1796 or Blucher?

[Colin F.]

Remind me again, how can you tell the difference?

[admin]

Well sometimes you can't.
The thing is that the earliest Blucher's WERE 1796's...
Usually however the Blucher has more of a bulge to the guard stirrup, bigger rounder langets, more of a bulge to the widest part of the grip and hopefully some German regimental numbers on the side of the guard.

I cannot say whether this one above is a Blucher or 1796... if it has any markings on the guard or blade then that would be the surest way to know.

[Colin F.]

The only marking on it:





Any clue?

[admin]

Looking at that and looking at it for longer, I would put my money on it being a 1796. The German ones almost always have some sort of Latin numeral or letters on the guards and the handle looks more British than German to me.

[Colin F.]

I thought it may be, but I've mistaken them more than once before, so I thought I would check. Have written part of my dissertation on the things, you would have thought I would recognise them a little easier by now...

[admin]

Really?? Cool topic - you should know better than me then!
I forgot to say, and you probably know this, but the Bluchers tend to have 'ears' on the backstrap of the handle, as shown on mine here:

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/ ... temId=7242

Also note the more 'swolen' grip and the different type of rear quillon.

[admin]

The more I look at the one above, the more I am sure it is a 1796.

[Colin F.]

Really?? Cool topic - you should know better than me then!
I forgot to say, and you probably know this, but the Bluchers tend to have 'ears' on the backstrap of the handle, as shown on mine here:

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/gallery2/ ... temId=7242

Also note the more 'swolen' grip and the different type of rear quillon.

Aye, development of British trooper cavalry swords and sabres from 1788 to 1908. Was a lot of fun.

Your Blucher just looks beefier around the grip and the knuckle bow. All together more German...

[Motley]

Sorry I know nothing about this. Am I correct tn thinking from the discussion that there was a British sword design that was copied by a later German manufacturer?

What was the relationship between Germany (was it even Germany then) and Britain at this time?

[Colin F.]

Sorry I know nothing about this. Am I correct tn thinking from the discussion that there was a British sword design that was copied by a later German manufacturer?

What was the relationship between Germany (was it even Germany then) and Britain at this time?

Ah, well 'British' design is a bit much. The guy who designed it, Gen J. G. Le Marchant, took inspiration from sabres and curved blades from all over the world whilst designing the sabre.

The Germans liked it so much, they bought a mass of them from the Brit's during the Napoleonic Wars, part of the British supply in the war against Napoleon. They then produced their own version from 1811 onwards, although, as Matt said some of them were 1796's anyways. They were produced on such a scale, both the 1796 & 1811's, that they were staple arms for Yeomanry units and some artillery units up until 1916 as far as I recall.

Germany wasn't a country then either, but a collection of small states, which collectively were part of the Holy Roman Empire, at least up until 1806. This was a stupidly complicated bunch of small states which in 1792 consisted of this lot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Reichstag_participants_(1792).

Part of the Empire had close links to the British royal family, hence the existence of the King's German Legion, who fought quite well at Waterloo.

[admin]

And Britain's supply of arms and other things to the German states during their resistance of Napoleon led the little Corsican to curse the British as a 'nation of shopkeepers', because we kept the war going by supplying the enemies of our enemy.

[Colin F.]

It is on its way to me now!!!

[Colin F.]

It is here and it is truly awesome. Will post a better article later. Even Paul was impressed!!!!

[Monster Zero]

Where did you get it?

I've been thinking about a 1796 either a Light or a Heavy...

[Colin F.]

Where did you get it?

I've been thinking about a 1796 either a Light or a Heavy...

Bought it from Ian Knight who collects antique swords. He posts on the antique forum on SFI, or at least has done. I noticed it on oldswords.com. If you ever see anything that he is selling, he descriptions are spot on and he is a very decent guy to deal with.

As for the choosing of which one, the 1796 light is, in my opinion, the best cavalry sabre every designed for the British cavalry, with the 1908 a close second. If I remember what Matt said about it, "It cuts like Satan's own butter knife." My one is simply awesome. It is very handy, despite its broad blade, as the blade it paper thin at its point.

The 1796 heavy is a beast. I like it mainly because it is so bad, it's good. I mean, your never going to fence with it, it is just not made for that... butchering frenchmen with little skill and brute force however, it is rather handy.

[admin]

I have an original Blucher and a 1796LC and I agree those models of sword are just awesomely designed. This of course is mainly due to the fact that they went and looked at good traditional blades from Eastern Europe instead of sticking to the military types then in use.
I quite like the 1796HC. I think the reason most people have badmouthed it is because they have not been swordsmen. If you are used to using something like a medieval arming sword or earlier basket-hilt then you should like it a lot. If you are used to using a spadroon or smallsword then you'll hate it. The fact of the matter is that most cavalry received very little training with swords at this time - we're probably more experienced using swords than most of them were.
I like the 1822 cavalry sabre. I prefer it to the 1853, 1885 and 1899 (which all shared a similar blade design and full-width tang and slab-grip rivetted handle). I understand that there were durability problems with the 1822, but I suspect these were probably due to poor production standards in some factories rather than the actualy design.

[Paul B]

got to handle this sword at training last night. Dear god its nice.
Makes me think better of military sabres as a whole

[Colin F.]

The fact of the matter is that most cavalry received very little training with swords at this time - we're probably more experienced using swords than most of them were.

Agreed, with the 1796 H/C if you hit something with it, it was going to do damage, hence even if you were not a great swordsman letting a regiment of heavy cavalry loose with it would yield impressive results. It was good for the battle field certainly. It's just the design of it that was a bit naff, compared to the technology of the time, they could have done better. For example, hatchett point wasn't great for thrusting and it was shorter than its French contemporaries that were designed for the thrust. That said, they were well made, not badly balanced and very useable, but to my mind, they are a nearly, but not quite sword. That and it was a copy of an Austrian sword from 1775, you think they could have made a better sword.

I like the 1822 cavalry sabre. I prefer it to the 1853, 1885 and 1899 (which all shared a similar blade design and full-width tang and slab-grip rivetted handle). I understand that there were durability problems with the 1822, but I suspect these were probably due to poor production standards in some factories rather than the actualy design.

I like the 1822 as well, but the design just wasn't heavy weight enough for what it was going to be used for. It was a nice fencing weapon, but for a cavalry charge followed by the melee against muskets and heavier targets it wasn't strong enough. But as you said, this could be to do with production quality as well. It seems after the 1796, reliability of production never really got back to a decent level until 1908, as there were complaints and scandals throughout the victorian era.

[Colin F.]

got to handle this sword at training last night. Dear god its nice.
Makes me think better of military sabres as a whole

Their not all that nice... that one is my favourite for a reason!

[admin]

Is the 1822 lighter? I only own an Indian artillery variant of one. The British artillery variants from the later 19thC are quite light, but I never found the original LC 1822's to be lighter noticeably than the '53 or '85. Truth me told, I quite like the '85, though I have never seen an original of a '22, '53 or '85 that was properly sharpened. I think this was 90% of the problem...