Category: Sword Articles

IN TANDEM WITH THE INTRODUCTION of the 1822 Pattern Infantry Officer’s Sword that was of an entirely new design and featured a half-basket hilt with open bars and “Gothic” styling, the Royal Navy decided in 1827, to adopt a sword for officers of similar design.  It differed in having a solid half-basket and lionshead pommel.  There was also a fouled anchor and crown cartouche in place of the royal cypher and crown found on infantry officers’ swords.

Swords carried by Warrant Officers or Masters followed these changes but omitted the lionshead pommel and displayed a plain infantry type pommel.  The backstrap was also undecorated and plain. Grips tended to be black sharkskin in contrast to the white sharkskin found on officers’ swords.  Blades are normally plain although there are examples with decoration that is identical to the version carried by officers.

There is also a sword type with an open work hilt that is similar in most respects to an infantry officer’s sword of 1822 Pattern and it could have been carried by both Warrant and senior officers.  It is thought that it was introduced before the 1827 Pattern and was an interim style before the pattern was formalised.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

BRITISH NAPOLEONIC NAVAL Warrant Officers and junior lieutenants and midshipmen used a similar stirrup-hilted sword to the 1805 Pattern Naval Officer’s Sword.  Most are found with a plain pommel although rarely, they can be noted with a lionshead pommel.  Unlike senior officers (Captain, Commander and Admiral rank), whose sword grip was made from ivory, swords carried by these ranks are normally found with a black fishskin grip. 

Blades are identical to the officer’s pattern (that is straight, single-fullered and double-edged towards the point) although many are also encountered that are plain and undecorated.  Scabbards again are typically of black leather with plain brass mounts.

In 1825, a change was made to the hilt with the “stirrup” element of the hilt replaced with a D-guard.  It was laid out in the official regulations (that also applied to more senior officers):

“…the backpiece of the handle is to be plain, with a flute round the top and down the back; with a black fishskin gripe bound with three gold wires..” and specifically for Midshipmen: “Of the same pattern as Masters, but of such length as may be convenient.”

This was due to many of the Midshipmen being merely boys and not able to carry a full length sword.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

BEFORE THE STANDARDISATION of naval officers’ swords after 1805, the Royal Navy officer had great leeway as to what type of edged weapon he carried whilst on board ship.  During the mid and latter part of the 17th Century, the traditional gentleman’s rapier was abandoned by British naval officers in favour of short, hunting hangers and cutlass-type swords.  These cutlasses and hangers were similar to those issued to ordinary seaman but were decorated in a more elaborate way, with chiselled decoration to both pommels and guards with many manufactured with silver hilt and scabbard mounts.  These short swords were far more practical whilst fighting amongst the rigging and confined space of a ship’s crowded deck.  Many contemporary paintings show British naval officers carrying these swords.  

In keeping with fashions of the day, British naval officers sometimes carried a dress sword for more formal occasions and these were normally based on contemporary civilian and military smallswords that included a boat shell hilt with pas d’âne and a colichemarde (hollow-ground) blade.  In some rare examples, the smallswords might carry nautical motifs to the hilt. 

By the late-18th Century, the hunting-type hanger was dropped in favour of an infantry sword with slotted guard.  Many of these exhibit an anchor inset into the guard or engraved to the pommel.  Blades tended to be manufactured in countries such as Germany (where they were cheaper to buy) and exported into England, with the sword fittings e.g. guard, grip and scabbard produced in small workshops in the United Kingdom, where the sword would be finally assembled.

In 1786, the British Army formally adopted a regulation pattern sword for infantry officers. It was natural that British naval officers would copy this style.  The cut and thrust blade was straight with either a “beaded” or “five-ball” hilt and cushion pommel.  A gilt brass “cigar band” with engraved anchor was placed in the centre of a ribbed ivory or ebony grip.  Some examples also have a cut-out anchor placed in the centre of the side-ring.  Blades were also decorated with engraved motifs, including a royal crown, coat of arms, martial trophies, stands of arms and scrolling foliage.  Other sword types include those with a S-bar hilt (and anchor in cartouche) and the more common stirrup hilt that copied the British 1796 Pattern Light Cavalry Officer’s Sword. 

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE LLOYDS PATRIOTIC FUND was originally established as the Patriotic Fund and first met on the 28th July 1803 at Lloyd’s Coffee House, Tower Street, in the City of London.  Its previous role was to raise money for military casualties of the British Army and Navy and by 1804, it had raised the enormous sum of £174,000 (around £15 million in today’s money).  This had been acquired from donations throughout the growing British Empire.  With this amount of money the Fund was able to help both casualties’ families but also reward naval officers who had distinguished themselves with “successful exertions of value or merit”.

These rewards included a sum of money, a piece of silverware or a decorated sword.  The contract for making the swords was given to Richard Teed of Lancaster Court, Strand, London, a noted sword maker who specialised in producing swords for senior officers.

There were three types of swords that were awarded:

£100 –   awarded to Commanders and Naval Captains.

£50 –     awarded to Naval Lieutenants and Royal Marine Captains

£30 –     awarded to Midshipmen, Marine Lieutenants and Masters’ Mates.

The design of the swords followed a set pattern with a gilt brass stirrup hilt and knucklebow in the form of a club of Hercules entwined by a snake and quillons in the style of Roman fasces.  Langets have acanthus-leafed decoration and applied naval motifs and trophies.  The hilt backpiece takes the form of a Nemean lion skin.  Grips are made from finely chequered ivory.

Blades are of a type seen on the British 1796 Pattern Light Cavalry Officer’s Sword and feature extensive decoration and a large presentation panel detailing the action in which the officer’s bravery and courage qualified him for a Lloyds Patriotic Fund Sword.

Scabbards vary in ornateness according to the value of the sword, with the £100 sword featuring engraved mounts with oval cartouches depicting various Labours of Hercules.  They are also lined with blue velvet.  The £30 sword has a scabbard of shagreen covered wood with gilt mounts.  Each sword was presented in a wooden case with bullion sword belt and knot, the elaborateness of which was reflected in the original monetary value assigned to it.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

BRITISH COASTGUARD OFFICERS carried a number of hanger type swords and it is generally agreed that the style of sword comprised a brass stirrup hilt and ribbed brass or iron grip.  Blades are slightly curved and single or double-fullered.   Some have official inspection stamps and occasionally, royal cyphers.  They would have been carried in a plain, black leather and brass-mounted scabbard.

New regulations were introduced in 1825 that required civil branches of the Royal Navy to wear smallswords.  This included medical officers and pursers. The sword comprised a typical triangular, smallsword blade and gilt brass hilt with a black grip.  The hilt had a circular or disk guard (sometimes hinged to one side so that it could be folded when the sword was worn) and within the grip was a lozenge or tablet that displayed the branch of service.  For medical officers e.g. surgeons, physicians or assistant physicians, the tablet would have an engraved anchor with entwined snake.  These swords were officially carried for only seven years, thereafter officers reverted to standard naval patterns.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THESE MACHETES DATE FROM the mid-late 19th Century and were produced by a number of sword makers in both Britain and Europe.  They are not Royal Navy issue but are thought to have been carried on board merchant ships alongside commercially made cutlasses.  Most follow a standard style, including the use of horn or wood in the grips, either in slab or ribbed form.  Blades are made from thin steel and are wide, sometimes multi-fullered and with pronounced swollen and flared points.  The Steamer Company motif is frequently encountered on machete blades of this type and it it thought that this is another trading name for Robert Mole and Sons of Birmingham, a prolific supplier of swords to the British Army and Navy during the 19th Century.

These machetes were not used for fighting and were probably more of an on-board utility tool.  Some examples are stamped with either “GR” or “VR” royal cyphers that might indicate that they had official sanction to be used.  Most machetes still surviving have lost their original scabbards (with some probably never issued with them) but would originally have been leather and brass or steel mounted.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE VARIETY OF NON-REGULATION NAVAL CUTLASSES produced during the 19th Century is quite large and many sword making companies chose to manufacture a range of cutlasses that they hoped to sell to both the Royal and Merchant Navy.  The Royal Navy also adapted a number of non-naval swords for use as cutlasses, particularly when supplies of pattern swords were not available or financial constraints meant that they had to look to existing stocks of obsolete patterns that could be utilised.  An example of this is the conversion (in 1842) of the 1796 Pattern Heavy Cavalry Trooper’s Sword.  A large order was required for new cutlasses and the Board of Ordnance went to the Birmingham sword makers to fulfill this requirement.  No order for sword blades from the Navy had been placed since 1816 and by 1842, most of the old sword makers had simply disappeared or moved onto other work.  This meant looking elsewhere and it was discovered that 12,000 of the old heavy cavalry trooper’s pattern was in storage and so they were converted by shortening the blades and replacing the hilt, although some examples do exist where the hilt was also retained. 

Other styles of non-regulation cutlasses include examples with large iron or steel hilts with prominently ribbed metal grips and later 19th Century variations of the 1804 Pattern Naval Seaman’s Cutlass.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

SERVICE FAILURES OF THE PREVIOUS PATTERNS again necessitated the need for a new pattern of cavalry sword. This became the 1899 Pattern Cavalry Trooper’s Sword and was not an improvement on previous patterns and became one of the most unpopular British cavalry troopers’ swords of the 19th Century.

Changes made to this pattern include the replacement of the “Maltese Cross” guard with a solid bowl and the inclusion of an unusually long grip.  The blade was similar to the 1882 Pattern but had been strengthened and thickened, with a slightly shorter blade.

The outbreak of war in South Africa (Boer War) was a testing ground for the new pattern and it failed miserably.

Flaws included the swordsman’s hand tending to slip up and down the grip, especially when hot and sweaty. The thickness of metal to the guard was also too thin, causing it to bend and buckle easily.  Colonel Robert Baden-Powell was also condemnatory:

“The present sword is a perfectly useless weapon to my mind, whether as a sword or anything else.”

Because of its general fragility, most surviving examples are in pretty poor condition, with battered guards and worn grips.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE 1882, 1885 AND 1890 Pattern cavalry trooper swords can be distinguished by their varying lengths, blade types and scabbards (this pattern saw the first adoption of fixed suspension rings). The fact that we see three changes of pattern in only a few years highlights the crisis experienced within the British Army to find a sword both durable and effective.

The 1882 Pattern is found in both ‘Long’ and ‘Short’ versions, with the relevance of having two specific lengths a matter of debate.  The general consensus is that the longer sword was for use by the heavy cavalry regiments who tended to employ taller men. This seems quite a strange theory, and the introduction of these two lengths has never adequately been explained. The pattern is easy to recognise because of the distinctive Maltese Cross motif cut into the guard. It was purely ornamental and served no practical purpose.

The blade is slightly curved, with a flat back and double-edged towards the spear point.  The grip is made up of chequered leather strips, riveted through the tang and is identical to the 1864 Pattern.

Many examples are also marked on the blade to the German sword maker, Weyersberg, Kirschbaum & Co., who impressed their knight’s head logo and company name to the blade ricasso.  Kirschbaum took on a large contract to produce these swords as British companies were unable to fulfil the initial orders, although Mole and Son and the R.S.A.F. Enfield, shared around 11,500 of the contract, with Kirschbaum taking the remaining 18,000. 

Experience of the sword on active service was not promising, with more complaints about the softness of the blade and its propensity to bend and break.  In a typical response, a Committee was established to look into this problem.  Regiments were asked for their opinions and the answers included the need for a longer blade.  Interestingly, some of the private manufacturers of the sword blade (including Mole & Son) were criticised for using lower quality steel and differing methods of hardening.

It was produced in relatively large quantities and remained in British Army stocks for a considerable time, with many carried by Yeomanry Regiments long after it was superseded by subsequent patterns.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

The design of this new pattern was initially entrusted with the Superintendent of the R.S.A.F. Enfield (Colonel Arbuthnot) and he was given specific instructions to ensure that its development and manufacture should be strictly in-house as opposed to previous patterns, where private sword makers had both proposed and produced finished swords for the British Army.  The final design was actually influenced by the previous 1820 Pattern that had been tendered by Wilkinsons and Arbuthnot submitted a final pattern for approval in 1882.

The swords came in two forms; ‘Long’ and ‘Short’, with a longer version for cavalry troopers and the shorter sword allocated to bandsmen and trumpeters. 

The blade was straight, with the longer version measuring over 38 inches and the shorter blade, just over 37 inches. It soon attracted the inevitable criticism from those who had to use it, with complaints that the longer blade lacked sufficient strength.  Subsequent improvements (1885/1890/1892) were an attempt to rectify this problem by shortening the blade and giving it a slight curve in common with the universal sword patterns carried by other cavalry regiments at that time.

The open scrollwork steel hilt has the Household Cavalry (“HC”) cypher interwoven under a crown.  The open piercing was viewed as a hindrance in combat as it could allow an opponent to thrust in the point of a blade or socket bayonet.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE 1864 PATTERN CAVALRY TROOPER’S SWORD  is rare and considering that it had such a long service life (18 years) before it was superseded by a new pattern (1882 Pattern), surviving examples are extremely scarce.  Numbers produced of this pattern (12,000 were manufactured by 1878) were not particularly high as this was a period when Britain was not actively engaged in any large scale conflicts. The military were probably minded to use existing supplies e.g. 1853 Pattern swords, until they were unserviceable, before issuing troops with this new pattern of sword.   It is also true that some regiments disliked the new pattern and asked to replace it with the old 1853 Pattern which was duly agreed.  This decision to adopt this new pattern was based solely on the need to change the hilt of the previous pattern rather than the blade.

The sword comprised a blade, grip and scabbard that is identical to the 1853 Pattern, with a newly designed bowl guard of sheet steel and distinctive “Maltese Cross” piercings.  There are also two sword knot slits to the rear of the hilt, a strange choice in terms of practicality, but it is thought that the R.S.A.F. (Royal Small Arms Factory) at Enfield, were possibly influenced by contemporary Austro-Hungarian swords that displayed two sword knot slits.

The first test of this pattern was during the Second Afghan War (1878-1880) with the inevitable complaints, most notably its tendency to be heavy in the hand and a guard that was deemed too small and restricting.  The inner sharp edge of the bowl guard also frayed the wearer’s uniform.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE SWORD, CAVALRY, PATTERN 1853, was the first attempt to produce a cavalry sword for issue to all regiments of the British Army that had at its core, the promotion of a truly cut and thrust blade.  Designed by the sword maker, Charles Reeves and manufactured at the government weapon establishment at Enfield, London, it was an attempt to improve on the characteristics of both a heavy and light cavalry trooper’s sword blade, with the perceived hope that a stronger blade (including an innovative extension to form a solid tang, rather than the previously two-piece, welded form), would result in a measurable increase in strength and reliability.

The new blade was also heavier than previous patterns and comprised a narrower and deeper fuller, which it was hoped, would provide a more robust blade that avoided breakage and bending.  The three-bar-hilt was steel and the riveted leather grip was slightly angled, with the intention of giving the swordsman better purchase on the sword.  The scabbard is made from wrought iron with two bands, loose suspension rings and a shoe.

Unfortunately, the roundness and smoothness of the grip caused problems in the field, as it could easily slip out of a trooper’s hand and was unstable when attempting to cut and thrust.  There were also complaints by the Army concerning the strength and durability of the blade.  Many tests were carried out, resulting in a stalemate between Enfield and the Army, with Enfield complaining that they subjected the sword blades to unnatural forces.  It saw service in the Crimea where it was not well received, with troopers reporting that the blade bent upon contact, with the result that many lives were lost unnecessarily.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

BOTH THE LIFE GUARDS’ REGIMENTS (1st and 2nd) carried a lightweight sword for evening or levee wear. The sword was based on the 1796 Pattern Heavy Cavalry Officer’s Dress Sword with some variations, especially in the hilt design.   The principle of a gilt brass, boat shell hilt is still there, but some versions display a folding guard and distinctive, vase-shaped and flat-topped tang buttons, reminiscent of the military courtswords worn in Prussia at that time.

Some examples have a scalloped shell at the end of the hilt and feature both single and double quillons combined with plain or elaborately decorated blades. The black leather and brass-mounted scabbards can also have unusually long locket hooks. The Household Cavalry regiments were very flexible in their interpretation of regulation designs and it is virtually impossible to precisely date or assign these swords to any specific Household Cavalry regiment, although contemporary military paintings of officers in the regiment show that they appear to have emerged around 1820 and lasted until the 1870’s, when the 1874 Pattern State Sword became the universal sword for Life Guards, both for Dress and Undress.

There do not appear to be any official regulations covering the introduction of these swords and they seem to have been brought into the Lifeguard regiments on a purely personal level and sourced from a wide number of sword makers, no doubt receiving unwritten “official” approval over the passage of time.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE ROYAL HORSE GUARDS were issued a new trooper’s sword in 1848 that was designed by Birmingham sword makers, Reeves and Greaves.  These swords had a distinctive open, “honeysuckle” style of steel hilt and can be viewed as a more robust but plain-bladed version of the 1821 Pattern Heavy Cavalry Officer’s Sword.  There are minor differences, though. These include a backstrap with “ears” that were riveted through the tang and the addition of a brass-topped pommel.

The blade was slightly curved, with a rounded back and single fuller to each side.  It was double-edged for the last 12 inches and spear-pointed.  The grip was wood, covered in fishskin and bound with brass twistwire.  Scabbards were steel and with two bands that held loose rings.

It must be noted that these were not the only Household Cavalry troopers’ swords being carried at that time.  A number of hybrid and unique designs (including a version with a bowl hilt similar to the 1820 Pattern Household Cavalry Trooper’s Sword), was carried by both the 1st and 2nd Lifeguards.  This highlighted the fact that the Household Cavalry, who naturally regarded themselves as an elite regiment, unlike the more regular cavalry formations, were not always restricted by regulations governing the type of sword that had to be carried.  This unorthodox attitude to authority can be traced back to the regiment’s establishment in 1660.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

 THIS SWORD IS ONE OF THE MOST attractive of British Army pattern swords and is still carried by officers of the Household Cavalry. It was first adopted in the 1834 Dress Regulations and designated for use by officers of the 1st Life Guards. Early versions are described as:

“…half basket, steel pierced hilt, with regimental cipher in brass; the edges of basket ornamented with twelve plain brass studs; lining of white leather, backpiece of plain polished steel, with a brass cap; straight cut and thrust blade with hatchet edge and square back, thirty eight inches long. Scabbard – steel with plain brass mountings.”

It was meant for both dress and undress, with the stated intention that it was to be used in combat. I very much doubt its effectiveness, though, as the blade is quite long and unwieldy. It probably saw little service action and it is more likely that officers on active service carried a more practical standard regulation pattern light or heavy cavalry sabre.  There were some changes to the sword in 1874 when all regiments of the Household Cavalry formally adopted the pattern. It was then officially listed as the 1874 Pattern State Sword. The brass hilt cyphers are marked with “1LG” (1st Life Guards), “2LG” (2nd Life Guards) and “RHG” (Royal Horse Guards).  Other minor changes included the dropping of the brass pommel to be replaced by a steel version, and slight regimental alterations to the scabbards.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE NEW DRESS SWORD for the 2nd Life Guards that was introduced in the 1834 Dress Regulations was a radical departure from previous British Army cavalry officers’ swords and it is thought that the original inspiration for this design was French, based on Gendarmerie officers’ swords of the Consulate and Empire periods.

The requirements for the sword expressed in the Regulations were succinct:

 “…half basket hilt, with three scrolled and chased bars.”

This brief description led to the design of a gilt brass hilt featuring a forked lightning design to the back of the pommel, with a bursting grenade to the flat surface (or ‘stool’) of the guard.  The blade is straight, flat-backed, with a fuller to each side.  It is also double-edged for the last 10 inches.  The grip is wood, covered with fishskin and bound with brass twistwire.  The scabbard is steel with two brass bands and loose suspension or hanging rings.  The shoe of the scabbard is elaborately decorated.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 1821 Heavy Cavalry Officer’s Sword coincided with the development of a new kind of service blade known as the pipe back. It is unclear when exactly this type of blade was adopted as they are commonly seen in pre-1821 swords, including stirrup-hilted 1796 Pattern light and heavy cavalry swords.  It is during the 1820’s that these blades became more widespread within the British Army, in both infantry and cavalry officers’ swords. The use of a “pipe” or tube down the back of the blade was viewed as providing both strength and an improvement to the overall balance of the sword.

The 1822 Dress Regulations specified the requirements for this new pattern:

“Steel basket hilt, pommel and shell; black fishskin grip with silver twisted wire; plain steel blade, to cut and thrust, thirty six inches long, one and a quarter inches wide at the shoulder”.

Although not mentioned in the Regulations, the sword scabbard was required to be of plain steel.

The 1821 Heavy Cavalry Officer’s Sword is probably best defined by its incorporation of the famous “honeysuckle” pierced hilt. This style of hilt had already been used by heavy cavalry officers carrying the 1796 Pattern Heavy Cavalry Officer’s Undress Sword. This was known as the “ladder hilt” but still displayed burgeoning traces of a honeysuckle pattern to some of the hilts.

A final standardisation took place in 1896, when this pattern became universal for both light and heavy cavalry officers. The sword is sometimes referred to as the 1896 Pattern, although it was not strictly a formal introduction of a new pattern and the only changes involved the adoption of a universal type of grip that was slightly straighter and longer than earlier versions. 

The two hilt types are a little different though, with the earlier 1821 Pattern revealing a more open, loose and flowing style (typical of late Georgian styling), combined with an elegant and pronounced stepped pommel. The later Victorian hilts are “tighter”, with smaller gaps between piercings and a thicker gauge of metal used.  Official Dress Regulations after 1864 ordered that blades for this sword should change from pipe back to single- fullered, although full implementation of this regulation was often erratic. 

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THIS SWORD IS COMMONLY KNOWN as the 1821 Pattern although it was only officially adopted in the 1822 Dress Regulations.  It was a major departure from previous cavalry pattern swords in having a steel three-bar hilt and pipe back blade with spear point, double-edged for the last 10 inches.  It gave more protection to the wearer’s hand than its stirrup-hilted predecessor but it was still vulnerable to piercing within the bars by an opponent’s blade. Despite these drawbacks, it was an actual improvement, and reports from the field said that it was a relatively effective fighting weapon, although early examples had weaker blades that were prone to breaking and this issue was later addressed when the pipe back blade was replaced with the “Wilkinson” type.

The sword is very similar to the trooper’s version and differs with regard to the hilt bars which are fluted in the officer’s version whereas they are plain in the trooper’s sword.  The grip is also wrapped in fishskin and bound with twistwire and the backpiece terminates with a stepped pommel.  Early examples from the Late-Georgian period have quite a pronounced, stepped pommel and these tend to be from the reigns of King George IV and William IV, which encompass the years 1820-1837. Victorian swords have a far less exaggerated pommel.

The late Georgian swords are probably more attractive due to the flowing lines of the pipe back blade and its delicate blade etching. Like its infantry counterpart, they tended to wear quite easily, making recognition sometimes difficult, particularly with regard to the royal cyphers.  Georgian blades are far less decorated with just the royal cypher, crown and maybe a laurel wreath within a tablet. Victorian blades can also include complex and heavy decoration for most of its length, particularly the presentation pieces. Both the cavalry regiments and the Royal Artillery adopted this sword and it is still carried by serving officers of the British Army.

Victorian examples made by Henry Wilkinson are normally of very high quality and better made than most other contemporary swords, with thick hilt bars, fatter grips (including their Patent Solid Hilt examples) and a wider blade. Blade etching is usually superb. The company’s aim was to prove that their swords could outdo in quality and durability any domestic or foreign competition.  Other quality makers of this pattern include Prosser, Firmin, Gaunt and Silver.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

ALTHOUGH THE PREVIOUS PATTERN (1796 Pattern Light Cavalry Trooper’s Sword) was a sword that had been heavily influenced by a design promoted by Major-General John Gaspard Le Marchant, it was still not completely successful in its original intention of rivalling swords carried by French cavalry troopers.  The lack of protection for the hand was a particularly serious problem as was the inability for the wide and curved blade to inflict mortal injuries on opponents. 

In 1821, a new design by sword maker, John Prosser of London (for both light and heavy cavalry) was presented to the Board of Ordnance.  Both patterns had vitually identical blades but differed in that the light cavalry pattern had a steel, three-bar hilt that went some way to addressing the problems of protection for the hand.  The blade was slightly curved with a flat back and broad fuller, double-edged for the last 10 inches.  The scabbard is of similar type to the heavy cavalry pattern. 

Whilst in service, the hilt was prone to breakages, the blade also broke easily and this was combined with a rather weak scabbard.   Modifications and strengthening of the sword and scabbard were undertaken over the next few years.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024

THE INTRODUCTION OF THE 1821 Heavy Cavalry Trooper’s Sword heralded the arrival of a true cut and thrust weapon for the British Army.  As with most cavalry swords designed for the British Army in the 19th Century, the reception by those who had to use them in battle was typically underwhelming, but it was certainly a great improvement on the previous pattern (1796 Pattern Heavy Cavalry Trooper’s Sword) and with its large bowl guard, gave considerably more protection to the hand, an area of particular complaint by heavy cavalry troopers.

The blade was slightly curved, with a flat back and wide, single fuller, that became double-edged and spear-pointed towards the last 10 inches of the blade.  The guard was steel with a sword knot slit near the pommel.  Grips were made from wood with a ribbed leather covering and the scabbard was steel, with two loose hanging rings attached to narrow bands.  It also displayed a large shoe.

Production of this new pattern (at the Enfield manufactory) did not commence until 1825 as the new light cavalry pattern took precedence and there were already huge surplus stocks (34,000) of the previous heavy cavalry pattern.  So it was some time before it was issued to regiments but it wasn’t long before the complaints started.  These included the problem of blades being too thin and liable to snap in battle.  Later, during the Crimean War, the sword encountered difficulties when attempting to pierce enemy uniforms, particularly the thick greatcoats and rolled blankets of the Russian infantryman.  In response to this, attempts were made to strengthen and thicken the blades and scabbards during the service life of this pattern.

© Harvey Withers Military Publishing, 2024