Portuguese cavalry saber

Jim McDougall · 17th October 2018, 06:24 PM

Q.E.D........if the original post had more details indeed we may have less circuitous discourse. Just the same it is interesting to see a variant of a sword form recognized as the British M1821 light cavalry sabre which reflects the wider scope that the form encompassed.

It seems the three bar, or barred guard itself evolved for more hand protection of course, but unclear which source might have inspired it. The French had the M1816 cavalry sabre with extra bars to the knuckleguard, but thought the Germans were still using the M1811 Blucher sabel in these times for light cavalry.

In the U.S. this three bar hilt did indeed become the M1833 Dragoon sabre made by Ames, which was in use a short period when replaced by the US M1840 dragoon sabre (from the French M1822 also a barred hilt).

It seems the British M1821 as noted, was in use until the introduction of the M1853, but the form itself continued in degree as the hilt style was continued for Indian forces of the British Raj....even into 20th century.
At the outset of the US Civil War there were M1821 patterns produced in Solingen (Walscheid, who also produced US M1840 swords) in c. 1861.

Returning to the Iberian Peninsula, it is puzzling why the REEVES name would appear on these Spanish exports to Portugal.....however it should be noted that Charles Reeves was enjoying a great deal of notoriety for his innovations in tang design as well as his prolific production of swords.
Perhaps in the Solingen manner, the name was being capitalized upon.
Such convention was it seems well in place.
The Portuguese it seems did have a high regard for British swords as they had been receiving their swords during and after the Peninsular campaigns. That perhaps had set a kind of precedent.

Still it is hard to imagine a Toledo maker, regardless of commercial interests, spuriously using a British (or any other for that matter) name. Spanish adherence to tradition and long standing reputation would seem to prevail.

Jim McDougall · 18th October 2018, 02:47 AM

While not relevent specifically to the matter of the nationality of this sword I was curious on the actual origin of this pattern M1821 form and it seems John Prosser, a London maker proposed the three bar design directly to George IV in 1820.
Harry Gill & Co of Soho had designed two bar guards added to knucklebow to provide hand protection to the stirrup hilt style of the 1796.
According to Richard Dellar ("The British Cavalry Sword 1788-1912: Some New Perspectives", 2013, pp.117-118). ..this was probably based on the French Modeles ANIX (1800-01) and ANXI (1802-03) which both had two bars off the knucklebow. Gill had produced these prototypes c. 1812-17.

Prosser proposed the design for a three bar guard directly to George IV who approved the pattern without the Board of Ordnance.

It seems this type sword has had an intriguing history beyond the period of its regulation use c.1821-53, along with this interesting occurrence in Spain and Portugal.

fernando · 18th October 2018, 01:57 PM

I would like to stand corrected in my reputing the REEVES mark in Bruno's sabre as a spurious one, judging by the 'Birmingham' odd initial system.
Having just spotted another example with precisely the same marking system and with the assumption that this was a Reeves export to Portugal (AE marks and all), my doubts have vanished. Despite clear evidence that Toledan Ballesteros also exported this model to Portugal, one would hardly accept that this was the case of the unit posted by this thread author.

.

bvieira · 18th October 2018, 02:43 PM

Hello,

Thanks all for your effort!

I will measure the sword today and post the information.

About Fernando question i think all the material is original, and it doesn't have any AE mark... i think it's a portuguese used sword because the sword came originaly from a portuguese thomb... it was in really bad state, i just saw the marks after starting to restore it!

Regards,

Bruno Vieira

Jim McDougall · 18th October 2018, 10:20 PM

I will have to move toward correction as well as I was thinking that the application of this REEVES marking and BIRMN was not in the typical English manner, and that perhaps Spanish blades were being marked with a spurious signature.
In going through notes I have found that on 'export' blades from England, in the case of those to India, MOLE placed on his blades for tulwars (though in the case I found c. 1890s) at the upper blade quadrant at forte
MOLE
BIRMN
Obviously this was much later than we presume this sword as it is a M1821 pattern, but we realize that REEVES was producing most of the 1821/29 pattern up to the replacement with the M1853.
Actually about 1840s he was experimenting with a new type of tang which was a full tang with the grips attached to either side in a 'sandwich' fashion.

We may presume that by the 1840s, the old style blades (for 1821) were probably ceased in production and by 1848 he was using the new style with full tang for officers blades. The blade of the example posted here seems reprofiled in comparison to the original 35" blades.

While it was customary for English makers to stamp their name on the back of the blade near the hilt (this was done on other ranks blades to the end of the century). ......on officers blades a more elaborate makers panel was etched at the forte.

I thought this forte stamp with C S REEVES / BIRMN was out of order but after seeing the MOLE blade for India with the same abbreviation and on the face of the blade...I think export blades from Birmingham must have used the name and this abbreviation on the face of the blade in this manner. It would seem that the same maker in Spain producing similar hilts as the British M1821 must have had some of these Reeves blades.
At this point we cannot presume whether exported to Portugal or not....its believed provenance is insufficient to gauge that....and the markings seem consistent with some sort of unit marking. The absence of the arsenal AE just means the sword must have been issued privately as in militia or possibly police units.

I know that in Mexico there were units of police called 'rurales' who were appointed by local officials to patrol remote regions and they wore swords of all manner acquired from surplus or obsolete stores. It seems in Spain there were similar remote units but I cannot recall more details.

Incidentally.....Reeves was working with Wilkinson by 1850s and finally acquired by them by 1880s..........Mole was also a subcontractor for Wilkinson and handled many of their export contracts but not officially acquired until 1920s.

Interesting that these 'Spanish' M1821s were first posted and discussed over 15 years ago, then again several times over the years on other forums. It is always rewarding to see cold cases revisited and possible solutions found.

bvieira · 23rd October 2018, 09:29 AM

Hello,

Sory for the delay here are the details:

Blade - 84 cm
Full sword - 98 cm
Scabbard - 89 (and responding to Fernando it's the original i have no doubt it matches perfectly).

Regards,

BV

fernando · 23rd October 2018, 10:00 AM

So a blade length between the troopers and the officers version, providing both std parameters are well recorded. Interesting; is time gone in when a client would order the blade length according to his stature, as long as the whole sword followed the official requirements.

18th October 2018, 01:57 PM	#3
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	I would like to stand corrected in my reputing the REEVES mark in Bruno's sabre as a spurious one, judging by the 'Birmingham' odd initial system. Having just spotted another example with precisely the same marking system and with the assumption that this was a Reeves export to Portugal (AE marks and all), my doubts have vanished. Despite clear evidence that Toledan Ballesteros also exported this model to Portugal, one would hardly accept that this was the case of the unit posted by this thread author. . Attached Images

17th October 2018, 06:24 PM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	Q.E.D........if the original post had more details indeed we may have less circuitous discourse. Just the same it is interesting to see a variant of a sword form recognized as the British M1821 light cavalry sabre which reflects the wider scope that the form encompassed. It seems the three bar, or barred guard itself evolved for more hand protection of course, but unclear which source might have inspired it. The French had the M1816 cavalry sabre with extra bars to the knuckleguard, but thought the Germans were still using the M1811 Blucher sabel in these times for light cavalry. In the U.S. this three bar hilt did indeed become the M1833 Dragoon sabre made by Ames, which was in use a short period when replaced by the US M1840 dragoon sabre (from the French M1822 also a barred hilt). It seems the British M1821 as noted, was in use until the introduction of the M1853, but the form itself continued in degree as the hilt style was continued for Indian forces of the British Raj....even into 20th century. At the outset of the US Civil War there were M1821 patterns produced in Solingen (Walscheid, who also produced US M1840 swords) in c. 1861. Returning to the Iberian Peninsula, it is puzzling why the REEVES name would appear on these Spanish exports to Portugal.....however it should be noted that Charles Reeves was enjoying a great deal of notoriety for his innovations in tang design as well as his prolific production of swords. Perhaps in the Solingen manner, the name was being capitalized upon. Such convention was it seems well in place. The Portuguese it seems did have a high regard for British swords as they had been receiving their swords during and after the Peninsular campaigns. That perhaps had set a kind of precedent. Still it is hard to imagine a Toledo maker, regardless of commercial interests, spuriously using a British (or any other for that matter) name. Spanish adherence to tradition and long standing reputation would seem to prevail.

18th October 2018, 02:47 AM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	While not relevent specifically to the matter of the nationality of this sword I was curious on the actual origin of this pattern M1821 form and it seems John Prosser, a London maker proposed the three bar design directly to George IV in 1820. Harry Gill & Co of Soho had designed two bar guards added to knucklebow to provide hand protection to the stirrup hilt style of the 1796. According to Richard Dellar ("The British Cavalry Sword 1788-1912: Some New Perspectives", 2013, pp.117-118). ..this was probably based on the French Modeles ANIX (1800-01) and ANXI (1802-03) which both had two bars off the knucklebow. Gill had produced these prototypes c. 1812-17. Prosser proposed the design for a three bar guard directly to George IV who approved the pattern without the Board of Ordnance. It seems this type sword has had an intriguing history beyond the period of its regulation use c.1821-53, along with this interesting occurrence in Spain and Portugal.

18th October 2018, 02:43 PM	#4
bvieira Member Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 108	Hello, Thanks all for your effort! I will measure the sword today and post the information. About Fernando question i think all the material is original, and it doesn't have any AE mark... i think it's a portuguese used sword because the sword came originaly from a portuguese thomb... it was in really bad state, i just saw the marks after starting to restore it! Regards, Bruno Vieira

18th October 2018, 10:20 PM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,459	I will have to move toward correction as well as I was thinking that the application of this REEVES marking and BIRMN was not in the typical English manner, and that perhaps Spanish blades were being marked with a spurious signature. In going through notes I have found that on 'export' blades from England, in the case of those to India, MOLE placed on his blades for tulwars (though in the case I found c. 1890s) at the upper blade quadrant at forte MOLE BIRMN Obviously this was much later than we presume this sword as it is a M1821 pattern, but we realize that REEVES was producing most of the 1821/29 pattern up to the replacement with the M1853. Actually about 1840s he was experimenting with a new type of tang which was a full tang with the grips attached to either side in a 'sandwich' fashion. We may presume that by the 1840s, the old style blades (for 1821) were probably ceased in production and by 1848 he was using the new style with full tang for officers blades. The blade of the example posted here seems reprofiled in comparison to the original 35" blades. While it was customary for English makers to stamp their name on the back of the blade near the hilt (this was done on other ranks blades to the end of the century). ......on officers blades a more elaborate makers panel was etched at the forte. I thought this forte stamp with C S REEVES / BIRMN was out of order but after seeing the MOLE blade for India with the same abbreviation and on the face of the blade...I think export blades from Birmingham must have used the name and this abbreviation on the face of the blade in this manner. It would seem that the same maker in Spain producing similar hilts as the British M1821 must have had some of these Reeves blades. At this point we cannot presume whether exported to Portugal or not....its believed provenance is insufficient to gauge that....and the markings seem consistent with some sort of unit marking. The absence of the arsenal AE just means the sword must have been issued privately as in militia or possibly police units. I know that in Mexico there were units of police called 'rurales' who were appointed by local officials to patrol remote regions and they wore swords of all manner acquired from surplus or obsolete stores. It seems in Spain there were similar remote units but I cannot recall more details. Incidentally.....Reeves was working with Wilkinson by 1850s and finally acquired by them by 1880s..........Mole was also a subcontractor for Wilkinson and handled many of their export contracts but not officially acquired until 1920s. Interesting that these 'Spanish' M1821s were first posted and discussed over 15 years ago, then again several times over the years on other forums. It is always rewarding to see cold cases revisited and possible solutions found.

23rd October 2018, 09:29 AM	#6
bvieira Member Join Date: Jul 2018 Posts: 108	Hello, Sory for the delay here are the details: Blade - 84 cm Full sword - 98 cm Scabbard - 89 (and responding to Fernando it's the original i have no doubt it matches perfectly). Regards, BV

23rd October 2018, 10:00 AM	#7
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	So a blade length between the troopers and the officers version, providing both std parameters are well recorded. Interesting; is time gone in when a client would order the blade length according to his stature, as long as the whole sword followed the official requirements.