Swords, Sabres and Imperial during the Third Reich

[Michael Ryan]

And a few more.




Cheers Michael D

[Alan M]

Wow !!!!! I don't know how i have missed this thread but what an amazing collection Michael !! I am completely blown away

[Michael Ryan]

Hi Alan, Thank you for your message and kind comments. Yes, a nice collection but no better than some of the other collections that I have had the privilage to view on this excellent furum!!

Cheers Michael R

PS I hope to post a few more in the next few weeks.

[Alan M]

That would be great Michael , I was just thinking it would be a good idea to maybe post each particular maker , showing the hilt and backstrap decorations and variations , which would be really helpful for identyfication purposes

[Michael Ryan]

Hi Alan, Again, thank you for your message and suggestion. Where I can identify a maker and trade mark, I have listed both but unfortunately, a lot of swords do not have manufacuturer's details which I find somewhat strange as I would have thought that they would have been proud of their commodities??
Cheers again Michael R

[Frogprince]

................... Are the swords part of your collection? And, are you a sword collector. My theory on blade collecting is that with a dagger, you take the risk of so many bangers on the market but with a sword you usually get a nice big lump which is almost always original and often of far better quality and at a realistic price. ................

Hello Michael, The swords I posted are mine, although I would probably describe myself as a weapons collector who happens to like swords as a part of what I collect. (Weighted towards swords at the early end of the spectrum, and more into firearms with the advent of cartridges and the introduction of weapons systems.) And your “crystal ball” seems to be in excellent alignment as early on I was made aware of some of the fakery in different areas after being “burned”. And generally swords I think are usually a safer way to ensure originality (but not foolproof), with some of the standard issue types many times perhaps even safer. (I saw that Cavalry Pattern 1908 sitting in a corner in your first post ).

As for some more pictures to post, although occasionally I get lucky, I’m not the best photographer and much I what I’ve done in the past leaves a lot to be desired. (I really need to do a dedicated photo shoot with my later equipment, but I’m already far, far, behind with some other projects.)

That said, at the bottom of the first image here is the 'brother' of the captured (originally French) M 1817 type, the German manufacture “Russian” model Preußischer Kürassierpallasch M 1819.

....................... Where I can identify a maker and trade mark, I have listed both but unfortunately, a lot of swords do not have manufacuturer's details which I find somewhat strange as I would have thought that they would have been proud of their commodities?? ...................

“No name” was not in the playbook for government contracts. But as I’m absolutely certain you already know, many very high quality especially Imperial era swords do not have a makers name. With one school of thought being that it enabled uniform shops/retailers to switch sources at will, and also allowed side by side competition with shops selling a particular brand of sword.

And below the Kürassier swords the most probable ancestor of all of those wonderful “P” guard sabers you’ve posted - the Prussian M 1811 Blüchersäbel. Best regards, Fred

[Michael Ryan]

Hi Fred, I absolutely agree with all you have said. However I must try and correct one minor error which I beleive you have made. I would suggest that the P guard swords are the evelutions of the P1796 British cavalry sabre and that the Prussian M1811 Bluchersabel is such an evelution?? Our French friends were very upset with us Brits as they considdered the 1796 as an inhu
man weapon because of the scale of wounds the blade inflicted on their troops. I have a rather poor 1796 and even as a very obsolete weapon over 200years old, I would not like to be on the receiving end of that fearsome blade!! Post some of your photos and if they are as bad as you say, we can have a laugh as well as an insight into your collection!!
Cheers once again Michael R

[Frogprince]

Hi Fred, I absolutely agree with all you have said. However I must try and correct one minor error which I beleive you have made. I would suggest that the P guard swords are the evelutions of the P1796 British cavalry sabre and that the Prussian M1811 Bluchersabel is such an evelution?? Our French friends were very upset with us Brits as they considdered the 1796 as an inhuman weapon because of the scale of wounds the blade inflicted on their troops. I have a rather poor 1796 and even as a very obsolete weapon over 200years old, I would not like to be on the receiving end of that fearsome blade!! Post some of your photos and if they are as bad as you say, we can have a laugh as well as an insight into your collection!!
Cheers once again Michael R

Hello Michael, The correction is noted, and I'm in agreement as the 1796 is the one I also believe was used as a pattern for the M 1811. And if I remember it correctly, it was Field Marshal Blücher at Waterloo who "rode to the sound of the guns". With some discussion of what some of the elements of German cavalry were using during the period where there was an intermingling of the interests of England and some of the German states. But as we say "at the end of the day" my German text did not directly acknowledge the 1796, so I decided to forgo that particular piece of information. That said, the 1796 is of lighter construction overall than the M 1811 - but more than up to the task at hand. With an old (and very poor) picture posted below of a 1796 that I have, and when I get a chance a side by side alongside the M 1811 I think will show the differences. With best regards, Fred

[Michael Ryan]

Yes Fred, The 1796 is surprisingly light but still pretty lethal!! I look forward to seeing the Blucher and 1796 together!!
Cheers Michael R

[stuka f]

Here are mine ;