-
by
26Intrepid
Yes, my sword wouldn’t be suitable for battle. It’s just a nice looking and flimsy sword with nice detain. The swords you’ve posted are heavy metal battle swords.
I think it’s kind of bizarre to see a presentation sword with unit/regiment stamps on the blade and scabbard.
Thank you again for your comments and pics... D
The unit markings are seen (but not often) on just some of the privately purchased swords. One of the speculations as to why being that some of the soldiers kept them in their barracks stored in the storerooms that had their issue weapons placed for safekeeping. The markings identifying them as well protecting their ownership if there was a dispute.
As an arguably parallel situation: When I was in the (U.S.) Army there were times when I kept my own sidearm (a pistol) in the same storage as our government issued small arms. But because of my location and duties I also at times kept and/or carried a government issued pistol, rifle, and/or automatic weapons for extended periods in and outside of field operations as the situation dictated. My point being that there was not a “one size fits all” set of rules for myself (and my unit) whereas others had a more structured environment especially if they were housed at a major installation. And at some point during WW I swords were withdrawn from combat use and their manufacture was terminated until further notice (that was never issued/did not happen). Best Regards, Fred
-
11-25-2020 06:30 AM
# ADS
Circuit advertisement
-
With due respect Fred, if the sword is regiment/company marked, even weapon numbered, it is not "private purchase" irrespective of whether you regard it as heavy or a light parade type. Your theory of the marks protecting private ownership if disputed is just a theory. And not one I've encountered but it's more convoluted than a simple explanation that German Imperial regiments for different purposes bought swords of varying type. And they marked what they owned.
I think it's also a mistake to believe an etched blade would indicate a sword unsuitable for combat. If you study the history of British swords of the 19th century its clear many even most officer swords used in combat were etched and most were also privately purchased, as was the custom. Officers bought their own sword to wear in active service and these were often etched.
-
by
Anderson
With due respect Fred, if the sword is regiment/company marked, even weapon numbered, it is not "private purchase" irrespective of whether you regard it as heavy or a light parade type. Your theory of the marks protecting private ownership if disputed is just a theory. And not one I've encountered but it's more convoluted than a simple explanation that German Imperial regiments for different purposes bought swords of varying type. And they marked what they owned.
I think it's also a mistake to believe an etched blade would indicate a sword unsuitable for combat. If you study the history of British swords of the 19th century its clear many even most officer swords used in combat were etched and most were also privately purchased, as was the custom. Officers bought their own sword to wear in active service and these were often etched.
Anderson, I understand what you are saying, but please permit me to explain some of my reasoning. To my best recollection I don’t recall seeing any private purchase German Infantry Officer’s swords with unit markings - but they are seen on the plain blade government models. (Which makes sense to me because the dress sidearm for the Infantry was a bayonet that would fit in a foot locker in a barracks - but a sword would not.) And given the economic realities of the time a career enlisted man could very easily spend his military life living in a barracks.
As for etched blades - they followed the engraved types for Officers in the British Army with Osborn for example mostly engraving but making a few hybrid types circa the Napoleonic Wars, and Gill seeming to be more in tune with the early style light etching that became the standard in the postwar period etc. And by the Crimean period from Wilkinson a deeper style etch along with an (optional) innovation their “Patent Solid Hilt” Officer’s sabers that were fairly large (and sharp) and more than equal as weapons for combat. Which is to say that some period Officer’s sabers were more suitable for “Gala” functions versus combat. Mid century German export models also with deeper etching, the later innovation of nickel plating necessitated a deeper etch that during the Imperial German era allowed all sorts of enlisted men’s dress swords to be etched - with probably some enticements to Regimental purchasers for bulk sales as the industrial processes improved. A time that saw even more emphasis in their "Reserve" system, that permitted a large scale mobilization as trainees were trained and then sent back to their prior lives with the cadres maintaining continuity in the German Army. Best Regards, Fred
-
But the fact that a "dress" artillery sabre is not commonly seen with unit property marks shouldn't make us assume it is not what it appears. ie owned by the regiment. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
In other general remarks, I would point out the close link between the British Army and the Prussian Army from 1812 to 1914. They shared traditions, customs and weapons (the P1796 LCS). But it's a mistake to transfer the German tradition around the private purchase KS98 bayonets (often remembrance etched in 1930's) to what was happening earlier pre-WW1 with swords. British sword design moved on from the P1796 LCS and were becoming less heavy for infantry by late 1800's. The British P1897 infantry sword with it's straight etched thrusting blade looks almost flimsy yet was designed for combat and was used in combat in several colonial battles pre WW1. Apparently performed well and did actually see service in early months of WW1 with at least one combat action recorded.
-
-
Yes "2nd Abteilung" is the correct designation. Apparently 16,000 LCS were supplied to Prussia by Britain between 1812-1815. The Blucher 1811 version only began production in 1814 after the French had been evicted from Solingen. That number of swords pretty much covered the entire Prussian Cavalry needs at Waterloo in 1815.
-
Thank you both for commenting on this thread.
My history on this subject is very limited and I cannot add anything to this conversation. I find it very interesting reading both sides of this discussion. If only these old pieces could talk and give the history of who had it and where it’s been?
I’m sure there’s a lot out there... but... I’ve never seen a presentation sword/scabbard that was unit marked. I guess that’s why I took an interest in this sword when it became available.
Thank you again gentlemen for your comments.
D
-
Anderson provided some of the history/background that gives I think a greater appreciation for this sword. Something that also should be appreciated besides the unit markings (which are a plus) are the battle honors on the blade. Sometimes seen on some British Officer's swords of the primarily regimental types they can have, for example, a "Peninsula" and “Waterloo" etc. from the Napoleonic Wars. With this particular sword - Hanover at one time had a direct connection to to the British monarchy with the arms of Hanover incorporated into the English Royal cyphers. Best Regards, Fred
Bookmarks