|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jan 23, 2018 3:27:00 GMT
Italian Cavalry Officer LC Saber 1864   INTRODUCTION
This was an ebay pickup late in 2017. Coming out of the Napoleonic period Italian swords went through a process of morphing a distinctive style set for their own military swords based on a few repetitive themes. The infantry and senior officer swords favored a simple knuckle bowed saber with a clipped pointed blade that took in elements of the French infantry officers saber. The cavalry sabers took the french 3 and 4 bar half basket design and turned it into a plate guard with gaps or voids reminiscent of the previous French swords.
That we now consider "Italian" and "German" cultures to be homogeneous distorts the history of the regions which struggled to nationalism in the later 19th Cent. The narrative of what national weapons "looked" like was decided by the victory of Northern Italian states in winning political dominance in the 1860s.
In Italy's case, they entered the 19th Century divided into several powerful northern dukedoms and an Austrian presence, the Papal States, established by Julius II still survived in central Italy and in the south, a sovereign Neapolitan/Sicily kingdom remained intact. These independent states each retained their own sword styles in national guards and special troops.
I found only one study of Italian Arme Blanche. Caesare Clamandri's "Storia Dell'Arma Bianca Italiana" 1987 with most recent edition 2008. No translation, although there are some sub-notes in English.
BACKGROUND
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_unification
Reading the above article is voluntary. It does provide a good overview of the long process of integration.
CHARACTERISTICS
Damn! I used the matte from the English 1520 sword to get here and missed the error on the weight of the sword. The Italian 1864 weighs 1.8 lbs, not 3.4 lbs.
As a light cavalry officer saber, the 1864 harkens back to the early French Republic of the 1790s. The blade is modest in reach at just over 34 inches. The clipped point is oriental and associated with lancers in the 1st Empire. The double stamped foible is an unusual flair introduced in 1833 to Italian field artillery sabers.
The hilt is reminiscent of the french heavy heavy line style. The plate of the semi basket is thin at 2.5 mm, but the integral construct of the hilt, with it's back strap is solid. The grip is wood.
Close shot of the unique foible design. The blade has a strong back, starting at 8.5 mm and remaining strong to the foible.
Engravings for the House of Savoy. After the second War of Independence 1859-60 the French backed northern states declared them selves the state of Italy. But in 1864 the major divisions of Papal and Neapolitan states had refused union. The 3rd War in 1866, Italy aligned with Bismarck's Prussia, and gained Venice. Set the stage for the invasion of the rest of Italy.
HANDLING
With French roots, it is surprising that the saber isn't more supportive of open handed control. More in keeping with the close handed slashy sort of employment.
Sword is very light. 1.8 lbs with the knot attached. My first impression was this had to be a dress sword, but the back blade is strong and the the whole is stiff.
SUMMARY
This is a transitional saber. By 1870 a truly unified Italy would introduce an all service saber and a whole new fencing technique by Raedelli. The dueling style coming from Italy would have as much to do with sword changes as the development of reliable small arms.
Given a choice between these smaller, faster swords and a longer moderately heavier pallasche, I favor the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jan 23, 2018 3:30:28 GMT
Clip point!
I'll wait for the rest of the content to edit this comment
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 23, 2018 14:56:10 GMT
The grip seems short compared to what I would think of Italian swords, but that clip point is sexy!
Can't wait to read the write up.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 24, 2018 11:22:36 GMT
so, though not one of your favourites it seems, it was not such a bad buy after all.
It is still a fighting sabre of sorts, not the pantsy Degen you thought at first you got.
I have trouble still sorting these later Italians out.
Yours, though a bit slender in the blade, looks like a very well preserved example. Very nice!
The Calamandri book may help, but boy is it expensive!
I have what I think is an Italian Artillery Officers sabre of an earlier date. The M1833.
That one still has a somewhat lighter variation of the old heavier Austrian inspired blade like on the Italian M1860 Cavalry. The M1833 Artillery also has a Hussar hilt with long langets. Maybe it is Hussar, not Artillery at all.
Darn Italians.
Thanks for the review.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pino on Jan 24, 2018 13:43:12 GMT
Fancy sword this! It looks like an enhanced 1855 artillery officer sword.
Got to love Italian models, they always seem to have a distinctively elegant look to their swords.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 24, 2018 15:31:06 GMT
Very good read. I wonder if the cross section in the foible would hamper or enhance cutting? The grip is interesting to me, I had expected a more open and longer style since it's ts such a light sword.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Jan 24, 2018 18:59:34 GMT
so, though not one of your favourites it seems, it was not such a bad buy after all. It is still a fighting sabre of sorts, not the pantsy Degen you thought at first you got. I have trouble still sorting these later Italians out. Yours, though a bit slender in the blade, looks like a very well preserved example. Very nice! The Calamandri book may help, but boy is it expensive! I have what I think is an Italian Artillery Officers sabre of an earlier date. The M1833. That one still has a somewhat lighter variation of the old heavier Austrian inspired blade like on the Italian M1860 Cavalry. The M1833 Artillery also has a Hussar hilt with long langets. Maybe it is Hussar, not Artillery at all. Darn Italians. Thanks for the review. I agree. The pre-1860 Italians give me a mighty headache! My understanding is that there were two similar hussar-hilt Italian swords from this era. However, since I do not own any non-internet resources (and even if I did, I do not read Italian) it is possible I am wrong. There was an 1833 Artillery Officer's sword, which has leather-wrapped wood grip, round langets and a heavier "conventional" blade.  1833 Artillery (Sailorinsaddle) Then there was the 1855 Cav officer's sword. This one shares the smaller solid wood/ebony grips and clip-point blade of Dave's 1864 model, yet retains the 1833 hussar hilt but with square langets.  1855 Cav (the-saleroom.com)There seems to be a lot of confusion about these models, as they are quite obscure and look much more primitive than they actually are. Johncdenner of Canada has an 1833 listed as a "German hussar sword c. 1780!" Also, Italians being Italian and not German, they weren't too good with the whole "following rules" business and there seems to have been plenty of variation. I'm not sure what the Italians were thinking with the 1855 Officer's and Dave's 1864 Officer's. The 1855 seems like a distinct downgrade from the robust and utilitarian 1833, and Dave's 1864 seems like a downgrade of the most-excellent Italian 1860. Sailor in Saddle has excellent sold listings for both models here. Great images and a useful study for comparing these two (note the 1855 seems to have a non-standard blade- see quote about Italians not being Germans) 18331855 |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Jan 24, 2018 19:07:29 GMT
BTW good haul Dave Kelly ! I saw this one on eBay, but as I was not familiar with the pattern I waved it off as either a Frankenstein creation, or some wimpy officer's dainty little plaything. Looking at it now, I can appreciate that this thing is magnificent to behold! Although the tiny grip reminds me of the Universal Swords microgrip... I wonder why the Italians decided to create this thing. They already have the excellent 1860 Trooper's. If anything, this 1864- while much prettier- appears to represent a downgrade in terms of functionality. |
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 24, 2018 21:04:18 GMT
,, I agree. The pre-1860 Italians give me a mighty headache! ''.
They sure do. I have the one with the flat langets, but it has the blade of the one above that, the Artillery sabre. It also has two ring mounts and an ivory grip.
You sort that out.
Speaking of pretty.
Ever seen an image of a 1960tees Italian traffic control police guy?
White uniform, white tropical helmet and white gloves, standing on a little pedestal in a cloud of black smoke, under a parasol, in the midst of a sqeeking sea of miniature Fiats, revving mopeds and ADD scooters.
There's opera for you.
Some of their sword designs are very good though. I like my M1860 very much.
,, Italians being Italian and not German...''.
You don't say...haw, haw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jan 24, 2018 22:29:29 GMT
On the subject of a chaotic lack of system in Italian swords, I hoped that with my few words I could paint a picture of the medieval territoriality of pre 1870 Italy. What passes as system in the 1820-1865 period is the emphasis on Piedmontese favored production. There were major bursts of development and standardization in 1833, 1855, 1864 and 1870. Calamandrai's sword pages focus on the Savoyan standards in the front pages and then the national army after 1869. IN the back of the book, are annex for all the independent dukedoms, Papacy and Neapolitan swords.
Maybe one of these days I"ll try to categorize and roadmap the stuff.
Calamandrai has been out of print since 2010. Tried to find a copy in Europe for 3 years and failed. It was up around 265.00 a copy. I had got on the mailing list of a dealer in wargames, miniatures and books for a year and low and behold he semprini 8 copies one fine broadside. At list price no less. (I did see an advert for a 1999 paper back for 970.00 - sold )
Keep it on your book list and pray.
|
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Jan 25, 2018 1:09:46 GMT
For that matter, I always kind of assumed that the Italian sword nomenclature was a simplification or generalization, rather than an accurate representation. There can not have been such a thing as a "Model 1833 Italian" sword if Italy did not exist as a country until 1861! This .gif nicely sums it up.  By Artemka - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25812771 |
|
|
|
Post by bfoo2 on Jan 25, 2018 1:29:39 GMT
,, I agree. The pre-1860 Italians give me a mighty headache! ''. They sure do. I have the one with the flat langets, but it has the blade of the one above that, the Artillery sabre. It also has two ring mounts and an ivory grip. You sort that out. Nope. You're on your own there buddy. Whatever the heck it is though, it sounds quite pretty. Wouldn't mind some pictures! I'm a huge fan of the later Italians. The 1860 is a lovely sword, but I find the 1871 to be most likeable. The pipeback blades themselves can be of dubious quality- I have one from Alex Coppel that is great and an unmarked domestic production that was utter rubbish. However, I'm impressed by the design and engineering (must have had help from the Germans there...) The grip is perfectly shaped to give support and the thumb-tab gives sufficient ergonomic assistance without degenerating into one of the over-engineered monstrosities we later see with the British (1908) and Germans (1889). Also, no other sword I've tinkered with came apart and went back together as smoothly. The screw-pommel pops off and everything slides apart nice and square like lego bricks. And when you put it all back together again it all re-assembles with a satisfying "thud" as the metal bits lock together. ...However these are the Italians we're talking about, and on my example the threaded hole in the pommel is clearly off-center  Nope. But I HAVE seen the Italian traffic police Lamborghini!  |
|
|
|
Post by Pino on Jan 25, 2018 2:26:20 GMT
I agree. The pre-1860 Italians give me a mighty headache! My understanding is that there were two similar hussar-hilt Italian swords from this era. However, since I do not own any non-internet resources (and even if I did, I do not read Italian) it is possible I am wrong. There was an 1833 Artillery Officer's sword, which has leather-wrapped wood grip, round langets and a heavier "conventional" blade. 1833 Artillery (Sailorinsaddle) Then there was the 1855 Cav officer's sword. This one shares the smaller solid wood/ebony grips and clip-point blade of Dave's 1864 model, yet retains the 1833 hussar hilt but with square langets. There seems to be a lot of confusion about these models, as they are quite obscure and look much more primitive than they actually are. Johncdenner of Canada has an 1833 listed as a "German hussar sword c. 1780!" Also, Italians being Italian and not German, they weren't too good with the whole "following rules" business and there seems to have been plenty of variation. I'm not sure what the Italians were thinking with the 1855 Officer's and Dave's 1864 Officer's. The 1855 seems like a distinct downgrade from the robust and utilitarian 1833, and Dave's 1864 seems like a downgrade of the most-excellent Italian 1860. Sailor in Saddle has excellent sold listings for both models here. Great images and a useful study for comparing these two (note the 1855 seems to have a non-standard blade- see quote about Italians not being Germans) Fear not young buck, I have a gut feeling someone's drafting something about this. But to make things clear right away, the 1833 sword that is commonly found was for troopers only; there was no proper Italian officer sword 1833 (except for rare non-regulation specimen) and there never was any trooper sword M1855, hence the confusion. The 1855 was also never meant to be for cavalry but mainly horse artillery officers. |
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Jan 25, 2018 2:34:42 GMT
BTW good haul Dave Kelly ! I saw this one on eBay, but as I was not familiar with the pattern I waved it off as either a Frankenstein creation, or some wimpy officer's dainty little plaything. Looking at it now, I can appreciate that this thing is magnificent to behold! Although the tiny grip reminds me of the Universal Swords microgrip... I wonder why the Italians decided to create this thing. They already have the excellent 1860 Trooper's. If anything, this 1864- while much prettier- appears to represent a downgrade in terms of functionality. Also seems strange that they would have such a short grip on what appears to be a poking sword. There is some definite strangeness to its proportions, but a nice one. Also, welcome back Pino? |
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 25, 2018 9:29:15 GMT
Okay, here is my whatever it is, though I am, based on blade length, quite sure this an Artillery Officers sabre. Blade length is 79 cm. Hardly of Cavalry length. The knuckle bow seems to indicate though it might be a Cavalry sabre. Length overall is 83 cm. Compaired to the M1860 this is a toothpick. No House of Savoy or Kingdom of Napels marks. The blade is by Carl Reinhardt Kirschbaum, 1814 - 1862. Stamps are under the langets. The gold bullion cloth on the leather straps has narrow lines of some colour but those are now turned black. Those might have given an indication of where in The Italian Realm this sabre belonged. The gold bullion sword knot ditto. No indication of state. It is a quite early type though. The condition of the sabre, out of the box, is remarkably good. I'd say VG+. Think I polish it up and review it this year. Cold is almost gone so it is time to go to work.  Edit. The langets are flat, but a bit rounded at both ends. There is a thumb rest on the back strap. Overall the quality of design and workmanship is excellent. I have catalogued the sabre as Italian M1833 Mounted Artillery Officers. Come on kids. Do your worst. |
|
|
|
Post by Pino on Jan 25, 2018 15:19:44 GMT
1. Check this out! 2. Uhlan, my man what you have there is a Foot artillery general sword, non-regulation pattern derived from the 1833 sabre. White ebony grips is the clear indication that a sword was for superior officers (major-colonel) but mainly generals. What gives away it's nature is the sword's dimensions (blade tip, scabbard drag) and 79cm long blade, too short for all other services. 3. As I'm not omniscient and am known for making mistakes I'll correct my post above where I said there is no 1833 officer model because it seems one might exist after all which was a derivative of the trooper sword: the link above clearly states that ''La sciabola per ufficiale si differenzia dal fermafodero squadrate'' the only difference would be that these had square langets instead of round ones (troopers). This echoes what I've seen in Calamandrei's book's and is the piece I was missing in the puzzle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jan 25, 2018 15:58:36 GMT
Between Dave's post and the comments I have learned much in the way of Italian sword semantics. Also, bfoo2 hey stop! Don't make me want to get another 1871  There's always a few floating around on eBay, don't tempt me dangit. |
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 25, 2018 16:48:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Pino on Jan 25, 2018 18:06:10 GMT
Why the hell did I say white ebony?
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Jan 25, 2018 19:10:16 GMT
Too much Club Soda?
|
|
There's always a few floating around on eBay, don't tempt me dangit. 
