A ridiculous French 1882 Infantry sword variant
Jul 18, 2018 5:25:42 GMT
Post by bfoo2 on Jul 18, 2018 5:25:42 GMT
EDIT fixed links. Original post had all the links redirect back to this post for some reason. Let me know if still broken...
In light of France’s recent World Cup victory in Russia, I thought I’d honour the occasion by showcasing a recent Gallic acquisition. I call it the Model 1882 Infantry officer INSANITY
France’s SECOND greatest victory on Russian soil
Disclaimer: I collect swords as a hobby, not a profession. Most of the information presented here originated from this forum and I do not claim to be an expert of French military swords.
Background: The French 1882 Sword.
In the early 1880s, it seems like the French military had a mid-life crisis of sorts and very suddenly decided to throw out all it’s furniture and completely redecorate the place. They overhauled their Cavalry swords and replaced the old Light/Heavy patterns with a unified straight-bladed weapon as discussed elsewhere. For me, the new pattern is a crisp modern weapon which combines the focused straight-bladed look of the 1854 heavy with the sleek guard and minimalistic single-fuller aestetic of the 1822 light. I quite like this pattern from an aesthetic and handling standpoint, but it appears to have gone down in history as being mediocre and forgotten. In either case, it was rather quickly replaced by the art-deco 1896. More can be found about these patterns at the links below:
Photo from Pino's post (1880/82/83)
1883 blade on 1896 hilt (article here)
1854 Heavy cav (Pino 's article)
Additional links
1822/1882 light cavalry
1880/1882/1883 Cavalry
1822 tmre 1883
1854 Heavy Cav
Okay, but what about the infantry?
For the infantry, they replaced the rather gothic-looking brass-hilted multi-fullered 1845/1855 models with a sleeker, more focused thrusting weapon. The 1882 Infantry. It is characterized by a relatively small yet protective steel hilt (most I have seen appear to be either silver or nickel-plated, but I do not know if plating was the standard) and a unique 34in OVAL-profile blade with two asymmetrical fullers. I could show you pictures of my example, but Matt Easton does a very good job of showing exactly what I mean (along with the sheer feeling of “what the heck?!?”)
Of course, the oval blade profile makes it completely useless in the cut. However, it is needle-stiff, light as a feather and a potent thrusting weapon. The oval cross-section gives the blade incredible strength and I would be fully confident in grabbing the blade with my left-hand and using this thing as a staff if need be. It is solid, robust, practical and functional. Things that one would not normally associate with French swords! (yeah, weird, I know...)
I have had two examples in my possession: one from 1916, and another from 1923 (sold the 1923 a while ago). I associate the early 20th century with a general decline in the quality of swords manufactured, at least from a functional standpoint if not an aestetic one. I am certainly leery of most post-war production swords (looking at you, Czech 1924s and Italian 1927s...) Notable exceptions in my experience were the British, where the quality of their fantastic 1897s dropped off only slightly since the 1960s, and the Germans who didn't make new swords at all and instead kept on reissuing their fantastic Bluchersabels. However, the two 20th century French 1882s I had were well-made well-crafted weapons. I did not notice any appreciable decline in quality compared to what I would have expected from a late-19th century sword.
Ulahn describes the 1845 “superior general officer” infantry sword here. But I cannot find a comprehensive overview of the 1845/55/82 inf patterns. This is unfortunate: they are unique weapons which deserve recognition.
1845/55 infantry officer swords (Swordforum)
1882 infantry officer sword (GMIC)
Easton and the 1882. Note his has a non-standard "fantasie" style guard
The mid-life crisis
There appears to be a tradition of allowing officers (especially those of higher ranks) some leeway in adopting non-standard variations of the regulation-pattern swords. Of course, the extent varied from almost no deviation in the German states (obviously) to being fairly common practice in France (again, obviously). Going with the whole early 1880's midlife crisis theme here, it seems that around the time the new 1882 patterns were being introduced, there was a dramatic increase in the occurrence of these non-standard weapons (more on that later). These range from being solid, well-built works of art such as Uhlan 's magnificent gothic-hilted example to somewhat shoddy contraptions of dubious combat value such as the one I am about to present. Indeed, as a general collection policy, I am wary of post-1870s French officer swords because I feel a great uncertainty concerning the build quality.
I suspect officers started to grasp that swords were of very limited value. Thus freed from the constraints of having to keep their swords combat-worthy, they let their hair down, fueled up their motorcycles and really got the mid-life crisis party going. Seems like there was an increasing willingness to sacrifice combat capability for “bling”. This "customization" appears more common in infantry swords compared to cavalry. Again, perhaps because the cavalry were more expecting to actually use their swords in combat. And to be honest, it's not like Hussars need any more "bling"...
Afoo's triangular-bladed 1822 (not sure it's post-1882, but it looks nice...)
Non-standard M1882 with broadsword blade (oldswords)
Non-standard 1882 with a... well... I don't know how to describe that blade actually, but it is most excellent! (Oldswords)
Behold the Insanity!
Top: Insanity
Bottom: a normal, law-abiding 1882
This is a non-standard Infantry Officer’s sword resembling the 1882 Pattern. Instead of an oval-profile blade, it has what appears to be a smaller version of the single-fuller cavalry backsword blade. What makes this piece stand out as “the insanity” is the ridiculous proportions. The blade is a whopping 39 INCHES LONG!
Top to bottom:
Swedish 1893: the largest sword I have in my collection
Insanity
Normal 1992
British 1897 ing
Seriously. This infantry officer weapon has a blade that is almost 40 inches long. What the heck was this guy thinking? Afoo speculates that this must belong to some high-ranking officer or someone who otherwise could expect to travel everywhere on horseback. I don't know how someone would drag this sword around on foot!
There are some other notable deviations from the 1882 pattern. Overall, the hilt is similar to that of the regulation pattern: blackebony horn grips (credit to Uhlan for the correction), silver-plated guard, etch. However, this guard has 4 side-branches compared to the standard 3-branches, and the overall size of the hilt is significantly larger.
The blade is decently, but not exceptionally thick along the spine. Thickness is 9mm at the base, 6.5-7mm for most of it’s length, and tapers to 1.5 – 2mm at the tip. Width is around 23mm at the base with minimal profile taper until the foible. The “square” fullers are reasonably deep and well-defined. Taper is dramatic at the tip and the foible is reasonably thin and could be sharpened for the cut. Workmanship is acceptable, but not exceptional. There are no obvious flaws in the blade, but the definition of the fullers is not as sharp as in the standard cavalry patterns.
Despite the acceptable spine thickness, the blade is somewhat whippy. In this regard, it is not much better than your typical HEMA sparring rapier blade and is actually comparable to some of the thinner Windlass rapier offerings. As my background is in sport fencing, I am used to this flexibility; I find it noticeable but acceptable.
In terms of handling, this weapon is weird…. It has the blade of a rapier, but the hilt of a saber. It is actually very light (less than 2lb despite the 39in blade) and fairly nimble. However, the aforementioned flexibility adversely affects point control and it feels quite vague. It also lacks the complex hilt of the rapier. This has two effects: a) the loss of so much mass makes the weapon feel less “solid” and pushses the PoB forward, and b) loosing the ability to hook your fingers around the quillon reduces point control and reduces the effectiveness with which you can transfer force to that massive blade. In a way, then, this is the worst of both worlds in terms of handling.
But, there's more to a sword than just handling. It's also about the history, the uniqueness, and how "cool" it is. Despite the handling shortcomings, the sheer lunacy makes this piece quite neat. It dwarfs many full-sized cavalry weapons and it even gives the monstrous Swedish 1893 a run for it's money. I gotta respect that sort of insanity.
More on French non-standard officer sword variants
I am not very familiar with French non-standard infantry swords (I like rules and people who actually follow them).
There were derue/fantasie variant guard
Zouaves are associated with a distinct sub-pattern
Pino 's Colonial officers (for sale)
Uhlan 's lion-headed gothic and whatever this majestic thing is
I have seen 1882 variants with similar blade styles as mine, but none of them are as stupidly long
And probably countless more variants
Some further discussion here
It's enough to drive you mad!
In light of France’s recent World Cup victory in Russia, I thought I’d honour the occasion by showcasing a recent Gallic acquisition. I call it the Model 1882 Infantry officer INSANITY
France’s SECOND greatest victory on Russian soil
Disclaimer: I collect swords as a hobby, not a profession. Most of the information presented here originated from this forum and I do not claim to be an expert of French military swords.
Background: The French 1882 Sword.
In the early 1880s, it seems like the French military had a mid-life crisis of sorts and very suddenly decided to throw out all it’s furniture and completely redecorate the place. They overhauled their Cavalry swords and replaced the old Light/Heavy patterns with a unified straight-bladed weapon as discussed elsewhere. For me, the new pattern is a crisp modern weapon which combines the focused straight-bladed look of the 1854 heavy with the sleek guard and minimalistic single-fuller aestetic of the 1822 light. I quite like this pattern from an aesthetic and handling standpoint, but it appears to have gone down in history as being mediocre and forgotten. In either case, it was rather quickly replaced by the art-deco 1896. More can be found about these patterns at the links below:
Photo from Pino's post (1880/82/83)
1883 blade on 1896 hilt (article here)
1854 Heavy cav (Pino 's article)
Additional links
1822/1882 light cavalry
1880/1882/1883 Cavalry
1822 tmre 1883
1854 Heavy Cav
Okay, but what about the infantry?
For the infantry, they replaced the rather gothic-looking brass-hilted multi-fullered 1845/1855 models with a sleeker, more focused thrusting weapon. The 1882 Infantry. It is characterized by a relatively small yet protective steel hilt (most I have seen appear to be either silver or nickel-plated, but I do not know if plating was the standard) and a unique 34in OVAL-profile blade with two asymmetrical fullers. I could show you pictures of my example, but Matt Easton does a very good job of showing exactly what I mean (along with the sheer feeling of “what the heck?!?”)
Of course, the oval blade profile makes it completely useless in the cut. However, it is needle-stiff, light as a feather and a potent thrusting weapon. The oval cross-section gives the blade incredible strength and I would be fully confident in grabbing the blade with my left-hand and using this thing as a staff if need be. It is solid, robust, practical and functional. Things that one would not normally associate with French swords! (yeah, weird, I know...)
I have had two examples in my possession: one from 1916, and another from 1923 (sold the 1923 a while ago). I associate the early 20th century with a general decline in the quality of swords manufactured, at least from a functional standpoint if not an aestetic one. I am certainly leery of most post-war production swords (looking at you, Czech 1924s and Italian 1927s...) Notable exceptions in my experience were the British, where the quality of their fantastic 1897s dropped off only slightly since the 1960s, and the Germans who didn't make new swords at all and instead kept on reissuing their fantastic Bluchersabels. However, the two 20th century French 1882s I had were well-made well-crafted weapons. I did not notice any appreciable decline in quality compared to what I would have expected from a late-19th century sword.
Ulahn describes the 1845 “
1845/55 infantry officer swords (Swordforum)
1882 infantry officer sword (GMIC)
Easton and the 1882. Note his has a non-standard "fantasie" style guard
The mid-life crisis
There appears to be a tradition of allowing officers (especially those of higher ranks) some leeway in adopting non-standard variations of the regulation-pattern swords. Of course, the extent varied from almost no deviation in the German states (obviously) to being fairly common practice in France (again, obviously). Going with the whole early 1880's midlife crisis theme here, it seems that around the time the new 1882 patterns were being introduced, there was a dramatic increase in the occurrence of these non-standard weapons (more on that later). These range from being solid, well-built works of art such as Uhlan 's magnificent gothic-hilted example to somewhat shoddy contraptions of dubious combat value such as the one I am about to present. Indeed, as a general collection policy, I am wary of post-1870s French officer swords because I feel a great uncertainty concerning the build quality.
I suspect officers started to grasp that swords were of very limited value. Thus freed from the constraints of having to keep their swords combat-worthy, they let their hair down, fueled up their motorcycles and really got the mid-life crisis party going. Seems like there was an increasing willingness to sacrifice combat capability for “bling”. This "customization" appears more common in infantry swords compared to cavalry. Again, perhaps because the cavalry were more expecting to actually use their swords in combat. And to be honest, it's not like Hussars need any more "bling"...
Afoo's triangular-bladed 1822 (not sure it's post-1882, but it looks nice...)
Non-standard M1882 with broadsword blade (oldswords)
Non-standard 1882 with a... well... I don't know how to describe that blade actually, but it is most excellent! (Oldswords)
Behold the Insanity!
Top: Insanity
Bottom: a normal, law-abiding 1882
This is a non-standard Infantry Officer’s sword resembling the 1882 Pattern. Instead of an oval-profile blade, it has what appears to be a smaller version of the single-fuller cavalry backsword blade. What makes this piece stand out as “the insanity” is the ridiculous proportions. The blade is a whopping 39 INCHES LONG!
Top to bottom:
Swedish 1893: the largest sword I have in my collection
Insanity
Normal 1992
British 1897 ing
Seriously. This infantry officer weapon has a blade that is almost 40 inches long. What the heck was this guy thinking? Afoo speculates that this must belong to some high-ranking officer or someone who otherwise could expect to travel everywhere on horseback. I don't know how someone would drag this sword around on foot!
There are some other notable deviations from the 1882 pattern. Overall, the hilt is similar to that of the regulation pattern: black
The blade is decently, but not exceptionally thick along the spine. Thickness is 9mm at the base, 6.5-7mm for most of it’s length, and tapers to 1.5 – 2mm at the tip. Width is around 23mm at the base with minimal profile taper until the foible. The “square” fullers are reasonably deep and well-defined. Taper is dramatic at the tip and the foible is reasonably thin and could be sharpened for the cut. Workmanship is acceptable, but not exceptional. There are no obvious flaws in the blade, but the definition of the fullers is not as sharp as in the standard cavalry patterns.
Despite the acceptable spine thickness, the blade is somewhat whippy. In this regard, it is not much better than your typical HEMA sparring rapier blade and is actually comparable to some of the thinner Windlass rapier offerings. As my background is in sport fencing, I am used to this flexibility; I find it noticeable but acceptable.
In terms of handling, this weapon is weird…. It has the blade of a rapier, but the hilt of a saber. It is actually very light (less than 2lb despite the 39in blade) and fairly nimble. However, the aforementioned flexibility adversely affects point control and it feels quite vague. It also lacks the complex hilt of the rapier. This has two effects: a) the loss of so much mass makes the weapon feel less “solid” and pushses the PoB forward, and b) loosing the ability to hook your fingers around the quillon reduces point control and reduces the effectiveness with which you can transfer force to that massive blade. In a way, then, this is the worst of both worlds in terms of handling.
But, there's more to a sword than just handling. It's also about the history, the uniqueness, and how "cool" it is. Despite the handling shortcomings, the sheer lunacy makes this piece quite neat. It dwarfs many full-sized cavalry weapons and it even gives the monstrous Swedish 1893 a run for it's money. I gotta respect that sort of insanity.
More on French non-standard officer sword variants
I am not very familiar with French non-standard infantry swords (I like rules and people who actually follow them).
There were derue/fantasie variant guard
Zouaves are associated with a distinct sub-pattern
Pino 's Colonial officers (for sale)
Uhlan 's lion-headed gothic and whatever this majestic thing is
I have seen 1882 variants with similar blade styles as mine, but none of them are as stupidly long
And probably countless more variants
Some further discussion here
It's enough to drive you mad!