OF BROKEN FINGERS and ABSENT FRIENDS: A NON-UPDATE

 

Whacked finger in splint.

Having announced my return to blogging after a lull, and currently in a subsequent lull, I thought I should provide an update of some sort just to show that I've not yet tossed in the towel on blogging.  Generally, I like to keep this blog about the hobby and hobby related items, and so don't drop anything here unless it's "on topic." Unfortunately, circumstances of late have conspired to keep me from posting much (both figuratively and literally...see above digit in splint). So this will be a wordy, image-poor, update. 

It has been a busy time, hobby wise, for the last few months, but they have been consumed with long term projects that have not been suited to multiple posts. Specifically, organizing and running our recent club game day and before that, planning for and running games at the Mayhem Convention. 

One thing I haven't brought into this blog is the fact that one of the members of our gaming club, a close friend and a central fixture in all of our club events, passed away quite suddenly last fall. Although none of us is getting any younger, and we have witnessed the passing of some of our comrades, his loss was a punch in the gut to us all, and we're still collectively dealing with it. His widow got in touch with a fellow club member afterwards, at a loss over what to do with his collection, and for the last few months he and I have been coordinating the effort to inventory and organize his collection, arranging for a take-away day at the end of May. This turned out to be a successful operation: the club members came together and cleared out the lot, helping his widow move on and providing closure for us as well. And no less so for me, personally. It was the last, and most fraught, of the major projects that I had been dealing with. With the closure came a sense of being able to move on, hobby wise, again...

...and so it was until I managed to slam the car door on my finger (the weekend of the take-away, no less--how's that for timing?). Now, as the picture shows, I've beaten up the digits of that hand plenty over the years (fooling around in and around armored vehicles during an Army career has provided plenty of opportunities), but I must say that this was a new one: breaking the tip of the middle finger of the right hand (my dominant hand). In all the previous instances where I've whacked digits, I I've been able to compensate, but there is virtually no functionality, I found, that does not involve the tip of the middle finger. 

Happily, it has been almost two weeks since the injury, and although still on the mend, I can remove the splint and do things that were out of the question until recently, like tying my own shoes, writing checks, and keyboarding....

...and on that note, I think I'll bring this bit of keyboarding to a conclusion. So that's what's been (not) going on 'round here. 

Excelsior!

SWORD LORE IIIA: AUSTRIAN M1861 CAVALRY SABER (OFFICER'S)

 

Closeup of the officer's standard version of the Austrian M1861 Cavalry Saber (note the engraved lines around the piercings on the guard).

Image from: Ortner, With Drawn Sword: Austro Hungarian Edged Weapons from 1848 to 1918; text in the author's collection.

Greetings, dear reader(s).  This post is a continuation of the Sword Lore III post on the Austrian M1861 Cavalry Saber (service version). I have both an officer's and a service version of that sword, and I had originally intended to cover both in that post (as per the post on the Prussian M1852 Cavalry Saber). However, the previous post turned out to be rather lengthy, and so I decided to produce a separate post on the officer's version. Thus, in this post, I won't repeat the history and details of the development of the M1861 saber: I would encourage anyone interested to follow the link above to that post. This study will focus on the general trends and context of officer's pattern swords, and then examine the actual sword in my collection. As usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX in this post. 

A BIT OF CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

Two volunteer Austrian hussar officers, circa 1866, sporting rather slim private purchase officer's sabers.

When it comes to non-service swords (ie, that are not army property issued to soldiers), the term "private purchase" is technically more correct than "officer's sword." Generally speaking, all officers in most armies did purchase their own swords (in addition to uniforms and other equipment). However, noncommissioned officers (in particular) and soldiers with other forms of status could do so as well.  For simplicity, though, we'll refer to these as "officer's swords" in this post. Although officer's swords could exhibit many variations based on the maker, and the preferences, means, and status of the purchaser, they nevertheless were still  required to conform to a basic regulation pattern for the army concerned (of course, the higher the rank and status of the officer, the broader the departures from the standard could be). 

Austrian enlisted dragoon trooper, circa 1866, posing with the beefy M1861 issue cavalry saber. 

Given these parameters, there are several points that hold true for most officer's cavalry sabers. The first and most persistent is that they are almost always lighter than their regulation counterparts. Compare the dragoon's sword (above) to the slimmer ones carried by the volunteer officer hussars in the opening picture (both the Austrian dragoons and hussars carried the same pattern M1861 sword).  Officer's sabers are also quite often embellished (particularly their blades), and would be more likely to be nickel plated--a  customization that was not only more attractive but protective, making for lower maintenance.  Officer's swords don't have the ordnance stamps and other standard markings of government service swords, making them more difficult to identify and date.  Speaking of collecting, officer's swords are generally more available than issue swords given that they remained with the individual after service (years later becoming the proverbial sword in the attic that one stumbles across when clearing out a house).  Finally, there is the question of whether these were "dress" swords or combat weapons. The answer is "both." There are no doubt some that were only worn about town, on parade, or in garrison as part of the uniform. But there were no doubt some that were also combat weapons: and there were some that would serve as both. Although the materials and construction could certainly be an indicator of whether a sword would be suitable to carry into action, without knowing the specific provenance of a weapon, it could be hard to tell. Enough of generalities. On to the specifics of the M1861 officer's sword and the actual sword in my collection

THE M1861 CAVARLY SABER OFFICER'S PATTERN

Above left: issue saber and officer's "standard" M1861 saber. Above right: private purchase non-standard officer's saber. 

There were regulations for the officer's version of the M1861 Cavalry Saber, specifically pertaining to the hilt. Superficially, the hilt was to have the same piercings as the issue saber, but with a wire-wrapped fish skin grip and the addition of geometric lines engraved around the piercings. There was an officer's saber known as a "standard" version which had the same parameters as the enlisted saber, only with the added hilt embellishments (this version was definitely a combat weapon)--the above left image is of such an officer's saber.  The above right image shows a non-"standard" M1861 officer's saber: the engravings are the same, as are the general lines, but the basked it slightly slimmer, the blade is lighter, and it is nickel plated. This would probably fall into the "dress" sword category. 

MY M1861 OFFICER'S SWORD  

As I have mentioned, I have both an issue and an officer's M1861 Cavalry Saber.

SIDE BY SIDE

 In comparison, you can see that this officer's sword (the lower one) is a lighter version of the issue (service version) M1861.

THE HILT

The hilt of my officer's sword has the regulation engravings around the piercings (and more). Side by side, nickel plating aside, you can see other minor variations in this particular officer's hilt. This is not a "standard" officer's version. Although we will be delving into the officer's blade separately, this picture illustrates one of the major departures between them. The service sword has the distinctive asymmetrical blade profile, with one side flat and the other fullered (shown by the yellow arrow).  The officer's version has a conventional symmetrical blade profile, with both sides fullered. 

Comparison of the grips. Above left: the officer's version, left, and the service version, right. Above right picture, a detail of the officer's version grip. As is often the case with officer's swords, the grips are of shark or fish skin (as this one is), and they almost always have fine, woven wire wraps. 

THE BLADE

As opposed to the heavy, asymmetrical blade of the service sword, this officer's sword has a slimmer blade with a stiff spine and a hybrid diamond shaped profile (meaning that it has a raised ridge running it's length). Additionally, the central third of the blade has two fullers: a narrow fuller just under the spine and a conventional larger fuller centered in the upper 1/2 of the blade. This larger fuller lightens and balances the blade, and the smaller (ridge) fuller provides structural strength, also making the blade stiffer--to compensate for its slimness (my conjecture).  In terms of handling, this is a very nimble weapon. I am not a practitioner of historical european martial arts, but I have dabbled in fencing years ago. This weapon would handle not unlike a contemporary fencing saber. 

As with most officer's swords, this blade is decorated. In this case, it is engraved (as opposed to etched like my 1852 Prussian Officer's sword), with ornaments running along 2/3 of the blade. 

Detail of the blade ornaments: in the upper right and lower left images you can see the blade profile more clearly, with the two fullers and the central ridge. 

DECODING (READING) THE SWORD

So far, we've seen that this sword conforms to what we would expect for an Austrian M1861 Officer's Cavalry Saber. Besides these general points, though, how do we "read" this sword, and what story does it tell?  (Hint: stick around for a "surprise" ending).

Unlike service swords, officer's swords lack standardized markings to help us with authentication.  Generally speaking, most will at least have a manufacturer's stamp, usually on the ricasso (the base of the blade next to the hilt). Fortunately, we have such a stamp on this sword: "F.H."

"Friedrich Horster Jr, of Solingen, Germany, 1825-1875. They had an office in London and also sold weapons to the North during the U.S. Civil War."

(From: Kinman, Steffan, European Makers of Edged Weapons, pages 37 and 152).  

In the 19th Century, many (if not most) of the swords in Europe were produced by Solingen sword makers.  And if the sword was manufactured elsewhere, the chances were that the blade used was made in Solingen. As a matter of fact...

...this tradition in blade making continues to this day, with fine cutlery being produced in Solingen. Much like Krupp, who sold weapons to everyone (basically), nations at that time would contract with various Solingen manufacturers for their swords. And, of course, there was a parallel market for individual, private purchases. 

THE STORY OF THE SCABBARD 

Looking at the scabbard tells us more.  The Austrian M1861 service sword's scabbard (above left) exhibits a major design change that came into Austrian use with it. Specifically, they dropped the two flexible scabbard ring configuration and replaced it with a fixed (lower) scabbard ring and upper fixed bracket (if you look closely at the dragoon picture at the top of this post, you can see that his scabbard is configured like this). This configuration was unique to the Austrian army from that point onwards. Looking at the scabbard on this officer's sword (above right), you can see that it is a "universal" pattern that could fit any configuration. It has two flexible scabbard rings and a fixed upper bracket. Thus, a buyer could easily modify this scabbard to fit whatever regulations applied. For instance, as the century progressed, armies were discarding lower scabbard rings. If that were the case, the buyer could simply cut off the lower ring. If in Austrian service, he could cut off the upper ring and use the fixed bracket and remaining lower scabbard ring. 

WHAT WE CAN SAY ABOUT THIS SWORD?

Because know...

1)  that the sword conforms to the Austrian M1861 pattern

2) and that the pattern was first introduced in 1861 (per its name).

3) and that the manufacturer was in business from 1825-1875.

4) and that this sword pattern (in Austrian service) was superceded in 1869

   We can conclude...

 ...that this sword dates from 1861 to 1875. 

 We can infer...

...that if in Austrian service, it dates from between 1861 and 1869.

WHAT CAN WE GUESS ABOUT USE?

We know...

1)  that the blade has not been service sharpened.

2)  that the quality of the blade is exceptional and could be sharpened.

3)  that the blade is configured for strength and is well balanced.

4)  that the blade is ornamented/ornamental. 

5)  that the guard is as sturdy as a service version and would provide equal protection.

So we can neither conclude or rule out...

...whether this sword model was designed or intended for use in action.

But we can conclude...

...that this particular sword was not actually carried in combat given that it was not service sharpened. 

THE SURPRISE ENDING

The Arms of Savoy

Although this is clearly an Austrian M1861 pattern officer's sword, it is marked with the arms of Savoy (on the hilt, above, and on the blade, below). A bit more information on the maker that I ran across later indicates that Frederich Horster Jr was one of only two sword makers who produced the Italian M1850 Bersagliere saber--which has a similar blade profile to this one. The dating of this sword puts it in the timeframe of the Risorgimento, during which the house of Savoy (Piedmont-Sardinia) was aligned against Austria. Thus, this sword was most likely not used by an Austrian, but was most likely purchased by an officer in Italian service--and it could very well have been a standard model designed for sale to that market (up to 1875).

Excelsior!

SERVICE SLOW DOWN

 

This is just a quick post to notify anyone interested that my blogging (and commenting) presence will be limited for a short period. Being a man of a certain age, and not having the best ergonomics at my home work station (something I've been meaning to "get 'round to" improving), I'm dealing with a rather nasty bit of carpal tunnel.  This has happened in the past, and I've found that the only solution is to strictly limit my keyboarding and mousing to priority emails and the occasional online purchase. (Fortunately, I'm no longer working, so am not forced to do the hours per day of keyboarding that came with that).  

In short, I basically have to go "cold turkey" at the keyboard to prevent getting sucked in and aggravating the condition further. I'll be saving up content in the meantime for when I'm back in the swing of things.

Excelsior!

SWORD LORE II: M1852 PRUSSIAN CAVALRY SABER

 

Prussian hussars sporting the 1852 Prussian cavalry saber

Having recently completed the research for a newly acquired sword, I thought I'd share what I've come up with in another Sword Lore post. By coincidence more than design, this particular sword (and post) follows from the previous Sword Lore covering my 1811 (Blucher) light cavalry saber. Also by coincidence, this is the sword that came after the "Blucher." In this post, as usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX...

THE BACKGROUND: FROM 1811 TO 1852 

This sword's predecessor, the 1811 ("Blucher) light cavalry saber, served as the primary mounted weapon for the Prussian cavalry (except for the cuirassiers) from after the Napoleonic wars through the First Schleswig Holstein War (1848). For a complete history on the Blucher, see the previous Sword Lore post (link above). After three decades, it was time for a change. The Blucher light cavalry saber, with its hatchet point and curved, thin, broad, blade, is a slashing/cutting weapon, representative of its time when the distinction between cut and thrust, and light and heavy cavalry, respectively, was still very real. By mid century, the heavy cavalry would still remain distinct, and carry a distinct weapon, but the differing roles and definitions of other cavalry types were fading (as far as swords: the rise of the lance is another topic). As such, the 1852 is reflective of this trend, being a hybrid  sword incorporating cut and thrust: the 1852's blade retains a less curved cutting edge, but 

is thinner and stiffer, with a spear point for better thrusting. The last 1/4 of the blade (the "tip") is sharpened on both edges, and so can also provide a back-slash cut. 

The other major change was to the hilt. The 1852 retained the same grip as the Blucher, but the stirrup guard was no longer considered adequate. The 1852 has an asymmetrical, three-barred basket shaped guard that provides much better hand protection. 

The 1852 Cavalry Saber was issued to the Uhlans, Hussars, and Dragoons. 
(cigarette card scans are from the author's collection)

THE SWORD

This is a service saber: a weapon that was produced to Army specifications, purchased by the state, and issued to troopers. 

An overview of the government markings. Before addressing these, I should point out that a "sword" is made up of two parts: the blade and the hilt. There are many variations of sword, and within each sword type there are many variations and permutations of hilt and blade (and blades and hilts are composed of different kinds of parts as well). We won't go into all of those (for good reason). However, for the purposes of this illustration, I'll first cover the blade and then the hilt. 

THE BLADE

I've already described the blade characteristics, so we'll move on to the markings. 

Ricasso: This is a block at the base of the blade next to the hilt. It is common to find a maker's mark here, and so it is on this blade. It was manufactured by the well known firm of P.D. Luneschloss, Solingen. This firm started production of edged weapons in 1848 and continued through both World Wars (expanding into bayonets). It also produced edged weapons for both the Federal and Confederate forces during the American Civil War. 

Spine: This is the back of the blade (unsharpened). At the base of the spine, next to the hilt, are government markings. The Crown over FW (Friederich Wilhem IV) indicates that the blade has been accepted into the inventory of the Prussian Army. The Number: 56 = the date (1856). The Crown over a Gothic M = the Army Depot (M = Meissen) is where the blade was proofed and accepted.

THE HILT  

Like the blade, I've already covered the characteristics, so we'll move on to the markings. 

Ferrule, Backstrap, and Guard: The ferrule is the ring at the end of the hand grip next to the blade. The backstrap is the piece of metal running along the top of the grip (not all swords have these). The guard speaks for itself (this picture shows the left side of the guard, opposite the bars). Each of these has a small Crown over Gothic M Depot mark, indicating that these components were put together (and proofed) there. Given that the depot marks on the hilt and blade match, it is likely that this sword was assembled at the Meissen Depot. 

Quillon: This is an arm of a crossguard. When this term is used, it often refers to an arm that extends outwards from the guard, often ending in a curl (as in this case).  Up until now, the kinds of marks we've examined are generally present on most military swords, still very interesting (don't get me wrong).  One thing that sets German swords apart, however, is that you can read their unit histories, which are stamped on them (see my post on the 1811 Blucher for a more complete explanation of these conventions). Of course, it takes a bit of digging and research to decipher them. Here is this sword's history: 

In this case, the unit stamp is on the quillon:  

1. W. U. 5. 50  

The unit stamp sequence for cavalry is: 

Regiment  .  Unit Type .  Squadron .  Weapon # 

So, this was weapon #50 of the

5th Squadron, of the 1st (West Prussian) Uhlan Regiment

There are variations on the unit stamps: in this case, the insertion of the "W" after the regimental number appears to be a local convention, probably because this particular stamp, given its placement, is organized vertically, with the regimental designation on the first line, the squadron on the second, and weapon information on the third. In other cases, the unit stamp is horizontal, with all the information on one line separated by periods. 

There are no other markings on this sword, indicating that it was not reissued to any other unit. Unfortunately, there is no scabbard, which would have its own markings, so there is no other information to be gleaned. 

SERVICE LIFE

Two Prussian Uhlans, circa 1867: detail of 1852 Saber.  

(Christian Sell, Wikimedia Commons)

Colorized period photo of a Prussian Guard Hussar with 1852 Saber. The Guard Hussars initially had their own sword, with a different guard, but were issued the M1852 sword in 1861.

My sword collection is focused on actual combat weapons, specifically service weapons, which is why I was on the lookout for one of these. This was the last sword carried into mounted combat by the Prussian Army. The Prussian cavalry carried it through all the major conflicts of the period: the Second Schleswig Holstein War (1864), the Austro Prussian War (1866), and the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71).  The sword would continue until the end of the decade, when another version would be introduced. Although it would still be officially designated as the 1852, the updated version is better known as the 1852/79 (and is beyond the subject of this post). 

OFFICER'S VERSION

Officer's version (top) vs Issue version

I do have an officer's version of this sword. These are actually more common than the service versions (in terms of collecting).  The term "Officer" might be more accurately termed "Private Purchase" since non commissioned officers would also often purchase their own swords. The private purchase version is the top one in the above image. In general, they are less hefty than the service versions. 

This is a period image of  a Prussian uhlan with what would appear to be a private purchase saber. The arms on the guard are a bit more slender and are more widely spaced than the service version, and the scabbard would seem a bit on the slim side for holding a service blade. Then again, this could be a prop used for posing for photographs, although the fact that the scabbard loops are connected to his carrying belt makes it likely that he was the owner of this sword or he wouldn't have bothered.

Details of the hilts on my officer's and service swords. You can see the difference in heft of the private purchase hilt vs the service one. You can also see that the private purchase grip has a very attractive fish skin grip and a very fine--decorative yet functional--silver wire wrap. When you see workmanship like this, you understand why a jewelry firm, like Tiffany, could also be involved with sword making. The private purchase sword is also nickel plated. This was more attractive, it is true, but it began as a form of low maintenance protection (another reason to buy your own sword: less upkeep).  You can also see in the right hand picture the leather finger loop inside the guard. I have mine wrapped with velcro to keep it from disintegrating. These normally don't survive: my service sword has the screw where the loop was fastened, but the leather loop itself is long gone. 

Unlike service swords, private purchase swords generally aren't marked, except for the maker (and possibly a date if you're lucky).  I wasn't lucky here. Therefore, they are generally harder to get very specific about, other than the pattern and nation.  This maker's mark on my sword is for Clement and Jung, Solingen, Germany. They started production in 1860 and began by making tableware, but by 1861 they were  providing weapons to the North during the U.S. Civil War. The scabbard (not shown) has two rings on it--in the German Army, the bottom rings of scabbards were removed after 1880 or so (and new ones did not have them). This sword pattern was also superceded in 1879 (certainly for issue swords, and probably also for private purchase ones, although there generally is more leeway in latter cases). With these three pieces of information, we can say that this sword most probably dates from between 1861 and 1880. 

Decorated blades are another feature of private purchase swords (and a good reason to collect them). On my sword, these appear to be acid etched as opposed to engraved into the metal, and the distinctions have faded over time, so you have to hold the sword just right and get the light to reflect off of them to see them.

A detail of the intricate decorations on this blade. They run about 2/3 of the way up the blade, from the forte to the foible--and if you've read this far, you are now receiving your prize.  You may have heard these terms, forte and foible, in other contexts. But you may not have been aware that they are derived from sword terminology. The forte is the strongest part of a sword blade (usually at the ricasso). The foible is the weakest part of a sword blade (usually about 2/3 or 3/4 down the blade, at the tip). 

Excelsior!