattern 1853 British Cavalry Sabre

 

The 1853 Cavalry Sabre was designed as a “cut and slash” weapon with the emphasis on “giving point”, that is to say, for thrusting or stabbing and not cutting (slashing).  The British were almost obsessed with designing the perfect sword and a thrusting sword was considered superior to the cutting sword.  There were few complaints regarding the ability of the 1853 to perform well as a thrust centric weapon, the complaints came in regard to its ability or lack of ability to be a good cutter.  At times on the battle fields of the Sepoy Mutiny a number 7 cut (straight down) to the head of an enemy wearing a thick turban would render the combatant unconscious or dead due to massive head trauma. In other words the 1853, in this case, didn’t cut but acted as a bludgeon, bashing in the poor fellow’s head.  

 

One of the aspects of the thrust (giving point) that was supposedly better than a cut was that a cut was not necessarily always fatal; however the thrust had a greater chance of rendering your opponent dead.  Napoleon was said to have exclaimed, “Ne sabrez pas! Pointez! Pointez! ( No sabring! Give point! Give point!).  On the other hand there are many accounts of a soldier running an opponent through and the fellow still advancing right to the hilt and dealing a death blow to the soldier, both to die on the battlefield together.  A cut tends to stop or slow down a charging opponent better, even if he was to survive the first cut he would most likely be subjected to a thrust once he was down or at least stopped.

 

So why were British cavalry sabres always dull?  Well, they weren’t, at least not to start with.  All swords and sabres were sharpened to razor sharpness before starting out on campaign.  There are many accounts of a British cavalry trooper completely slicing an enemy in half diagonally.  One of the favourite “sword tricks” of the British was to slice a silk handkerchief in half by simply laying the cloth on the blade (sharp edge up) and with a slicing motion severs the handkerchief in half. 

 

The problem was not with the sharpening it was with the means of carrying the sabre while out on campaign.  British cavalry troopers and officers always carried their sabres in a steel scabbard with the blade facing the ground.  The sharpest blade soon becomes quite dull under these circumstances.

 

As I have stated the Pattern 1853 was not designed as a cutting only sabre but as a thrusting weapon.  One of the problems with this is that, it was said, once a trooper got into a melee, or close combat, the natural urge to slash became overwhelming.  I personally think this was out of necessity as you need space to thrust with a 35 inch basically straight blade. Experiments done here at “The Home Office” (aka my back yard) shows that you need at least 24 inches between your body and your opponent’s body in order to give point.  This is if you can successfully draw your sabre back far enough to get that space needed.  On the other hand if you slash using your left hand pushing on the back of the blade to give the sabre the proper cutting weight you reduce that space to around eight inches. Of course at that point you are pretty well grappling with your enemy, which often happened.

 

In summary the Pattern 1853 Cavalry Sabre was every bit as good as the tulwar provided it could be kept in a state of razor sharpness. This, keeping in mind the sabre action is more of an arcing cutting slash rather than the pull and/or thrust slash of the tulwar. This we will discuss in the next instalment.

 

[Brian Wolfe]

The Indian Tulwar

 

The curved sabre used in India for centuries, known as the tulwar, was the preferred, non firearm, weapon used by the Indians opposing the British during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. The term “Sepoy” is the Indian equivalent of the British rank of Private.  I will not go into the causes and actions taken during this uprising as we are only dealing with the weapons themselves.

 

A tulwar is a curved sword that is best suited for the cut or slash as opposed to the thrust or “giving point”.  The British believed that the Indian schools of swordsmanship did not teach giving point, possibly due to the extreme curve of the blade making it look like it could not deliver a thrust if it had to.  This was not completely true as while a straight forward thrust was not as practical as the cut it could be done.  In fact it has been documented that British troopers upon missing their intended target and in passing the antagonist were stabbed in the back when the Indian struck in a curving arc thereby actually giving point.  The myth was based on false assumptions drawn from the ignorance of the vast variety of Indian swords. Fighting schools throughout India not only taught the use of the curved tulwar but many forms of straight bladed swords designed primarily for giving point, or thrusting.  There was also no need to spend a great deal of time teaching how to parry with the sword as the Indian fighters used a buckler, or small shield, with which they parried their opponent’s thrust or cut then delivered their own strike.

 

The shape of the blade in cross section was also a long thin taper as opposed to the steeper bevel of European sword blades.  It could be argued that the tulwar was more fragile and they did on occasion break but overall they held up very well.  Any sword will break if the block or parry is made too close to the tip rather than on the bottom one third of the blade.  The closer to the hand guard the better.  Any blade might also break if struck hard enough on the flat of the blade.  This was almost impossible for the tulwar due to the shape of the handle allowing for better control, or indexing, of the blade.

 

The cut of the tulwar was delivered mainly with the forearm and wrist action.  Literally, with a flick of the wrist an Indian swordsman could remove an enemy’s hand. One practise of the mutineers was to slide under the British cavalry horse from the side and with one slash open up the horse’s belly. There are stories of heads being severed in half horizontally just above the eyes and limbs or legs being decapitated are not uncommon. Interestingly, the British took a lesson for the Indians and started to wrap their head gear with twisted lengths of cloth forming a turban to protect from tulwar cuts. Even the cork or pith helmet alone was some protection from tulwar slashes. 

 

So why were the Indian tulwars able to maintain their sharpness while their British counterparts burdened with dull sabres? Again it has nothing to do with the steel used or the techniques of sharpening.  It is the method of carrying the tulwar that is the secret.  Indian tulwars are carried in a wooden scabbard wrapped in leather or cloth then slid into the waste belt.  By not having the sharp edge rubbing against a steel scabbard day in and day out the tulwar maintained it edge.  Another advantage of the wooden scabbard was in the ease or repair or replacement over the steel tube scabbard of the British trooper.

 

Regards

Brian

 

[coldstream]

Brian,

Thanks for posting this very informative and well presented article. Your Sword collection and its display is of the highest order.

I look forward to seeing more as you get the time.

Best regards Simon.

[Brian Wolfe]

Thanks Simon, my intention is to make this section a "go to" destination for people interested in British swords and their use.  I am a bit concerned that there seems to me to be  too little interest in British history here on the GMIC. I could be wrong but the only way to correct that. providing I am correct, is to start to post about British history rather than sitting here complaining; which is what old guys like me do best. 

Regards

Brian

[Brian Wolfe]

Quality:

 

One of the flaws attributed to the British cavalry swords of the 1850’s was that the blades were of very poor quality.  These, it was said, were made in Germany and sold to sword makers in Britain at a lower price, ending in a poor quality weapon.  True this no doubt happened and in fact some sellers would place proof marks on blades that were never put through quality assurance testing.  However, there were many very good quality blades produced in Germany for the British and even the Indian market.  You can find Indian tulwars on the collector’s market today with British, German and Indian made blades of exceptional quality.  I have an example of a Pattern 1853 Cavalry Trooper’s Sabre in my collection that is marked with a visored helmet motif to indicate the German maker, Kirschbaum, and also stamped with an “I” on the back edge of the blade by the British indicating it was for use by their troops serving in India.  This seems to be an excellent quality blade.  I do not believe that the British sword blades, even those from Germany, were of poor quality overall, some no doubt were, but not to the extent that was reported by the press of the day. 

 

So why would some officers even use a poor quality blade in the first place?  We need to remember that at this time period positions in the army or cavalry were purchased.  This meant that the new officer, while highly educated and socially refined knew little to nothing about what was expected of him on the battlefield. In addition to this the purchase of his entry rank most likely left him with little to spend on uniforms (he needed several) and other equipment such as his sword. Firearms were not issued to officers and they were required to purchase their own if indeed they wanted to carry one.  When a young officer went to a “tailor” to be outfitted with his uniform he often had the opportunity to purchase his sword from the same supplier.  If the tailor was out to maximize his profit margin then the swords he was offering might vary greatly in their quality.  Even for the common cavalry trooper the quality might vary depending on which blade maker was supplying the sword makers in England who then supplied the military with the swords that were then issued to the troopers. 

 

 

 

The practise or purchasing your rank in the army (including cavalry) sounds rather ridiculous today and I will admit that I often wondered how this came to be.  While I was researching this post I delved into this question and found what might be the answer.  I’ll admit that the solution to my question comes from only one source so you decide whether you want to accept it or not. During the English Civil War c. 1650 Oliver Cromwell (leader of the opposition to the King) made changes in the military, one of those changes was to promote officers through the ranks based on merit. This seemed to be a very positive change and in today’s thinking makes a great deal of sense. However once the Civil War had settled down and a new King on the thrown it was noted that the army officers held rather revolutionary ideas and were at the same time viewed as being rather crude and brutish.  This was when it was decided that in order to fill the upper ranks of the military with members of the gentry the government would offer to sell rank to the privileged.  The so-called lower members of society would be excluded and the officer’s positions filled with men of quality, better educated and refined; in other words more apt to support a monarchy than make moves to copy the French and revolt. Much has been written about the problems associated with the purchase system but in all fairness many great military leaders came from the upper class and purchased their entry level rank; The Duke of Wellington being one of the best examples.

In the forward to Janusz Jaroslawshi’s book, “The British Pattern 1796 Cavalry Sword and Other Derivatives”, Tadeusz M. Klupezynski writes,

 

“There were special price lists of specified amounts that had to be paid in order to obtain a certain officer rank in the individual regiments. Such a dealings did not miss as well as Arthur Wellseley Wellington, who twice- by borrowed money- bought himself a promotion to higher rank to accelerate his career in military advancement.  Perhaps, without these “purchases” if the indigent Irish nobleman had been promoted only in connection with the military service, the transformation of the British army would never have happened, there would not have been a Waterloo and the Napoleonic era would have had a completely different course, and perhaps over the Houses of Parliament in London would be a tricolor French flag today.” [sic].

 

Certainly a sobering thought and perhaps the most positive reinforcement of the success of the purchase program for its day. While it is good to point out the positive side of a topic that has been held as a negative condition of the early British army we shouldn’t dismiss this as purely politically driven criticism. The successes and achievements of the British army of the distant past owes much to the few brilliant leaders and much more to the perseverance and determination of the common soldier.

 

Regards

Brian

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian Wolfe]

Bent and broken Sword Blades

Bent Blades

During the time of the Indian Mutiny (1857) there was a great many reports of British swords failing in battle.  These, I believe, were the Pattern 1853 and in some cases the Pattern 1821 Cavalry Sabre which was in use at the time.  These failures were in the nature of broken and bent blades in addition to the more common complaint of failing to cut as covered in an earlier post. As a thrusting sword the Pattern 1853 tends to flex a bit too much to be an effective thrust centric weapon.  Upon contact with an enemy wearing a thick coat and perhaps several layers of clothing the blade will bow rather than remaining straight as would a stiffer blade, such as the later Pattern 1908 Cavalry Sabre.  This could result in breakage or severe bending of the blade; a bend that may very well remain until time allowed the trooper to straighten the weapon.  Of course in the heat of battle a severely bent blade could well result in the death of the trooper. All Pattern 1853 blades would certainly bend and any blade that would bend had the potential to break if stressed beyond the tolerance point.  As I have mentioned before, any sword blade can bend or break given the correct circumstances. Even the highly praised tulwar used by the mutineers was noted to have bent from time to time. If one takes into account the number of bent British blades compared to bent tulwars as the determining factor as to the quality of British blades then you have missed one important fact.  Tulwars were only designed to cut and even though it could be argued that it is technically possible to thrust with the tulwar it is extremely difficult.  This is evident upon simply looking at the sword and the direction the tip would be pointing if the tulwar was used to thrust.  The British Pattern 1853 was designed as a cut and thrust weapon. The British trooper was encouraged to employ the thrust over the cut, and in the case of the blocking of the enemy’s cut followed by a thrust, the blade if it failed to penetrate the target could very well flex and therefore possibly develop a bend. This is magnified if the trooper was on the gallop and using his sabre in the same manner as a lance, upon giving point, failure to puncture through thick clothing cold very well bend or break the blade. A good deal of this, penetration or deflection, depended upon hitting the target at as close to 90° as possible. Catching the side of the target would increase the chances of blade failure.  Another failure of the 1853 sabre was the handle, or grip, which was circular or round in cross section.  This made “indexing” the blade, that is to say keeping the sharp edge of the blade in a forward position, more difficult.  The proceeding sabre, the Pattern 1821, had a grip that was more oval in cross section.  A practical example of this can be found in any kitchen, the butcher’s knife.  Using the butcher’s knife or any kitchen knife would be most difficult if the handle was a cylinder, especially if the hand were slippery.  There are several reports of troopers’ hands becoming so raw from the use of the sabre that their palms would bleed making the indexing very difficult, if not impossible.  The cavalry trooper of the 19^th century did not wear gauntlets as did their predecessors of the 17^th and early 18^th centuries.  This problem was taken into account in later patterns of British cavalry sabres with the introduction, or I should say the re-introduction, of the oval cross section grip.  Another problem mentioned in an earlier article was sharpness.  A dull blade will cut into a body even if the sword strikes the target while the blade is not indexed properly.  A dull blade will not cut into the target and tends to twist in the trooper’s hand.  This causes the sword to strike on the flat increasing the potential for the blade to bend or even break. My earlier post suggested that the cause of dull blades was the use of a steel scabbard and the rocking motion of the horse would grind the sharp edge against the inside of the steel scabbard continually dulling the edge. 

Some good accounts are given in the book “Waterloo Voices 1815”, by Martyn Beardsley from letters written by the soldiers who were there, that tells of having their swords sharpened and then boarding ships bound for French ports and the eventual Battle of Waterloo; I will touch on this point a bit later on.  An example taken from the book noted above attests to the sharpness of the British swords at Waterloo.

“Anonymous account,

Shaw in the Horse Guards, of pugilistic fame, was fighting seven or eight hours, dealing destruction all around him; at one time he was attacked by six of the French Imperial Guard, four of whom he killed, but at last fell by the remaining two.  A comrade who was beside him a great part of the day, and who is the relater of this anecdote, noticed one particular cut, which drove through his opponent’s helmet, and with it cut nearly the whole of his face at the stroke”.

This shows the sharpness of the British Pattern 1796 Cavalry Sabre used during the Battle of Waterloo, not present in many of the cavalry swords of the 1857 Indian Mutiny period.  The reason for the difference is, I believe, in the mention earlier of getting the sabres sharpened in England and then directly boarding ships bound for the continent.  This eliminated the long horse rides to the battle site as would have had to be endured during most of the actions in 1857.

Had the sabres of the Mutiny been sharpened and then used shortly thereafter I believe the question of dull and even poor quality blades would have been nearly moot.

The  images below showing the Indian tulwar and the Pattern 1853 cavalry sabre indicates the direction of thrust (yard stick) through the grip to the target.  As can be seen the tulwar’s point is well away from the line of thrust.  It could be argued that the tulwar could be used in a curving motion to deliver the point into the target but this would be most effective if the target had just passed by and the Indian Mutineer was attempting to strike the British trooper in the back, as happened from time to time. The point of this is to say that the Tulwar is a cutting weapon and not a thrusting one as is the British Pattern 1853. 

[Brian Wolfe]

The Land Transport Corps Sword

 

Land Transport Corps Sword

 

Perhaps one of the most interesting swords of the British military was the Land Transport Corps sword, not because of the campaigns in which it was used but for the fact that it was never officially issued to any troops. 

 

Historical background:

 

One of the problems throughout the history of warfare has been that of supplying the troops with food, material, weapons, shelter and clothing to name a few of these necessities. When the campaign is at or near home the supply is much easier, however, during the Victorian period starting in 1837 the Wars of Empire were far afield. During this time the task of provisioning the troops fell under the Commissariat Department, a civilian body with no formal establishment of supervision. Earlier attempts at supply were undertaken by the Royal Wagoners, and during the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Wagon Train which were comprised of civilian personnel.  These attempts were largely inadequate and any attempt to train a specialized corps was undone by the government as these corps were disbanded during times of peace.  The use of civilian drivers was also quite common in India, used by both the East India Company and the Queen’s Indian Army.  Again, during times of peace these civilian employees were disbanded, thereby saving on costs, which was an important objective.  However, when once again the need for the civilian drivers was required there was never any guarantee that either drivers or wagons would necessarily be found in sufficient quantity. 

 

This lack of sufficient transport was particularly felt during the Crimean War of 1854 – 56. When the British expeditionary force landed at Calamita Bay in 1854 there were no pack animals or wagons available due to the lack of proper forage for the animals.  The only horses landed belonged to the artillery, cavalry and officers. The first transport that was available to the British was in the form of captured Russian wagons. The capture of Balaclava finally offered a proper landing site; however there were still no means of moving the much needed supplies the eight miles to the front line at Sebastopol. This left tons of supplies to rot “on the docks” at Balaclava.

 

Conditions worsened with the winter of 1854 and what supplies that reached the troops was on the backs of Regimental Officer’s horses and men on foot.  With this the Commissariat Department collapsed in late 1854 followed by a Royal Warrant in January 1855 creating the Land Transport Corps (LTC). Unfortunately the attempt to reorganize the former Commissariat Department with the new LTC, which consisted of 8,000 men plus several thousand civilians, was a limited success. The same lack of discipline coupled with lack of experience with horses and an unfamiliarity with outdoor life resulted in one of the highest mortality rates from disease and exposure recorded for any other corps during the war. The LTC never overcame these shortcomings during the war and in 1856 they were reorganized to form the Military Train. 

 

The Land Transport Corps Sword:

 

It would appear that someone held great expectations of the Land Transport Corps as a sword was commissioned for their use. This is particularly interesting as there is no evidence that any sergeants or other ranks of the former Royal Wagoniers, The Royal Wagon Corps or the Royal Wagon Train ever carried swords; probably due to their non-combatant role and were essentially civilians in uniform. Possibly it was thought that since the 8,000 making up the LTC were members of the military they should be appropriately armed, however this is pure speculation. The Land Transport Corps sword seems to have been patterned after the French infantry sword Model 1831, called the “cabbage chopper” by the French troops. 

 

Blade length and width: 22½ inches by 1 ½ inches (specimen shown is 1 3/8 inches wide)

Blade type: Single edged (Robson records this as double edged, however the specimen shown in his book as in this specimen shown below, is plainly single edged)

Guard: Brass

Scabbard: Black leather, brass locket with frog stud and chape.

Sword weight: 2 lb. 1 oz.

Made by Kirschbaum, Solingen.

 

Bibliography:

 

                        Knight, Ian, “Go to your God like a Soldier”

                        Robson, Brian, “Swords of the British Army, Revised Edition”, pg.240

 

Article submitted by Brian Wolfe

 

Specimen shown below from author’s collection.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[coldstream]

Brian,

An interesting article, many thanks, I still see a lot of this type of sword around. I believe that the Russians had a very similar sword, some with sawback blades for Pioneer use. Would make a relatively cheap and interesting collection assembling examples of this type to the various Countries in question.

Simon.

[Brian Wolfe]

Hi Simon,

Thanks for your comment.  Sorry for the delay in replying, my computer passed away after a long illness and it took a week to get a new one.  If I am to be honest, it took four days to actually get a new computer and three more days to figure out all of the updated software.

It would indeed make an rather less expensive collection to put together a nice grouping of short swords from different countries.  The LTC sword would be one of the easier specimens to get in mint conditions for the reasons given in the article.  The British had several saw backed pioneer swords as well as drummer and bandsmen swords; though there seems to be little evidence of their use as true weapons.  

At the moment Indian swords are a very good purchase for the money, at least here in Canada.  Like many collectables I am sure the prices will go up as soon as people realise that they are priced well below other swords of similar quality.  A post on the "best bang for the dollar, or pound" as it relates to the sword market might be interesting.

Regards

Brian

 

[Brian Wolfe]

Trooper_D

• Regular Member
•  
• 
• Silver Membership
•  
• 412 posts
• Location:London

• Report post
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  #4

Posted 5 hours ago (edited)

Radarone

The Royal Armouries hold a number of examples of this sword. You (and Brian, if you haven't already seen it) will, I think, be interested in the discussion about the type in the Notes section at the end of this page, 

https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-7796.html

Edited 5 hours ago by Trooper_D

•  
• Quote
•  
• Edit
•  
• Options  

I wasn't sure how to post the above from Trooper_D but I seem to have done it successfully.

Thanks to Trooper_D for this very interesting article, I hope the readers will check it out.

REgards

Brian

 

[Brian Wolfe]

Britain' Last Sword

This is the first of a series of submissions that will make up the complete article I submitted to a publications so please "stay tuned" as I cut and paste.

 

Britain’s Last Sword

Patterns 1908 and 1912 British Cavalry Sword.

 

Background:

 

The first time a specific design, or “pattern”, was made mandatory for use by the British Cavalry throughout the whole of the Empire was with the Patterns 1788 Heavy Cavalry Sword and   Light Cavalry Sabre.  Prior to this the equipping of the individual regiments was the responsibility of their colonels, usually a general officer, who used his own discretion as to uniform and weapon design.   The Pattern 1788 was soon replaced by the now iconic Pattern 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword and Light Cavalry Sabre.  The 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword was a slightly heavier straight bladed sword, at 2 lbs. 6 oz., while the Light Cavalry was issued with the lighter (2 lbs. 2 oz.) curved sabre.  It was during this general time (Napoleonic Wars) that it was noted that the slashing cut, especially with the sabre, produced less mortal wounds than did the thrust, also known as “giving point”.  Indeed the statistics of the time showed a higher rate of mortality by sword in the British and allied troops as opposed to the French troops.  Napoleon himself is reputed to have told his cavalry troops, “Ne sabrez pas! Pointez! Pointez!” [“No sabring! Give point! Give point!”].  While this flies in the face of later thinking, that being a wounded soldier consumes more resources and has a greater negative effect on a nation than a dead soldier, the British became obsessed in finding the perfect cavalry sword.  This can also be said of the Infantry sword.  The Pattern 1803 being very curved and sabre-like as compared with the last Pattern, the 1897, with its dumb-bell shaped cross section blade and spear point; an obviously thrust centric weapon.

 

It would seem an easy task to design a straight sword that was used extensively for giving point, lacking a blade that could be sharpened, as well as providing better sword hand protection, which the 1796 sword and sabre sorely lacked.  The introduction of the Pattern 1821 provided better hand protection but retained a slightly curved blade; it was supposed to be the best of both worlds of cut and thrust.  This design continued, with better hand protection, yet virtually the same blade style up to the Pattern 1899 Cavalry Sabre.  What caused this painfully slow evolution in sword blade design? The answer may be found in what has been reported as a natural reflex of the human in close combat to strike at an opponent rather than attempting to use a stabbing motion. In situations such as had been experienced during the Sepoy Mutiny of 1854 a mêlée at close quarters rendered the lance and therefore a dedicated thrust centric sword most ineffective.  As an example of close-quarter combat there have been several incidents recorded that after a sword had broken at the guard the trooper used the hand guard to punch his opponents much in the same manner as using a brass knuckles. In several cases after the battle the sword grip and guard had to be cut from around the trooper’s hand by the regimental armourer as it has deformed to such an extent that it entrapped the appendage.  

 

After over 100 years of British sword evolution the Pattern 1908 cavalry sword was introduced. The new hand guard was a vast improvement over preceding patterns and the straight blade with its thrusting point was to make this the premier British sword.  Technically this was not a sabre or a sword but an “estoc”, as it lacks any cutting edge and is purely a thrusting weapon.  Even though this was the most advanced design to date it was not well accepted by everyone.  King Edward VII called it “hideous” and could not understand why there was a need for a purely thrusting weapon.  A high level deputation explained the need to His Royal Highness, after which he gave it Royal approval.  He obviously felt strongly enough regarding his first opinion of the Pattern 1908 that he stipulated that the Household Cavalry was to retain their existing swords (Household Cavalry Pattern 1892, Mk II) for ceremonial purposes and carrying the new Pattern 1908 only while on active service.   

 

 

 

 

Doc2.docx

[Brian Wolfe]

Sorry about no photo above. I thought I could cut and past the article, first the text then the photos but I can't so I am going to retake all of the photos since I own all of the images.

This first sword is the 1908 issued for WWI as can be noted by the green painted hand guard.  It is stamped to the Royal Horse Guards.

 

[Brian Wolfe]

This is a copy of a painting depicting the charge at El Mughar by the 6th Mounted Brigade comprising the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Dorset Yeomanry regiments, supported by the Berkshire RHA on 13 November 1917, by J. P. Beadle.

This was one of the last actions that saw the use of the 1908 and 1912 [officer's pattern] Cavalry Sabre. This image is in my collection and was a gift from the Berkshire Yeomanry, special thanks to Stuart Bates for making this possible.

 

[Brian Wolfe]

The new Pattern 1908 not only offered better hand protection but the grip, now made of plastic, was changed to a pistol-grip style including a thumb depression which allowed the sword to be brought into the correct position upon drawing it from the scabbard. The grip was very comfortable in the hand and the index finger rested against a rectangular piece, built into the grip, which along with the thumb depression prevented the hand from being crushed into the guard bowl upon impact when giving point.  The approximately 42 inch length along with the trooper’s arm in out stretched form during a charge allowed the sword to act as well as the lance it was meant to replace. Variations are few, the Indian pattern being the most prominent with a smaller guard bowl and grip, supposedly for the smaller hand of the Indian troopers.  The grip was initially made of walnut but due to the expense of this type of wood later model grips were made of dermatine, a type of early plastic.  This “Indian pattern” was not as well balanced as the Pattern 1908 issued to British troops possibly due to the reduced grip and bowl size which would change the balance of the overall sword.

 

A rare variation of the 1908 [shown below] was one where the bowl and scabbard were completely encased in leather.  This was done to prevent glare from the sun giving away the position of the troops in the Eastern areas of the world.  During WWI the 1908 was painted khaki or green. 

 

Pictured below is a trooper of the 16^th Canadian Light Horse 1905-1936 showing the Pattern 1908 affixed to the saddle of his horse. Officers carried their swords suspended from the Sam Browne suspension system.

 

[Brian Wolfe]

The Pattern 1912

 

In 1912 an almost identical sword was introduced for the officers.  The differences being an engraved bowl in the familiar honeysuckle pattern used on previous officers’ swords and a wood and fish skin covered grip bound with seventeen bands of twisted silver wire. Two scabbards were introduced, a leather covered wooden scabbard for use with the Sam Browne system and a plated steel scabbard with two loose rings for wear in Full Dress.  Some but not all blades were etched and decorated. 

 

 

[Brian Wolfe]

The American Model 1913:

 

The Americans introduced their version of the “modern” cavalry sword with the Model 1913 designed by George S. Patton. It is not a slavish copy of the British 1908 but it is easy to see that it was heavily influenced, especially considering the Americans were testing the British 1908 to see if it would suit their needs at that time.  The main difference between the two is that the British “sword” is a dedicated thrusting weapon, or estoc, while the American M.1913 has a double edged blade running the full length from ricasso to tip. This was a true sword and designed for the “old” cut and thrust style of fighting.  Both swords have a large bowl guard made from one sheet of steel, however the grips differ considerably.  The American M.1913 grip has a metal back piece with plastic inserts for grips; the British Pattern 1908 is made entirely of a plastic substance.  The American sword has the thumb depression, same as the British sword, however there is no forefinger stop.  The thumb depression and the shape of the grips on both swords allows for easy “indexing”, making the swords easily maintained in the correct position during use. 

 

 

A better view of the American Model 1913.

 

[Brian Wolfe]

When the M.1913 is used to give point there is nothing except the thumb depression to stop the hand from sliding foreword and smashing into the back of the guard bowl. With any sword when giving point the blade seldom penetrates without resistance.  First the point must go through clothing such as uniforms and perhaps a thick overcoat; there is then the matter of bone preventing easy penetration.  All swords will flex to some degree when giving point.  Experiments carried out for the purposes of this article using a dense foam sheet covered by two layers of terrycloth and affixed to a board gave the following results.  With both swords of the same degree of sharpness at the point the British Pattern 1908 gave little flex and penetrated the material easily.  The American Model 1913 flexed a great deal and had difficulty entering into the material.  This high degree of flex in battle could very well result in bent or broken blades and possibly fail to deliver a fatal blow.  As to the M.1913 being used as a slashing weapon it is my opinion that it lacks the blade weight of earlier cavalry specimens such as the British 1821 through to the Pattern 1899. The design of the M.1913 puts most of the weight at the grip making the blade feel quite light. This weight distribution is quite advantageous when considering the Pattern 1908 as it is a thrusting weapon and allows for easy movement and direction of the tip. The M.1913 grip is also too rectangular to be comfortable in sustained battle in the slashing mode. This could very well result in fatigue setting in during a prolonged mêlée. The British Pattern 1908 needs not meet any criteria as a slashing weapon as it is a dedicated thrusting weapon.

 Given the purpose of each specimen it would clearly appear that the Pattern 1908 Cavalry Sword is the superior weapon.

Note the lack of forefinger support on the M. 1913 [foreground] below.

 

 

Two Perspectives:

 

From what has been written about the Pattern 1908 it would appear that there was a love hate relationship in the minds of those who have used the weapon in combat as well as those who came afterwards.  Taking a quote from Brian Robson’s book, “Swords of the British Army”, revised edition, pg. 66, as a generalized opinion of the Pattern 1908 we find the following.

 

“The Pattern 1908 sword was the last entirely new design to be adopted by the British Army and it has been regarded since its appearance as a masterpiece of design. It was without doubt the best sword ever produced for the British cavalry and probably for any cavalry but it is not difficult to understand the shock it created in conservative military circles, with its wicked, rapier-type blade and its pistol-shaped, plastic grip”.

 

A differing point of view is given by Lt. Col. “Fritz” Wormald who fought at the Battle of Omdurman 1898. The quote starts with the battle and ends with the use of the Pattern 1912.

 

“Lieutenant Wormald, of the 7th Hussars, engaged an Emir single handed and nearly came to grief. Delivering a terrific blow at the mail-clad warrior, the Lieutenant’s sword, striking against the chain armour, bent double, as though it were lead. But before the Emir could get his own sword home, Wormald hit him across the head with the bent sword and stunned him; and a Lancer, opportunely coming along, finished the chieftain.” According to another account, “Fritz” Wormald pursued the emir on horseback. “As he passed him, he dropped the point of his sword in the Emir’s back, a kidney thrust that ought to have been fatal. But the sword bent up and remained bent. Fritz then turned around and swiped him on the face, knocking him off his pony, and a lancer gave him the final thrust.” The Wilkinson Sword Company honored their guarantee by presenting Wormald with a new sword after he complained of the old one that “It won’t even go through a black man’s back”, but he evidently never used it. Instead (and ironically), according to Capt. & Adjt. C. E. Bryant, when Lt. Col. Wormald led a charge of the 12^th Royal Lancers at Moy in 1914, he used a new Wilkinson thrusting sword (1912 Pattern), which buckled like an “S” and was wrenched out of his hand after transfixing a German. I [Bryant] was using the old cutting sword (1895 Pattern), well sharpened, which went in and out of [five] Germans like a pat of butter.” (Maj. Gen. John Vaughan, Cavalry and Sporting Memories, 1954; Ms. Copy. Priv. Coll.)

 

Above quote is from D.A. Kinsley’s book, “Swordsmen of the British Empire, pg. 330 – 331.

 

The above narrative by men, who were there, demonstrates some interesting details.  First of all, the failure of two different patterns of swords, the first, possibly the Heavy Cavalry Officer’s Undress sword Pattern 1887, though undoubtedly a bladed cut and thrust weapon and then the Pattern 1912 Officer’s Cavalry sword, a dedicated thrusting weapon as used by Wormald; both made by Wilkinson. It would appear that the problem of bent swords, in this case, may have had more to do with poor technique in giving point from a mounted position than the quality of the swords.  The fact that Bryant seems to find no problems with what he describes as the 1895 Pattern when applied to five similar targets, may fortify this assumption on my part.  The second point evident from the quote is that while many sources suggest (hint?) that any cavalry units using earlier sword patterns, as in the case of the Guards units, were issued the Pattern 1912 Cavalry sword when on duty overseas.  In the case cited it is obvious this was not always the case, or at least not always followed.

 

[Brian Wolfe]

Final Analysis:

 

In the final analysis how do the Patterns 1908 and 1912 fare? Many aspects of the cavalry had changed from the day of “cut and slash” swords to the final thrust centric 1908 and 1912. The heavy cavalry no longer existed as it was found that the use of cavalry itself became more akin to scouting, skirmishing or harassing the enemy and mounted infantry roles.  With the implementation of trench warfare with its barbed wire entanglements, high rate of fire machine guns, improved accuracy of bolt-action rifles, massed artillery and finally areal strafing and bombing the open spaces needed for cavalry manoeuvring disappeared.  However, in the early days of the War (1914) while the war still fluid and after the stalemate of the static tactics of the trenches the cavalry and its Patterns 1908 and 1912 proved quite effective. Most notably for Canadians was the Cavalry charge at Moreuil Wood in 1918 (see sketch below). One of the more notable successes of cavalry employment in the Middle East was the charge at El Mughar against the Turkish troops by the 6^th Mounted Brigade on 13 November 1917 (see painting at the beginning of this article).

 

Had the battle fields of the First World War remained opened and tactics fluid one has to wonder if the last British Cavalry swords would have fared so well.  With the advancement of rapid fire machine guns and accurate long range bolt action rifles along with properly trained troops in repelling cavalry quite possibly cavalry charges would have quickly become things of the past.  Certainly even infantry in line and taught to volley fire at several hundred yards then independent fire at 200 to 150 yards would have devastated any attempt to rout an enemy with cavalry.  Even discounting the use of field artillery and rapid firing machine guns this would have spelled doom for mounted troops.

 

Britain’s last sword made its appearance at the end of an era; an era of glorious massed cavalry charges and mighty heroes.  The long awaited pinnacle of cavalry swords was to die a quiet and unglorified death overshadowed by ignominious machines of mass destruction to fade into the shadows of history.

 

 

 

 

 

The above photo is a depiction of a drawing depicting the Canadian Cavalry charge at Moreuil Wood 30 March 1918

Bibliography:

 

The Berkshire Yeomanry Journal. “2017 Centenary Issue.”

King, Edward A. “The Horse in Warfare”

Kinsley, D. A. “Swordsmen of the British Empire.”

McGrath, John & Barton, Mark. British Naval Swords & Swordsmanship.

Robson, Brian. “Swords of the British Empire, Revised Edition.”

Summers, Jack L., Chartand, Rene. “Military Uniforms in Canada 1665-1970.”

Withers, Harvey. “British Military Swords 1786 – 1912 The Regulation Patterns.”

 

 

 

Author: Brian Wolfe

Ontario, Canada

September 2018

 

 

[Brian Wolfe]

British Foot Artillery Private’s Sword c. 1820

The Foot Artillery Private’s Sword c.1820, is sometimes referred to as the “Spanish Sword or Hanger” named for its use during the Peninsular War of 1807-1814. This British sword measures around 29 inches over all, with a 24½ inch blade without a fuller and has a D shaped hand guard. 

 

One of the issues I have with this particular sword is the time period designation of circa 1820 when it has been documented to have been in use throughout the Peninsular War of 1807 to 1814. Further, if that is the case then it is not a stretch of the imagination to see this sword in use at the time of the Battle of Waterloo (1815).  A better circa date, in my opinion, would be c.1812 especially considering the war of 1812 was raging in Canada between Britain and the United States, therefore a significant date upon which to base a circa date. I believe this circa date was first set by Brian Robson, Swords of the British Army, as he was unable to locate any “Pattern” documents and was going by the mention of this sword in an official report titled, Select Committee on Artillery Equipment in 1855. This report states that the Spanish pattern hanger was worn in 1820 and continued to be worn by all gunners and drivers attached to field guns until 1826. All of this considered it would appear that this sword was in use from 1807 to 1826.

 

It is interest that at this time (Peninsular War) that the horse artillery was issued with the large curved sabre of the Light Cavalry.  This would seem a very un-gamely weapon at 33 inches to have been worn around the artillery pieces. Paintings of the battles of that era clearly show the Pattern 1796 Light Cavalry Troopers Sabre in use around the guns.

Other paintings, also of that period, show the Foot Artillery sword being worn by gunners (see image below).

 

A lot has been said by so-called experts about the Foot Artillery sword being a poor weapon and of little use for defence by the gun crews if they were over-run by the enemy. One of the reasons that I do not like to write about weapons I don’t have in the collection is that accepting the opinion of others who, in most cases, never handled the swords, let alone in battle, may be perpetuating a falsehood. This is one case where I must agree with those experts. When compared with the Pattern 1796 Cavalry Troopers Sabre, in use by the Horse Artillery of the same time period, the Foot Artillery Sword is far too blade-heavy.  Both swords are of about the same weight but the weight distribution for the Foot Artillery sword makes it feel much heavier than that of the 1796 Cavalry Sabre.

 

What does this mean when it comes to the gun crews defending themselves? The weight distribution in the 1796 Cavalry Sabre allows the user to parry an enemy’s sword then recover and deal his own cut or thrust.  The Foot Artillery sword being blade-heavy would defend, or parry, as well as the 1796, however recovery of the weapon in order to deliver a counter blow would be very difficult, if not impossible. This scenario is involving being overrun by cavalry as the enemy is moving quickly through the line of guns.  In the case of enemy infantry the parry of a bayonet would be followed up with a blow from the musket’s stock or butt plate. Being unable to counter strike with the sword is a definite detriment for the gunner.

 

It seems strange that any sword should be considered as ineffective, however, it should be remembered that ever since the advent of dependable firearms the sword has not been the principle weapon of war. This is a good topic by itself and one that we may look at in detail in a future article. The artilleryman’s principle weapon, in this case, is his cannon and the sword, if he has one, for self defence as a last resort.

 

Regards

Brian

 

Below is a picture the Foot Artillery Private’s Sword and one of the 1796 Cavalry Trooper’s Sabre.  The artillery men from the painting Royal Artillery Dislodging French Cavalry by Denis Dighton (1792 – 1827) shows the gunner in the centre of the photo wearing the Foot Artillery Private’s Sword in the middle of his back, well out of the way of operating the artillery piece. The French Cavalry are in the background just below the hills.

 

  

 

 

 

 

[aussiesoldier]

I thought I might offer a continuation of this quest by describing the 1885 British Cavalry Sword. I own one of these weapons and they a considerable beast of a thing.

British Pattern 1885 sword

The British Pattern 1885 sword was designed during the period when the  British army was continuing to argue on the merits of the ‘cut’ versus the ‘thrust’ of British cavalry blades, therefore (as is the case with most Victorian cavalry blades) it was a compromise and not good for either.

 

The hilt design was first introduced for the 1864 pattern, this was primarily a new hilt mated with the existing 1853 pattern blade (35 ½ inches long 1 ¼ inches wide). No official trials took place for this hilt and there were a number of complaints about the edges of the guard rubbing against the uniform and causing it to fray (this was corrected on the 1880 pattern).

This sword continued to be the official pattern until about 1880 when a new design was sought, what followed was five years and numerous patterns. One complaint of the 1853 pattern blade was its weight. The following patterns looked to lighten the blade and in some cases shorten it. The result was to create blades that, when tested regularly, bent or broke.

 Eventually a new pattern was agreed in 1884 and the new 1885 pattern was accepted. The new blade was 34 ½ inches long and 1 1/8 inches wide. It has a single fuller ending 8 ¼ inches from the point with the last 10 inches double edged.  New tests were introduced for the 1885 pattern involving hitting the edge and back of the blade by a machine to an equivalent of the ‘hardest blow a man could strike against the trunk of an oak tree’ the blade was also to be bent round a pattern to a degree where the distance from point to guard was shortened by 5 inches.

 In 1888 these swords were tested in action by the British Cavalry against the Mahdists round Suakin, complaints were subsequently received with dramatic reports of the blade breaking when ‘making a downward cut upon an enemy’s head’. Investigations were subsequently made by testing blades already issued and the results showed the blade still as being too weak. Subsequently the 1890 blade was introduced. The 1890 took advantage to changes in manufacturing techniques and also different testing methods, it was also about 3 ozs heavier with small changes to the design of the fullers. The 1885 pattern hilt was maintained on the 1890 blade.               

 The sword was made in 1886 and was issued to the 13th Hussars (D squadron, weapon #33) in Sept. of 1888, and retested by armourers before then passed on to the Hertfordshire Yeomanry (weapon 58) in August of 1893. The 'YC' = 'Yeomanry Cavalry'.

(Extract from British Military Swords 1786 – 1912 Harvey Withers)

The 1882, 1885 and 1890 Pattern Cavalry Trooper Swords can be distinguished by their varying lengths, blade types, scabbards (this pattern saw the first adoption of fixed rings) and weights. The fact that we see three changes of pattern in only a few years highlights the crisis experienced within the British Army to find a sword both durable and effective. The 1882 Pattern is found in both‘Long’ and ‘Short’ versions, with the relevance of having two lengths hotly debated ever since. The general consensus is that the longer sword was for use by the heavy cavalry regiments who tended to employ taller men! This seems quite a strange theory, and the introduction of these two lengths has never adequately been explained. The pattern is easy to recognise because of the distinctive Maltese Cross motif cut into the guard. It was purely ornamental and served no practical purpose. Many examples are also marked on the blade to the German sword-maker Weyersberg, Kirschbaum & Co., who impressed their knight’s head logo and company name to the blade forte. Kirschbaum took on a large contract to produce these swords as British companies were unable to fulfil the orders, although Mole and Son and the R.S.A.F. Enfield, shared around 11,500 of the contract, with Kirschbaum taking the remaining 18,000. It is a common sword and many were carried by Yeomanry Regiments. They are marked accordingly to hilt, blade and scabbard.

 

 

 

                               

[Brian Wolfe]

Hi aussiesoldier,

Thanks for the submission it was most interesting.

I was hoping others would join in on what I think a most interesting subject, thanks again.

My example is marked to the 1st (Canadian) Hussars.Sorry for the poor quality photo.

Regards

Brian

[aussiesoldier]

The 1897 Pattern Infantry Officers’ Sword

 

To go to another British sword I own, the 1897 Pattern Infantry Officers’ Sword is a straight-bladed, three-quarter basket-hilted sword that has been the regulation sword for officers of the line infantry of the British Army from 1897 to the present day.

The curved, Gothic-hilted 1821 and 1845 Pattern infantry swords, although elegant, had been widely criticized as fighting swords. In common with British cavalry swords of the era, they were compromised cut-and-thrust swords and as a consequence were not ideal for either task.

In 1892, a new, straight, blade was introduced, mated to the existing Gothic hilt. Presaging the introduction of the 1908 Pattern cavalry sword, the curved blade was abandoned in favour of a straight, stiff blade optimized for the thrust. Credit for the design has been given to Colonel G.M. Fox, Chief Inspector of Physical Training at the Board of Education, who was also influential in the design of the Pattern 1908 cavalry sword.

In 1895, a new pierced steel hilt pattern was introduced, replacing the earlier Gothic hilt with a three-quarter basket hilt. The new Pattern was short-lived due to the edge of the guard fraying uniforms, and in 1897 the final pattern was settled on, being simply the 1895 Pattern with the inner edge of the guard turned down, and the piercings becoming smaller.

 

 

By the time of its introduction, the sword was of limited use on the battlefield against rapid-firing rifles, machine guns and long-range artillery. However, the new sword was regarded, when needed, as a very effective fighting weapon. Reports from the Sudan, where it was used in close-quarters fighting during the Reconquest of the Sudan 1896-99, were positive. Bernard Montgomery advanced with his 1897 Pattern drawn during a counteroffensive in the First World War. The actual sword he carried is exhibited in the Imperial War Museum, London.

The blade is described in the pattern as being 32 1⁄2 inches (830 mm) long and 1 inch (25 mm) wide at the shoulder, with the complete sword weighing between 1 lb 12oz and 1 lb 13 oz (794-822g).

The blade is straight and symmetrical in shape about both its longitudinal axes. The thick blade has a deep central fuller on each side and is rounded on both its edge and back towards the hilt, giving a “dumbbell” or “girder” cross section. Through a gradual transition, the blade becomes double edged towards the tip, and the last 17 inches (430 mm) were sharpened when on active service. The blade ends in a sharp spear point. The blade would usually be decoratively etched on both sides.

The guard is a three-quarter basket of pressed, plated steel. It is decorated with a pierced scroll-work pattern and had the royal cypher of the reigning monarch set over the lower knuckle bow.

  The sword shows a number of features that indicate its intent as a thrusting weapon. The spear point and double edge towards the point aids penetration and withdrawal by incising the wound edges. The blade, whilst quite narrow, is thick and its dumbbell section gives it good weak-axis buckling strength whilst maintaining robustness in bending for the parry. The blade tapers in both width and thickness and, with the substantial guard, has a hilt-biased balance, aiding agility at the expense of concussive force in a cut. The guard would give comprehensive protection to the hand, but does not restrict wrist movement. The length of the double edge, at 17 inches (430 mm), is quite significant, suggesting that some cutting capability was maintained.

 I own three of these swords. 1. A Royal Marine Officer’s P1897 with some evidence of sharpening and wear, with George V guard.   2. A standard officer’s, unsharpened, with George V. 3. An Edward VII Infantry Officer’s P1897 which in all likelihood was a retirement piece.

The latter sword has the owners initials etched into the blade which I believe is E J D. This is Captain Edgar John Dent who was commissioned an officer in March, 1883, and was posted to the King’s Own Scottish Borderers. He saw active service with the 2^nd Battalion in December 1888 as part of the Suakin Field Force being awarded the Khedive’s Star with Clasp. In 1889 he saw action in Sudan, including the engagement at Toski where he was mentioned in dispatches, and was awarded the 4^th Class of the Medjidie with Clasp. He was promoted to Captain in February, 1893. Between 1889 and 1900 he saw service in the South African War, where once again he was mentioned in dispatches. He is retired from the Army and the King’s Own Scottish Borderers in 1902 and seems to have died in 1906.

Edited May 10, 2019 by aussiesoldier
Punctuation.

[Brian Wolfe]

There is an interesting myth surrounding the design of the “dumb-bell” cross section blade. This is a myth that has been around from the very issuance of this pattern and has been held as fact by many sword collectors in the past. Unlike the scandal over inferior British blades, both sword and bayonet, of the mid 1800s this was not, to my knowledge, exaggerated by the media or politicians of the day to further their personal agendas. Rather than stumbling through a paraphrasing of the work of another I will quote the passage from John Wilkinson Latham’s book, British Military Swords, From 1800 To The Present Day, page 17, first published in the U.S.A. in 1967.

 

“Whether the following story is true or not the author would not like to say, but it has been handed down from father to son and is one explanation of how such a blade came to be adopted.

  Both Wilkinson and Mole had been asked to submit patterns of a new hilt for the infantry sword and, commencing in 1890, various different designs were put forward by both companies. However, just presenting a sword guard by itself did not really show what the sword would in fact look like if completed with a grip and back piece. It was therefore the practice to mount these swords on dummy blades, the majority of which were rough rolled and ground. Eventually, in 1892, one of the above manufacturers – and there was no record of which it was – submitted a hilt which fulfilled all the requirements of the War Office specification. This hilt was mounted on a roughly finished blade which had not yet had its edge ground and was therefore dumb-bell shaped. The story goes on that approval was given not only to the hilt but of the complete sword, and thus a new pattern was born having a blade which in fact had no edge.”

 

The idea that a sword Pattern would have been based on a gross error is, to my way of thinking, most doubtful indeed. To give full credit to Mr. Latham, he did state that he was not about to present this as a proven fact. Therefore this should probably be filed under the heading of mythology. I noticed that the section in his book containing this story had the number 7 denoting the notes at the end of the chapter. However, when I checked this I found the reference was to cavalry swords used by infantry officers at the outbreak of WWI. Given the drive by the British to develop a thrust-centric sword as far back as the Napoleonic Wars (1803 – 1815) it is quite doubtful that this would finally come about by pure chance.

 

Aussiesoldier, in his excellent post (see above), has given credit, and rightfully so, to Colonel G.M. Fox, Inspector of Physical Training at the Board of Education as being influential in the design of this sword.  In support of what aussiesoldier has suggested I offer the following section from Brian Robinson’s book, Swords of the British Army, the revised edition, pages 164 & 165, published 2011. 

 

“It appears that the blade owed its design to Colonel Fox, the Chief Inspector of Physical Education Training at the Board of Education, who was later responsible for the design of the Pattern 1908 Cavalry sword and owed something to his fencing experience.”

 

Anyone who has either participated in the sport of fencing or even watched such matches will attest that “giving point” or thrusting is used rather than cutting actions. I think this pretty well puts the old myth to bed once and for all, even though there is always room for a good story..

 

Regards

Brian