The last of the 1796s: 1896 MB and Prussian Artillery Swords
Dec 11, 2015 6:05:15 GMT
Post by bfoo2 on Dec 11, 2015 6:05:15 GMT
Introduction
Hello. First sword write-up here, so looking forward to your feedback and input.
The topic of the 1796LC and the related Prussian 1811 “Blucher” saber has been covered previously by @pinotte18141 (here) and I won’t add more to that. What is amazing is that these swords saw usage in one form or another for over a century, culminating in the WWI-era German Artillery Sword and the lesser-known 1896 Mountain Battery Sword. Both ultimately saw service in the Great War for the Central Powers and British & Indian forces respectively. It is ironic to think that the 1796LC, which was shared between Britain and their Prussians during the Napoleonic wars would come into conflict a century later at the hands of the same former allies…
Indian 1896 Mountain Battery Sword
My understanding is that, while the horse artillery got pretty much what the cavalry got during the 19th century, the field artillery units were a bit left out of the sword game: having to make-do with briquettes, sword-bayonets and the like. That all changed when they got themselves this little brass-hilted beauty. A “combination of the Light Cavalry sword of the 1790s and the Infantry hander of the 18th century” (Ffoulkes and Hopkinson). This sword follows the traditional lines of the 1796LC but sports cast iron grips (not unlike British naval cutlasses of old). Additionally, Indian patterns also had a guard made of brass rather than steel.
Image from Ffoulkes and Hopkinson
Stats. Source unknown, but I suspect Robson (google)
“Prussian/German Artillery Sword”
The Prussians were apparently quite pleased with their 1796LC/1811 swords. Sometime towards the end of the century, they upgraded their 1811s to create a “new” sword for gunners. I’m having a bit of trouble assigning a model number to these. Jaroslawski refers to them interchangeably as model 1896, 1873, or model “N/A”, and I’ve had others tell me that the dates were a bit of a mystery. If anyone has more information, please feel free to share! These swords were manufactured up-to and during WWI and were being issued as late as the 1920s. I can’t find any evidence for use beyond the decade, but these are robust, workman-like objects, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they survived in second-line and ad-hoc “save Berlin from the Russians” units.
This upgrade resulted in a slight reduction of blade dimension (length and width). Furthermore, the flat, almost sheet-like distal section of the blade (foible) was replaced with a spear-point more suited to thrust-work.
This is just a brief review of the German Artillery sword. See Pino’s aforementioned post for a more in-depth discussion.
WWI-era German Artillery sword (top), compared to its dad (1811 “Blucher”, bottom). Image from Pino’s earlier post.
Comparison
I recently acquired an Indian Pattern model 1896 Mountain Battery sword. I’ve always wanted to handle a 1796LC, and I managed to get this one for a fraction of the going rate of its grand-daddy. I then remembered that Afoo has a WWI German Artillery sword. A short bus-ride over, and a few beers later, and it’s now in my hands
Two swords, both alike in dignity
Dimensions
Both swords are pretty much the same size. The Prussian weighs slightly but noticeably more (~850g vs 1000g) by my best guess. This was contrary to expectation, given that the 1896MB has solid metal grips. Apparently, this is countered by the Prussian’s massively overbuilt guard and hilt furniture, and slightly thicker blade.
Comparison of grips and guards. Note the massively more brutish guard of the Prussian
Another angle of the pair
Construction
The Prussian is definitely the more solid of the two. Solid bakelite grips riveted in the middle and screwed on the back and a massive and stout P-guard. As much as some people might not like screw pommels, I think the ability to tighten up a wiggling sword while on campaign is definitely a plus. The Indian 1896MB’s iron grips might be as invincible as Blucher’s Bakelite, but the brass P-guard is nowhere near as robust. Also, on my example, the peen is loose and everything wiggles around slightly despite my efforts to shim things up with wood. It’s as if the guard, grip, and blade don’t quite match up in geometry. I know I can’t generalize given my experiences with one example, but I get a sense that this would not befall the Prussian.
The 1896MB scabbard is made of leather with brass fittings. On my example, the drag was lost and the end of the blade was poking out. I fitted a replacement drag obtained from some SLO to prevent accidental appendage amputation, and that’s what you see in my pictures. The Prussian is solid steel and very hefty. If it were to be used as a club, I recon it’d be almost as dangerous as the sword!
1896MB and not-so-robust scabbard before and after the surgery
Handling
Both swords have a very similar stats.
PoB: 4.5in vs 4.75in (1896MB and Prussian respectively).
Weight: 850g vs 1000g (1896 and Prussian respectively)
Despite the similarities, both handle fantastically different. The Prussian is a fast-moving, yet percussive and hard-hitting brawler. In the hand, it feels heavier than it actually is… but that just means you’ll be even more surprised by how quickly it moves. It’s fast, but it takes effort to get it moving. I also like the feel of the blade. There’s no flexing, bending, or any other funny business as you snap it around. I think a better description is “authoritative”.
Steel guard, bakelite grips, and black gloves. Nothing else says "I mean business" quite like that!
To make the 1896MB, they took a 1796LC, made it shorter, and gave it an iron grip to move the PoB even closer to the hilt. In other words, they took one of the best cutting swords every made and made it even BETTER! It cuts like nothing else I’ve ever handled. Whereas the Prussian takes effort to move, the 1896 glides through the air almost without a conscious thought or effort on your part. If I may use an analogy, swinging the Prussian is like bowling- natural (to some), but still takes effort and thought. Moving the 1896 is like gesturing while you talk. I’ve had to expend more energy to move sport-fencing sabers!
Strong cutter, doing what it does best!
Of course, nothing comes from nothing- the 1896 blade doesn’t feel as solid as the Prussians. It doesn't flop around while handling, but you get the feeling that if anyone happens to catch the flat of your blade, you're in trouble. In reality, you'd probably be fine, but it doesn't inspire confidence. Also, with that keen, thin foible, I’d be reluctant to thrust- with the worry that any twisting force on the blade would cause it to snap. Again, slight reduction in user confidence.
I’m still scratching my head as to where the difference in handling comes from. As I mentioned above, the stats aren’t that far off (surely not enough to account for the differences). I think it may be something about the grips and the angle of the hand, but I’m still investigating. I’ll update if I find any conclusions.
Comparison between the sheet-metal thin 1896MB and a more traditional 1885 (left) and Prussian (right).
In conclusion: We have two swords of similar origin, almost identical dimensions, yet different character: the draft-horse Prussian Artillery Saber, and the lithe purebred 1896MB. Of the two, I think the Prussian is far more practical as an artillery sword- the spear point gives it versatility for use in cut or thrust, the sturdiness inspires user confidence, and the handling is very good. The 1896 handles like nothing else I’ve ever seen, but at a cost of just about everything else. It's a work of art. In either case, both of these artifacts represent the swansong of the fabled 1796LC, and indeed that of military swords in general
German officer with Prussian Artillery Sabre, WWI (source unknown)
Indian troops on the march, WWI (Imperial War Museum London)
External References:
Ffoulkes and Hopkinson. Sword, Lance and Bayonet, Arms and Armour Press 1967
Jaroslawski, J. German Cavalry and Artillery Sword: 1742 - 1918, Madex 2015
Hello. First sword write-up here, so looking forward to your feedback and input.
The topic of the 1796LC and the related Prussian 1811 “Blucher” saber has been covered previously by @pinotte18141 (here) and I won’t add more to that. What is amazing is that these swords saw usage in one form or another for over a century, culminating in the WWI-era German Artillery Sword and the lesser-known 1896 Mountain Battery Sword. Both ultimately saw service in the Great War for the Central Powers and British & Indian forces respectively. It is ironic to think that the 1796LC, which was shared between Britain and their Prussians during the Napoleonic wars would come into conflict a century later at the hands of the same former allies…
Indian 1896 Mountain Battery Sword
My understanding is that, while the horse artillery got pretty much what the cavalry got during the 19th century, the field artillery units were a bit left out of the sword game: having to make-do with briquettes, sword-bayonets and the like. That all changed when they got themselves this little brass-hilted beauty. A “combination of the Light Cavalry sword of the 1790s and the Infantry hander of the 18th century” (Ffoulkes and Hopkinson). This sword follows the traditional lines of the 1796LC but sports cast iron grips (not unlike British naval cutlasses of old). Additionally, Indian patterns also had a guard made of brass rather than steel.
Image from Ffoulkes and Hopkinson
Stats. Source unknown, but I suspect Robson (google)
“Prussian/German Artillery Sword”
The Prussians were apparently quite pleased with their 1796LC/1811 swords. Sometime towards the end of the century, they upgraded their 1811s to create a “new” sword for gunners. I’m having a bit of trouble assigning a model number to these. Jaroslawski refers to them interchangeably as model 1896, 1873, or model “N/A”, and I’ve had others tell me that the dates were a bit of a mystery. If anyone has more information, please feel free to share! These swords were manufactured up-to and during WWI and were being issued as late as the 1920s. I can’t find any evidence for use beyond the decade, but these are robust, workman-like objects, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they survived in second-line and ad-hoc “save Berlin from the Russians” units.
This upgrade resulted in a slight reduction of blade dimension (length and width). Furthermore, the flat, almost sheet-like distal section of the blade (foible) was replaced with a spear-point more suited to thrust-work.
This is just a brief review of the German Artillery sword. See Pino’s aforementioned post for a more in-depth discussion.
WWI-era German Artillery sword (top), compared to its dad (1811 “Blucher”, bottom). Image from Pino’s earlier post.
Comparison
I recently acquired an Indian Pattern model 1896 Mountain Battery sword. I’ve always wanted to handle a 1796LC, and I managed to get this one for a fraction of the going rate of its grand-daddy. I then remembered that Afoo has a WWI German Artillery sword. A short bus-ride over, and a few beers later, and it’s now in my hands
Two swords, both alike in dignity
Dimensions
Both swords are pretty much the same size. The Prussian weighs slightly but noticeably more (~850g vs 1000g) by my best guess. This was contrary to expectation, given that the 1896MB has solid metal grips. Apparently, this is countered by the Prussian’s massively overbuilt guard and hilt furniture, and slightly thicker blade.
Comparison of grips and guards. Note the massively more brutish guard of the Prussian
Another angle of the pair
Construction
The Prussian is definitely the more solid of the two. Solid bakelite grips riveted in the middle and screwed on the back and a massive and stout P-guard. As much as some people might not like screw pommels, I think the ability to tighten up a wiggling sword while on campaign is definitely a plus. The Indian 1896MB’s iron grips might be as invincible as Blucher’s Bakelite, but the brass P-guard is nowhere near as robust. Also, on my example, the peen is loose and everything wiggles around slightly despite my efforts to shim things up with wood. It’s as if the guard, grip, and blade don’t quite match up in geometry. I know I can’t generalize given my experiences with one example, but I get a sense that this would not befall the Prussian.
The 1896MB scabbard is made of leather with brass fittings. On my example, the drag was lost and the end of the blade was poking out. I fitted a replacement drag obtained from some SLO to prevent accidental appendage amputation, and that’s what you see in my pictures. The Prussian is solid steel and very hefty. If it were to be used as a club, I recon it’d be almost as dangerous as the sword!
1896MB and not-so-robust scabbard before and after the surgery
Handling
Both swords have a very similar stats.
PoB: 4.5in vs 4.75in (1896MB and Prussian respectively).
Weight: 850g vs 1000g (1896 and Prussian respectively)
Despite the similarities, both handle fantastically different. The Prussian is a fast-moving, yet percussive and hard-hitting brawler. In the hand, it feels heavier than it actually is… but that just means you’ll be even more surprised by how quickly it moves. It’s fast, but it takes effort to get it moving. I also like the feel of the blade. There’s no flexing, bending, or any other funny business as you snap it around. I think a better description is “authoritative”.
Steel guard, bakelite grips, and black gloves. Nothing else says "I mean business" quite like that!
To make the 1896MB, they took a 1796LC, made it shorter, and gave it an iron grip to move the PoB even closer to the hilt. In other words, they took one of the best cutting swords every made and made it even BETTER! It cuts like nothing else I’ve ever handled. Whereas the Prussian takes effort to move, the 1896 glides through the air almost without a conscious thought or effort on your part. If I may use an analogy, swinging the Prussian is like bowling- natural (to some), but still takes effort and thought. Moving the 1896 is like gesturing while you talk. I’ve had to expend more energy to move sport-fencing sabers!
Strong cutter, doing what it does best!
Of course, nothing comes from nothing- the 1896 blade doesn’t feel as solid as the Prussians. It doesn't flop around while handling, but you get the feeling that if anyone happens to catch the flat of your blade, you're in trouble. In reality, you'd probably be fine, but it doesn't inspire confidence. Also, with that keen, thin foible, I’d be reluctant to thrust- with the worry that any twisting force on the blade would cause it to snap. Again, slight reduction in user confidence.
I’m still scratching my head as to where the difference in handling comes from. As I mentioned above, the stats aren’t that far off (surely not enough to account for the differences). I think it may be something about the grips and the angle of the hand, but I’m still investigating. I’ll update if I find any conclusions.
Comparison between the sheet-metal thin 1896MB and a more traditional 1885 (left) and Prussian (right).
In conclusion: We have two swords of similar origin, almost identical dimensions, yet different character: the draft-horse Prussian Artillery Saber, and the lithe purebred 1896MB. Of the two, I think the Prussian is far more practical as an artillery sword- the spear point gives it versatility for use in cut or thrust, the sturdiness inspires user confidence, and the handling is very good. The 1896 handles like nothing else I’ve ever seen, but at a cost of just about everything else. It's a work of art. In either case, both of these artifacts represent the swansong of the fabled 1796LC, and indeed that of military swords in general
German officer with Prussian Artillery Sabre, WWI (source unknown)
Indian troops on the march, WWI (Imperial War Museum London)
External References:
Ffoulkes and Hopkinson. Sword, Lance and Bayonet, Arms and Armour Press 1967
Jaroslawski, J. German Cavalry and Artillery Sword: 1742 - 1918, Madex 2015