Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Pattern 1822,1845 and Pattern 1892 and so on Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Edward Lee




Location: New York
Joined: 05 Jul 2013

Posts: 313

PostPosted: Sat 24 Aug, 2013 10:40 pm    Post subject: Pattern 1822,1845 and Pattern 1892 and so on         Reply with quote

Hello

I recently read an article about the British sabers of the 19th century. According to what the article claims, the 1822 and 1845 patterns were only mediocre weapons, and too delicate as fighting swords, and later on it was replaced by 1892, which had a straight blade, and by 1895 they replaced the brass guard with steel.I'm not sure if this information is correct since the article is from Wikipedia. Is it really true that the Pattern 1822 and 1845 weren't as good as the Pattern 1892 even though it had over 70 years of service? And why? Thanks.

Sincerely

Ed
View user's profile Send private message
Jonathan Hopkins




PostPosted: Sun 25 Aug, 2013 10:01 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Ed,
Thank you for starting this topic! The P1822, which had a pipe back blade, was probably the most "delicate" of the three patterns you mentioned (and discussed on Wikipedia). The examples I have handled tend to have thinner brass guards than those found on P1845s and the pipe back blades tend to be lighter and thinner. This would not always have been the case as officers could have s sword blade made to their liking, but generally the P1822 pipe back blade was not as sturdy as the later 1845 and 1892 blades. The pipe back blades found on cavaalry and naval officer's swords tend to be broader and generally more sturdy in appearance.

The P1845 blade is not delicate unless it was poorly made. Makers such as Wilkinson, Mole, Reeves, Pillin, etc. were generally considered the best (especially Wilkinson) as far as quality, while anonymous blades sold by military tailors did not enjoy the best reputations (although they could be absolutely fine, too). Soon after the introduction of the P1845 (early 1850s, perhaps earlier) we begin to see other blade types produced by the big makers for discerning officer keen to have fighting sword which suited their needs as swordsmen. These special pattern blades can be found on standard P1845 brass hilts, on P1845 style steel hilts which were gilded to look like the regulation brass hilts, with "patent solid hilts", and even on non-regulation hilts such as the steel scroll (a.k.a. acanthus) hilt that was favored by officers serving in India.

The P1892 blade was introduced based on the assumption of the superiority of a thrust over a cut. Not all officers agreed, and when in 1895 the were compelled to adopt the new steel hilt, quite a few opted only to replace their hilts but to keep their P1845 blades. Economics may have played some part in those decisions--it was cheaper to simply replace the guard than to buy an entirely new sword--but not everyone was sold on the superiority of the thrust. Reading period newspaper and journal clippings reads a bit like some disagreements one can find on internet fora!

So in summary, I do think that overall the P1822 was less satisfactory than the later patterns. The only thing that was delicate about the P1845 was probably its brass hilt, but not the blade. The P1892 blade may have been a better blade for thrusting, but it is not necessarily any sturdier than its predecessor.

The Wikipedia article seems to be based on Robson's (Swords of the British Army) commentary on the infantry patterns, which is turn is based on a select few period sources which are quoted in the text. For further reading on period accounts of British swords and swordsmanship of the 19th century, I recommend Swordsmen of the British Empire by D.A. Kinsley (with an introduction by Matt Easton). There are a few earlier editions of the book with slightly different names, but I only recommend the latest edition with the intro by Matt. I disagree with a number of Mr. Kinsley's assertions and I think Matt does a good job of countering some of Kinsley's opinions and assertions.

Jonathan


Last edited by Jonathan Hopkins on Sun 25 Aug, 2013 5:29 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profile Send private message
Edward Lee




Location: New York
Joined: 05 Jul 2013

Posts: 313

PostPosted: Sun 25 Aug, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

To Mr.Hopkins

Thank you for the reply! Really appreciate you taking your time to write these. As you said, I've seen some blades that were replaced into a different guard, generally made of steel instead of brass, and most of these blades were P1845. As to my understanding, there is a difference between the 1845 Calvary sword and Infantry sword, what's the difference between them besides one being straight and the other being curved? And was the p1845 curved blade used on foot often? Thanks!

Sincerely

Ed

P.S And thanks for the book recommendation! I'll definitely need to get one.
View user's profile Send private message
Neil Melville




Location: Scotland
Joined: 27 Oct 2009

Posts: 183

PostPosted: Sun 25 Aug, 2013 3:57 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Hi Edward,
to clarify the position; patterns 1822, 1845 and 1892 are all infantry officers' swords, and so not of critical importance for fighting. As far as cavalry troopers' swords/sabres go there was a lot of dissatisfaction with the design and quality of the issue patterns, and they were replaced with great frequency and at great cost! Patterns 1821, 1853, 1864, 1880, 1882 (short and long), 1885, 1890, 1899 reflect the continuous debate over the superiority of the cut or the thrust, only resolved with the pattern 1908, a straight, narrow-bladed thrusting sword with large bowl guard. Hope this helps.
Neil

N Melville
View user's profile Send private message
Jonathan Hopkins




PostPosted: Sun 25 Aug, 2013 5:26 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The P1845 blade, also sometimes called a Wilkinson style blade, was used for all regulation officers' swords after 1845, but would vary in length and width depending on the makers, officers' heights and preferences, and branch of service. For example, the blade of a cavalry officer's sword was generally longer than the blade of an infantry officer's sword.

As Neil illustrates, cavalry troopers' swords were constantly changing whereas (regulation) officers' swords changed very little. They did change a bit, though, as discussed here.

All the best,
Jonathan
View user's profile Send private message
Jonathan Hopkins




PostPosted: Sun 25 Aug, 2013 5:31 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I just want to point out that I edited my first reply to include a link I forgot to insert in my text: Wilkinson Blade Types
View user's profile Send private message
Edward Lee




Location: New York
Joined: 05 Jul 2013

Posts: 313

PostPosted: Tue 27 Aug, 2013 12:03 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Those are some unique information, thanks guys!
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Historical Arms Talk > Pattern 1822,1845 and Pattern 1892 and so on
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum