# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Antique & Military Sword Forum >  A sword with Indian Mutiny connection

## Matt Easton

What I have here (photos attached below) is a special-order sword from Wilkinson, pre-numbered (so pre-1854), with a blade marked to the Bengal Engineers. It has lost the shark skin to the grip. The blade is service sharpened and still very sharp. The hilt, rather than being the usual brass (infantry type, before the Engineers adopted the 1857 pattern scroll hilt), is gilt steel for extra strength, as is the backstrap and pommel, with some of the gilding remaining in recesses. 

It has a coat of arms on the blade, surmounted by what appears to be a ducal coronet. I have trawled the India Army Lists for 1851 and 1861 looking for potential original owners of this sword, trying to match officers to the coat of arms. There simply weren't a great number of Bengal Engineer officers in the period of the sword's date, which must be between 1845 (when the pattern was adopted) and 1854, when Wilkinson started numbering blades. However, it's entirely possible that some candidates served for such a short time that they don't appear in the lists I have to hand. I have checked all the officers on the 1851 and 1861 lists, as well as those killed in the Mutiny of 1857-58.

I don't feel like I've hit the nail on the head, but according to Burke's one coat of arms for the name Smith (location unspecified) comprises three bezzants (shown elsewhere as or - gold) on a field of azure (blue).



The crest comprises 5 feathers, which is different to the emblem on my blade, though in the loosest definition the ducal coronet does have five branches to it.

Attached are photos of the sword and the coat of arms. In heraldic tincture horizontal lines represent azure (blue) and dots represents or (gold), so I do feel this shield shows three or bezzants on a field azure. I cannot find any other Bengal Engineers officer who even comes close to matching this coat of arms. But if this is Smith, then what is the ducal coronet doing on my blade? It seems rather presumptuous to use an indicator of high nobility, if there wasn't a genuine claim.

Lastly, if this does indeed relate to the name Smith, then I feel that the only viable candidate is Richard Baird Smith, who was the Engineer in charge of the siege works at the Siege of Delhi. However, I don't want to make any assumptions at this point and I want to make sure I have dotted the i's and crossed the t's.

Many thanks for your help  :Smilie: 

Best,
Matt

----------


## Matt Easton

Incidentally, if anyone knows of early photos of Richard Baird Smith in uniform that would help, as the steel hilts are recognisable from the brass ones.

----------


## John Hart

Nice sword, Matt.  You don't tend to think of Engineer officers as being from the nobility (and Duke is about as noble as it gets!), but in a way that might help you narrow the field down even more.  Did your heart sink when you saw the name "Smith"?   :Smilie: 

John

----------


## Matt Easton

My heart sank when I saw the number of entries for Smith in Burke's, which I then had to trawl through!  :Smilie: 

Do you think that this does represent a Duke's coat of arms, or could there be some other explanation? R B Smith was the son of a vicar, not a Duke!

----------


## Matt Easton

It did of course cross my mind that the owner could have initially been in the Bengal Engineers and then transferred to a different regiment - for example, R B Smith was originally in the Madras Engineers and transferred to Bengal. But given the extreme service sharpening and heavily used look of the sword.. Whoever owned this sword, they must have been in the Bengal Engineers at some point between 1845 and 1854, and I would guess must have seen service in 1857.

----------


## gordon byrne

> What I have here (photos attached below) is a special-order sword from Wilkinson, pre-numbered (so pre-1854), with a blade marked to the Bengal Engineers. It has lost the shark skin to the grip. The blade is service sharpened and still very sharp. The hilt, rather than being the usual brass (infantry type, before the Engineers adopted the 1857 pattern scroll hilt), is gilt steel for extra strength, as is the backstrap and pommel, with some of the gilding remaining in recesses. 
> 
> It has a coat of arms on the blade, surmounted by what appears to be a ducal coronet. I have trawled the India Army Lists for 1851 and 1861 looking for potential original owners of this sword, trying to match officers to the coat of arms. There simply weren't a great number of Bengal Engineer officers in the period of the sword's date, which must be between 1845 (when the pattern was adopted) and 1854, when Wilkinson started numbering blades. However, it's entirely possible that some candidates served for such a short time that they don't appear in the lists I have to hand. I have checked all the officers on the 1851 and 1861 lists, as well as those killed in the Mutiny of 1857-58.
> 
> I don't feel like I've hit the nail on the head, but according to Burke's one coat of arms for the name Smith (location unspecified) comprises three bezzants (shown elsewhere as or - gold) on a field of azure (blue).
> 
> 
> 
> The crest comprises 5 feathers, which is different to the emblem on my blade, though in the loosest definition the ducal coronet does have five branches to it.
> ...


Hi Matt,

Are you quite sure the charges on the shield are bezzants, they may well be roses as there seems to be some small protrusions around the outside, and some sort of patterning in the middle; beezzants a plain I believe.

Gordon

----------


## Matt Easton

Hi Gordon, well spotted! Yes there are engraved details in the circles. For some time I considered these might be elements of faces (lions/leopards etc), or indeed roses. However the outlines are perfectly circular, whereas all the heads and roses I can find have edges which aren't perfectly circular. The other thing I considered was that these were some kind of medallion or wheels, but I cannot find any Bengal Engineers of this period with any coat of arms that matches that at all. Quite simply I've been round and round in circles and the only coat of arms I can find that is remotely close is the three bezants of Smith. That being the case, I wondered whether, as they had used tincture to show the colour of the field, then perhaps the dots in the bezants were also tincture, to show gold colour.

----------


## Matt Easton

I am reviving this old thread.
Having been around and around in circles with this sword, I think that by process of elimination the arms and crest must be for Smyth.

The crest from Fairbairn:



Description of arms and crest from Burke's:

----------


## Matt Easton

I am currently thinking William Matthew Smyth is the most likely candidate, as he was serving in the Gwalior Campaign in 1843-44 and had commissioned as Lieutenant on 28 Sept 1827. The other Smyth candidates I can find are either too old or too young, given that this sword must predate 1854 (and presumably be post-1845 due to the blade type).

----------


## Matt Easton

The only other Smyth candidate who is remotely possible is Ralph Graham Smyth, but he was not commissioned until December 1855. I think that this sword, being un-numbered, must date to before 1854.

----------


## Matt Easton

If this is the sword of W M Smyth then it introduces an interesting possibility. 
Henry Wilkinson got his 'new' blade design made official regulation for infantry, artillery and cavalry officers in 1845 (Navy in 1846), but he himself claimed that he had been making blades to this design for some time before that. I have been searching for references to Wilkinson swords before 1845, but they are scant. Wilkinson were primarily gun makers before 1845 and if there were making swords they do not seem to have been making many.
This sword is extensively and repeatedly service sharpened. Given that W M Smyth went on campaign in 1843-44, but was engaged in peaceful pursuits in the Bengal Department of Public Works by 1845 (according to the East India Register for 1845), it seems at least possible that the sword was made actually before 1845. Perhaps this is one of the pre-1845 swords that Henry Wilkinson referred to.

----------


## james.elstob

Or he learned the valuable lesson that it you have a sword in India then it may as well be as sharp.

----------


## Will Mathieson

It seems very plausible that this sword was one of the earlier ones with the "Wilkinson" blade. 
This blade pattern was used from the 1820's with the 1821p British troopers sword and even earlier infantry and cavalry officers dress swords..

----------


## IMoran

A great sword which is not diminished by the open (at this point) question of ownership.

I have a couple of thoughts but am away from all references so this may be a bit vague.  To me the proof stud suggests 1850's not 1840's.  I have also found a gap in army lists between the official wind up of the HEIC during the mutiny and the appearance of former company officers in Hart's Army list in the early 1860s (1861?).  There was also a number of company officers who didn't want to join the British army (I think at the time it was described as the White mutiny)? 

I have also seen several swords purchased long in advance of the formal commission dates.  A company officer for the engineers would have had some formal training (Addiscomb?) including languages which must have taken more than a year.  I think the company records for officer recruits are available, but can't remember where or if they are digitised. 

Sorry for the rambling reply but I know how frustrating this can be and there is a chance the smallest thing can shed a bit of light.

Kind Regards
Ian

----------


## IMoran

Just had a quick look at RG Smyth and despot no active service recorded in Hart's Army List his Mutiny medal  with Lucknow clasp was sold by DNW in 1995. His court martial details are also online!

----------


## Matt Easton

Hi Ian,
Thanks for your input.
Yes I agree that it is entirely possible that the sword was ordered before his official commission by Ralph Graham Smyth who as you noted had medals sold by DNW and apparently acted as Provisional Assistant Executive Engineer at the final siege and capture of Lucknow in 1858.

Having been through the records of the Bengal Engineers specifically, both before and after the Mutiny, I think that Ralph or William are the only two Smyths who could have owned this sword. The only other Smyth was far earlier.

My doubt in the likelihood of Ralph being the original owner is that he was not commissioned until the very end of 1855. Wilkinson started numbering their swords in 1854. Presumably therefore Ralph would have had to have ordered the sword about a year and a half, or more, before he was commissioned, yet the blade is etched to the Bengal Engineers. While its not impossible that the etching was added later, it seems a bit of a long stretch to me. I think the earliest that Ralph was likely to have ordered a sword would mean that this would be a numbered blade.

In contrast, William could have ordered such a sword from Wilkinson in the early 1840s, or indeed in 1845 after the Gwalior Campaign.

----------


## IMoran

Hi Matt,

It does seem likely that it is one of them.  Is there any reference on when Wilkinson adopted the proof slug?

On the commission dates I am not sure when an appointment to a specific unit is made but the East India Register and Army list references a six month general course at th end of which cadets are directed to the infantry or artillery, followed by four terms of further study totalling two years. RG Ryan is in the 1857 list as doing temporary duty as an ensign so presumably had passed out and was India later in the year.  It is possible that he knew what corps he was heading towards in 1854, but if it was his sword he must have been very confident that he would pass the exams!

In wouldn't discount the earlier Smyth though, India was a dangerous place at the time. There may be a service record available that gives an account of an offecers service (I have seen these for Bengal Artillery of the period) which could show participation in action not covered by the army list or recognised officially with a medal.

EDIT - answered my own question, a previous post by Roberr Wilkinson Lathem suggests the proof slug was in use in 1845 (I found a 2009 post on Google).  If I was a betting person I would lean towards the earlier Smyth 

Kind Regards

Ian

----------


## Will Mathieson

I've been looking at the swords grip profile and believe now it dates into the early 1850's. I have an 1846 Wilkinson infantry sword, the grip does not taper (smaller in diameter) much to the pommel. 
I have an early 1850's Wilkinson the grip does taper more and a 1855 numbered Wilkinson grip also tapers. Based on that and the overall appearance, some things you just can't put a finger on, this sword should date early 1850's.

----------


## Matt Easton

I have never seen a Wilkinson without the slug (except picquet weight swords), so I presume that they started using them as soon as they started making swords, which seems to have been in the early 1840s. I'm trying to pin down an exact date for when they started making swords. 1840/41 seems possible at the moment.

I agree that William is the likely Smyth. I will look some more into Ralph though to see what he was doing before 1854.

----------


## Matt Easton

> I've been looking at the swords grip profile and believe now it dates into the early 1850's. I have an 1846 Wilkinson infantry sword, the grip does not taper (smaller in diameter) much to the pommel. 
> I have an early 1850's Wilkinson the grip does taper more and a 1855 numbered Wilkinson grip also tapers. Based on that and the overall appearance, some things you just can't put a finger on, this sword should date early 1850's.


To be frank, I have a lot of Wilkinsons of a similar date and their grip shapes all vary (I have about 12 swords just from 1858-1860 all with different grip shapes). I don't think we can date them that way.

----------


## Will Mathieson

> To be frank, I have a lot of Wilkinsons of a similar date and their grip shapes all vary (I have about 12 swords just from 1858-1860 all with different grip shapes). I don't think we can date them that way.


Definitely not science, your swords grip does appear to be the same as 1850-1856 Wilkinsons, not sure of 1858-60 ones. One would have to compare infantry to infantry etc.
The proof discs of Wilkinson's did change in detail, a closeup of it would allow comparison.

----------


## gordon byrne

Hi Matt,

Regarding the shield of arms on the blade, if it's etched correctly in accordance with the rules of heraldry, the horizontal lines on the shield are indicative of the fact that the colour of the shield  is Azure (blue), which would not match the blazon of any one of the three Smyth entries of the arms in Burke's.

In reference to the Smyth arms, they are all Ermines (a fur); and there is  is no doubt that the shield on the blade  is positively etched with horizontal lines. 

Whilst this particular etched display of arms, is no proof one way or the other, if it's not correct, why would they be bothered to display the shield in such detail?, when very detailed displays of arms are not as common as a display of just a crest, crest and initials, or just initials.

----------


## Matt Easton

Hi Gordon, 
I think with the combination of the three bezzants and the five-feathered coronet that there cannot be any doubt left. There simply aren't any other families with those particular features combined. It's way beyond coincidence, especially when we put it with the Bengal Engineers etching and the fact Smyth is not a common spelling, yet there were two in the Bengal Engineers at this period. If you can find another family with anything like this crest and shield, please show me  :Smilie:  The crest alone is very unusual and specific though. 
Regarding the tincture, perhaps they got it wrong or perhaps it is not supposed to be tincture at all. There is a coat of arms in my family which was represented in various different ways and sub-branches of families sometimes made unofficial small changes (again I can see this in my own family history).

----------


## gordon byrne

Hi Matt, 
I wasn't suggesting that the person in question is not a Smyth, in fact, from what you present, it seems more than likely that one of them is your man. More to the point, I was suggesting that the particular representation of the Smyth arms on the sword, may not be indicative of one of the three in Burke's; further to that, and as you rightly point out, sub-branches of families were represented by changes (differences) in the original grant. If in fact the etching is correct, it may well represent a change along the lines of what you indicate is the case.

----------


## Matt Easton

Just to throw all options out there, I have been through all the Smythe and Smith entries in Burke's as well. Perhaps surprisingly there are none that list the crest as being a set of features coming out of a coronet, despite the fact that the coronet and the bezzants are frequently used by families with names like Smith/Smyth/Smythe. Nowhere outside of Smyth can I find the exact combination of three bezzants (or similar) with a featured ducal coronet, nor in fact the feathered coronet at all.

However there is this:



Although there is no mention of the ducal coronet, we do find the three bezzants on an azure field. Which the etched arms on the sword blade *may* indicate if the lines are supposed to be tincture.

So at the broadest perspective I think this limits the arms and crest to either Smyth or Smith, but not exactly matching any of the descriptions in Burke's.

Theoretically the sword should date to between 1844 and 1854 and it has been sharpened a lot. The older Smyth did not see active service after 1844 and the younger Smyth did not join until the end of 1855.

----------


## IMoran

What a conundrum!  As the younger Smythe served a full career and reached higher rank I would have assumed his sword would have been re hilted with the 1857 pattern hilt.  

Unless a further Smith crops up in the Bengal Engineers (FIBIS has a searchable database of passengers to India) I think your best bet is the older  Smythe having had a need to keep a sword sharpened or even passing the sword on to another officer when he left India (which must have been in 1850/51 at the latest).

----------


## Will Mathieson

It was not mandatory to re hilt this sword, he had paid a premium for the steel hilt and it seems he wanted to retain it..

----------


## Matt Easton

Though we still have no evidence that the younger Smyth would have had a Bengal Engineers sword before December 1855 and this sword pre-dates 1854  :Smilie: 
I think the only options are that this belonged to William Smyth, or one of the two possible Smiths. But given the specific crest, I think it must be Smyth.

----------


## gordon byrne

Matt,

Based purely on your comment re the blade being sharpened and re-sharpened, and made between 1845 and before 1854, and setting aside the absence of the Coronet in the blazon of the "Smith" crest, Richard Baird Smith had active service in the Sutlej Campaign 1845-46, the Punjab Campaign 1848-49 and the Indian Mutiny.

He ranked in the Bengal Corps of Engineers 28th August 1841, received his promotion to Lieutenant 28th August 1844 (Suggestion only?? On promotion to Lieutenant, he purchased a new sharpened sword circa 1845, which he used during the 1st Sikh War 11th December 1845 - 9th March 1846). He then had the sword sharpened when serving during the Punjab Campaign 1848-49, and in due course he also served during the Indian Mutiny, which would also be good cause to have a sharp sword. 

Whilst identifying a person by researching a crest or coat of arms can be very easy at times, my own experience has taught me the what appears to be the obvious answer, is not always correct; and with at least two cases on my own account, the identity of two individuals behind two very distinct armorial bearings could not be found in the records of heraldic authorities. Having said that and apart from the crest, your most recent posting of the arms of Smith matches what is on the sword. Was the Coronet an un-official change added by Smith?  For reasons as yet not established, was there a link between Smith and Smyth??

----------


## L. Braden

If Baird Smith, why all the sharpening? He never used his sword! One must look for a Smyth(e)/Smith who used his sword in action, or someone else who used that sword. Good luck!  :Smilie: 
P.S. Of course, B.S. could have loaned his sword to another officer or officers.

----------


## gordon byrne

How does one establish that Baird Smith never used his sword?

----------


## L. Braden

By exhaustive research; and even then, you can never be absolutely be sure! But given the fact that he was an engineer, and that engineers rarely engaged in combat, I'm convinced that he never used his sword (based on my research). HOWEVER, if someone can produce credible evidence to the contrary, I'll be glad to see it.  :Smilie:

----------


## MikeShowers

He may never have had to USE his sword in combat, but since it was common practice for British officers to sharpen their swords prior to active service, multiple periods of active service may lead to multiple sharpenings of the sword.  That is if the same sword was used over the periods of active service.  Maybe there is some confusion over sharpening versus use.
Cheers,
Mike

----------


## L. Braden

But if a sword was never drawn, and never used, why would it require resharpening?  :Confused: 

P.S. The Ordnance Dept. advised officers against frequent or what they considered unnecessary sharpening, because it wore the blades out too soon, which is why troopers' swords were often to some degree blunt.

----------


## Will Mathieson

All officers engaging in a conflict were ordered to sharpen their swords. Ordnance dept.  controlled swords owned by the crown, namely trooper swords. 
I have not read in any reference the board advising officers not to keep sharp their swords.
Repeated sharpening could wear trooper swords to some degree being in steel scabbards, officer swords highly unlikely to wear with wood or leather lined scabbards, if so they could purchase a new one at their leisure.
If anyone has references for or contrary I do like to read them!

----------


## MikeShowers

> But if a sword was never drawn, and never used, why would it require resharpening? 
> 
> P.S. The Ordnance Dept. advised officers against frequent or what they considered unnecessary sharpening, because it wore the blades out too soon, which is why troopers' swords were often to some degree blunt.


Yes, that is a good point.  I have a sword that has been sharpened more than once and the periods of active service were close together.  I think the most obvious reason was that the edge was getting dull through routine use,( ie drawing and sheathing the sword in a metal scabbard) and the officer wanted it really sharp again.  The other idea was that the edge had sustained some sort of damage and needed to be touched up.  Since we are really just dealing with historic probabilities I think it's sometimes hard to be certain, at least regarding whether or not a sword was used in anger, unless there is some kind of first hand account.  I'm not 100% convinced that the sword in question was Baird Smith's but the type of service sharpening would seem to fit with the historical use he might have seen.  Unless I'm really out to lunch regarding how officers treated their swords  :Smilie: 
Mike

----------


## Will Mathieson

Swords would dull just by being in their steel scabbards and the constant movement by horse or walking would dull the edge more than withdraw or sheathing would.
 Soldiers in India regularly experienced battles and knew that Indians carried swords in wooden and leather scabbards to keep an edge on their sword. 
I believe many officers swords we see that have been sharpened would have been used, early revolvers/pistols were not reliable and it was always taught that the sword was the primary weapon. Some troopers and officers after the Charge of the Light Brigade returning to their lines never using their pistols, they were found still loaded.

----------


## JordanPL

Hi Matt, the India Office has a couple of portraits of Richard Baird Smith from 1850 to 1860. Although they might just be head and shoulders, it might be worth asking for some copies and you might get lucky?

http://searcharchives.bl.uk/primo_li...h&vid=IAMS_VU2

http://searcharchives.bl.uk/primo_li...h&vid=IAMS_VU2

----------


## L. Braden

Would someone kindly provide us with evidence that engineer officers were accustomed to wearing their swords all the time when in the field. Given the nature of their work, a sword would have been an encumbrance. Also, were they accustomed to using blade-blunting metal scabbards when they (unlike troopers) could have preserved their blades with leather or wood? And who would have ordered all officers (not ordinary troopers) to sharpen their swords previous to intended action, and why would that have been necessary? In any case, the contradictory imbecility of the Ordnance Dept. in providing metal scabbards and then restricting the amount of sharpening as a budgetary measure is quite evident! (This was a pet peeve of Sir Robert Baden-Powell.) Finally, I never said that the O.D. advised officers not to keep their swords sharp. (See what I wrote above.) There are various degrees of sharpness, any one of which can be effective, as the U.S. Cavalry Corps learned in the American Civil War. (See "A Boy in Blue" Calvert's testimony.) Razor-sharpness, or anything close to it, was a potential danger to horse, rider, and fellow troopers in a melee.

----------


## Matt Easton

There is sufficient evidence of officers having their blades sharpened and resharpened, regardless of whether they impaled anyone or not. There seem to be a few reasons for this. Scabbards of various types will dull an edge, even wooden scabbards eventually. But most officers between about 1850 and 1890 had steel scabbards, often with wooden linings, but still with metal throats. Secondly, sharp edges get dull through contact with all sorts of materials, especially through repeated sheathing and unsheathing. We have plenty of references to native people honing their blades regularly. The Sudanese were famous for stopping their edges every time they took a rest from travelling. Lastly, morale. Before the assault on Sebastopol we read of officers repeatedly sharpening their blades to make them like razors. This was probably partly a way to deal with stress. 

In the case of this sword the repeated sharpening tells us nothing except it makes it more likely that the officer went on active service at least once. But even that is not guaranteed from sharpening alone ; I have one sword which has been very extensively resharpened, but the officer never saw active service. I do know however that he enjoyed tent pegging and other skill at arms, so he may simply have used it for cabbage chopping!

----------


## L. Braden

"Our swords were seldom sufficiently sharp to do duty for knives." - Adventures and Recollections of Colonel Landmann, Late of the Corps of Royal Engineers (1852).  :EEK!:

----------


## james.elstob

I hesitate to mention this since I am in the totally dark about heraldry, and I don't have anyone in mind but this thread came to mind when I came across a hyphenated-Smyth relating to another sword.  

Could you be looking for a 'somebody-Smythe'?

----------


## Matt Easton

In this period there are only a couple of Smiths and a couple of Smyths in the Bengal Engineers. There were not many officers in the Bengal Engineers between 1845 and 1854, luckily!!

So I think that we can say some certainty, for this reason alone, that the sword must have belonged either to one of these Smiths or Smyths.

----------


## Matt Easton

From 'Biographical notices of officers of the Royal (Bengal) engineers' (1900), referring to the First Afghan War:




> LIEUTENANT JAMES SUTHERLAND BROADFOOT (BENGAL ENGINEERS)
> 
> It was now resolved to blow in the gate of the fortress, and a 
> few extracts from the Diary of Lieutenant James Broadfoot are 
> interesting : 
> "A bag of 300 lbs. of powder was to be laid at the 
> Kabul Gate, protected by the fire of the batteries, and by the 
> Ghoorkas of William's [William Broadfoot, 1st European LI] corps. 
> The gate was to be blown open, 
> ...


* Lieut Robert Pigou, Bengal Engineers.

The fact is that the mid-Victorian accounts are full of examples of officers "sharpening" their swords. It seems to have held more than practical purpose, but also seems to have been virtually a ritual. If a sword has been repeatedly sharpened it does not tell us it was used, but it DOES tell us that the officer repeatedly sharpened it, for whatever reason. I would also add that the accounts of people using their swords and bayonets to kill or incapacitate opponents outnumber the accounts of those weapons failing. A sword edge does not need to be fantastically sharp (or sharp at all) for the sword to be used as a thruster to run someone through and this seems to have been the preferred method in India (just as with triangular bayonets and lances, which lack any cutting edge at all).

----------


## Matt Easton

From the same source as above:




> MAJOR-GENERAL SIR FREDERICK ABBOTT, C.B. [Bengal Engineers]
> 
> Frederick Abbott was the second son of Alexius Abbott, Esq., 
> of Blackheath, a retired Calcutta merchant, and of Margaret 
> Welsh, granddaughter of Captain Gascoigne, a descendant of the 
> celebrated judge. He was born, June 13, 1805, at Littlecourt, 
> Hertfordshire, and was one of five brothers, all of whom distin- 
> guished themselves in the service of their country. 
> 
> ...


He didn't seem to have any problem using his sword effectively  :Smilie:

----------


## Matt Easton

And also from the same source:

Major General William Greathead (Bengal Engineers)



> Appointed to Sir H. Barnard's staff, Greathed took 
> part in the action of Badli-ka-Serai (June 8), which gave the 
> Delhi field force the famous position on the ridge it held so long. 
> When the siege was systematically begun, Greathed was appointed 
> director of the left attack. He greatly distinguished himself in a 
> severe engagement on July 9, on the occasion of a sortie in force 
> from Delhi. 
> 
> *Towards the end of the day he and Burnside of the 8th 
> ...

----------


## Matt Easton

Not only were Royal (and Bengal) Engineers officers expected to carry swords, and as we've seen above they sometimes had to use them, they were also expected to stay proficient in the Sword Exercise, as described here in the Morning Post from 10 May 1860:

----------


## L. Braden

From the journal of Lt. A. M. Lang, Bengal Engineers: "We have been sharpening our swords, kukris and dirks, and tried cutting silk handkerchiefs after breakfast; my 'favourite fighting sword' Excalibur, one of Aunt Mary's presents, has now an edge like a razor and a surface like a mirror. ... I found that I was no hand at using a sword; I cut at several, but never gave a death blow; to my surprise I didn't seem able to cut hard." (Lahore to Lucknow, 1992.)

----------


## Matt Easton

Silk handkerchief cutting is a tricky feat indeed! It's much easier cutting flesh than silk (having done both myself  :Smilie:  ).
Another great example of sharpening though, thanks.

----------


## Matt Easton

**EDITED**
I'm reviving my annual search for the original owner of this sword!
Having read through all the previous discussion and had another recent plug at the research, I was leaning more towards Richard Baird Smith again. Putting the crest aside, which seems to be off-piste and equally applicable (with a little imagination) to Smith or Smyth, the shield itself does indeed seem to indicate azure with three bezzants or. Which should be Smith.
But then I found the below (see next post)

----------


## Matt Easton

I could not see any sign of a crest or coat of arms on R B Smith's memorial:
http://www.victorianweb.org/sculpture/philip/17.html

But then a breakthrough!

Smith's crest is shown on this book at does appear in Fairbairn's as well. So it is definitely NOT R B Smith:

----------


## Matt Easton

A remaining potential Smith/Smyth candidate is Edward James Smith (reached Colonel and made Companion of the Bath in 1845) - He was a Captain in 1843-44 in Scinde and served in the Sikh Wars of 1845-46 as Lieut-Colonel. He could have ordered this sword before or after that campaign. 

Though I have an early Wilkinson which was definitely used in the 45/46 Sikh War and it has an earlier style of etching to this sword. I tend to agree with those above who have said that this looks more like a c.1850 Wilkinson than a c.1845 Wilkinson - the placement of the maker's name and address is a usual indicator.

This now leads to another possibility.... That the coat of arms is not for Smith or Smyth. When looking for other compatible coats of arms I found a few other possibilities and a viewer of my channel called Ethan Webster has highlighted the possibility of Fraser (we've always questions whether the three 'bezzants' are actially something else, as they do seem to have surface engraving within them):

----------


## Matt Easton

Fraser candidates:
Alexander Fraser - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexan..._Army_officer)
Hugh Fraser - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_F...mpany_officer)
Edward Fraser - https://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Edward_Fraser

----------


## james.elstob

Alex Fraser - Lord Saltoun.  How does this compare? 

P. S. Just the crest I mean, I can't find a connection of the Lords Saltoun to the Bengal engineers but the crest is a good match for your etching. 

P. P. S. The Alexander fraser who joined the bengal engineers in 1843 has a father James Fraser, Bishop of Manchester of who it is said " eldest son of James Fraser, of a branch of the family of Fraser of Durris".  A search on 'Fraser of Durris family crest' appears to link them to the Frasers of Philorth who used the crest below.

----------


## Jordan W

The video corresponding to this sword popped up in my YouTube recommended feed, has there been an owner found? 

P.S. the accounts of combat per the previous page are quite interesting.

----------


## Matt Easton

No, I keep coming back to this sword, but have never made a near certain match yet.

----------

