Sword

[FiremarshalBill]

"Perhaps these swords were more common in field Artillery service North and South than the armchair historians claim they were."

I like to think so as my g-g-grandaddy served with a Michigan field artillery unit.

 

[byron ed]

"Perhaps these swords were more common in field Artillery service North and South than the armchair historians claim they were."I like to think so as my g-g-grandaddy served with a Michigan field artillery unit.

You'll bring it to Jackson Muster Aug 25-26 or Holland Van Raalte Sept Sept 15-16 this year then? Walk right into Federal Artillery camp, you've got your pass.

 

[Jordan M.E. Williams]

Here are his fold3 records. The only problem I have with the sword is McElroy did not make a curvy blade they were all straight.
View attachment 175303

Someone's probably beat me to it but the waviness in the edge to me looks like either file repairs or possible oversharpening the blade, perhaps forging irregularities like the edge being uneven as well. I've seen all three in European swords of the same period and Indian and other native blades as well.
Just some thoughts. Impossible to say for certain without it in hand either way I guess.

Defently look like roman gladius.
Awsemo stuff
Have a qestion:
To what era do these swords belong?
thanks in advance
Topazy.

Yes this is very off topic but I would like to answer.
From bottom to top
Mid 20th century hunting knife.
WW2 German Mauser bayonet.
French Gras Bayonet.
Not sure but very much post 1900.
Nothing of civil war origin here.

 

[Package4]

I think the Army's Quartermaster series of pictures taken in 1866 tells it all, in fact this is the only known period picture, that I am aware, of an actual short sword being worn. Keep in mind that the picture is a sergeant of what has to be a heavy artillery unit in "dress" uniform.

Langellier in his book Army Blue The Uniform of Uncle Sam's Regulars 1848-1873, states that this is a picture of a "sergeant of heavy artillery, has the M1832 short sword that was a distinguishing feature for non commissioned officers of this branch USAQM. page 142.

The last recorded order for this sword was placed with Ames for 300 pieces delivered in May of 1862. I have to believe it was largely ornamental and yes a few may have resided in a battery wagon as "cabbage cutters".

 

[Package4]

"Perhaps these swords were more common in field Artillery service North and South than the armchair historians claim they were."

I like to think so as my g-g-grandaddy served with a Michigan field artillery unit.View attachment 176232

Very nice display!

 

[James N.]

"Perhaps these swords were more common in field Artillery service North and South than the armchair historians claim they were."

I like to think so as my g-g-grandaddy served with a Michigan field artillery unit.View attachment 176232

Unfortunately (?), these were NOT regulation for the members of batteries of the regiments of field artillery; they were intended for members of what was then called garrison, siege, or coastal artillery batteries which were units assigned to permanent fortifications guarding major cities, inlets, harbors, etc. and were uniformed and equipped such as @Package4 illustrates above. Batteries of field or horse artillery carried - if they were armed at all! - the curved M.1840 saber that remained regulation almost to the end of the century: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/u-s-regulation-m-1840-light-artillery-saber.109437/

 

[byron ed]

Unfortunately (?), these were NOT regulation for the members of batteries of the regiments of field artillery;

I've been told that too, but after all it's only a supposition* In Quartermaster view an artillery private was an artillery private, and the 1832 short sword was not banned for use by any artillery private, including field artillery. Not only do we see at least one Mich. field artillerist's example given earlier, but it's important to understand that individual batteries equipped as individual batteries did. For example, in my legacy unit all the privates wore sargeant's (square eagle) buckles. What of it?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* We hobbyists today make far too much of what was issue and what was not. It was mostly a volunteer army. It is reenactors that tend to obcess over what was issue and what was not. The real army back then not so much. Notice how every once in a while an exception of gear found in an old tintype causes pages of conniptions in following threads. We just don't get it.

 

[Package4]

I've been told that too, but after all it's only a supposition* In Quartermaster view an artillery private was an artillery private, and the 1832 short sword was not banned for use by any artillery private, including field artillery. Not only do we see at least one Mich. field artillerist's example given earlier, but it's important to understand that individual batteries equipped as individual batteries did. For example, in my legacy unit all the privates wore sargeant's (square eagle) buckles. What of it?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* We hobbyists today make far too much of what was issue and what was not. It was mostly a volunteer army. It is reenactors that tend to obcess over what was issue and what was not. The real army back then not so much. Notice how every once in a while an exception of gear found in an old tintype causes pages of conniptions in following threads. We just don't get it.

I do not read that Michigan sword as belonging to the ancestor, but just a representative piece, otherwise I would think it would have a different label on the display identifying it as belonging to a particular soldier.

@FiremarshallBill can tell us if it indeed was his ancestor's.

Given that there were only 300 ordered for the last three years of the war, I think it can safely be said that they were not considered necessary. I look at this from a collectors viewpoint and the relative value of the piece. I bought mine during the halcyon days of collecting and now their value is relatively half, in fact if I had done more research back then, I would never have purchased the piece. I consider the short sword in the category of the Havelock, Pike, Lance, French Leather Shako and M1864 Artillery Shako (Ringgold's), though there is much more evidence of all the afore mentioned being used during the war than the M1832 short sword.

Are you referring to a legacy artillery unit, then yes all enlisted light artillerists were issued the square regulation 1851 plate as it is considered a sword belt plate and not a sergeants plate, though infantry sergeants were issued the plate.

 

[FiremarshalBill]

I do not read that Michigan sword as belonging to the ancestor, but just a representative piece, otherwise I would think it would have a different label on the display identifying it as belonging to a particular soldier.

@FiremarshallBill can tell us if it indeed was his ancestor's.

Given that there were only 300 ordered for the last three years of the war, I think it can safely be said that they were not considered necessary. I look at this from a collectors viewpoint and the relative value of the piece. I bought mine during the halcyon days of collecting and now their value is relatively half, in fact if I had done more research back then, I would never have purchased the piece. I consider the short sword in the category of the Havelock, Pike, Lance, French Leather Shako and M1864 Artillery Shako (Ringgold's), though there is much more evidence of all the afore mentioned being used during the war than the M1832 short sword.

Are you referring to a legacy artillery unit, then yes all enlisted light artillerists were issued the square regulation 1851 plate as it is considered a sword belt plate and not a sergeants plate, though infantry sergeants were issued the plate.

 

[FiremarshalBill]

It's pretty unlikely my M1832 Artillery Short Sword was used by any members of the 1st Michigan Light Artillery, including my G-G-Grandfather. It's more likely he might have used a Remington M1858 New Model Army, but both are kinda cool for display. I often wish I had more opportunity to share my ACW collection with the public.

 

[byron ed]

It's pretty unlikely my M1832 Artillery Short Sword was used by any members of the 1st Michigan Light Artillery, including my G-G-Grandfather.

Well FiremarshallBill, your first response to the idea (that perhaps these swords were more common in field Artillery) was:

"I like to think so as my g-g-grandaddy served with a Michigan field artillery" unit.

Now we're told the sword likely had no association with any field artillery unit, let alone your G-G-Grandfather's battery. BTW the 1832 sword was at least intended for U.S. Artillery privates, while revolvers never were.

 

[byron ed]

...I think it can safely be said that they were not considered necessary...I consider the short sword in the category of the Havelock, Pike, Lance, French Leather Shako and M1864 Artillery Shako (Ringgold's), though there is much more evidence of all the afore mentioned being used during the war than the M1832 short sword.

Yet it appears the sword was contracted for into mid-war (re: your 300 an example); was kept in issue inventory until 1872 (re: your 1866 illustration an example) and the Rebs found them useful enough that they spared rare resources to make their own. So there's no "can safely be said" moment here. We get it that you don't want them being thought of as used much, but no one has actually asked for a definitive answer about the 1832 sword, nor is there a need for a definitive answer on it. There's indications both ways. Let it ride.

...the square regulation 1851 plate as it is considered a sword belt plate and not a sergeants plate, though infantry sergeants were issued the plate.

So while it is not a sergeant's plate it is a sergeant's plate. You might just be a reenactor

 

[Package4]

I've been told that too, but after all it's only a supposition* In Quartermaster view an artillery private was an artillery private, and the 1832 short sword was not banned for use by any artillery private, including field artillery. Not only do we see at least one Mich. field artillerist's example given earlier, but it's important to understand that individual batteries equipped as individual batteries did. For example, in my legacy unit all the privates wore sargeant's (square eagle) buckles. What of it?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
* We hobbyists today make far too much of what was issue and what was not. It was mostly a volunteer army. It is reenactors that tend to obcess over what was issue and what was not. The real army back then not so much. Notice how every once in a while an exception of gear found in an old tintype causes pages of conniptions in following threads. We just don't get it.

I look at the purpose of this site as an educational and informative one, therefore it is up to those that are knowledgeable to be as factual as possible. Calling an artillery private an artillery private in the Quartermaster View is plain and abjectly wrong. Frock coats were only issued to Foot or Heavy Artillery units, Field Artillery received Sack Coats and (roundabouts or jackets), this is backed up by the issues and returns. We owe it to those who want to learn, fact based discourse and not supposition.

 

[Package4]

Yet it appears the sword was contracted for into mid-war (re: your 300 an example); was kept in issue inventory until 1872 (re: your 1866 illustration an example) and the Rebs found them useful enough that they spared rare resources to make their own. So there's no "can safely be said" moment here. We get it that you don't want them being thought of as used much, but no one has actually asked for a definitive answer about the 1832 sword, nor is there a need for a definitive answer on it. There's indications both ways. Let it ride.



So while it is not a sergeant's plate it is a sergeant's plate. You might just be a reenactor

Upon requisitions the plate requested is and was:
Waist Belt Plate, Regulation 1851 Pattern, Enlisted

 

[James N.]

Upon requisitions the plate requested is and was:
Waist Belt Plate, Regulation 1851 Pattern, Enlisted

 

[byron ed]

Upon requisitions the plate requested is and was:
Waist Belt Plate, Regulation 1851 Pattern, Enlisted

That's the one, thanks. Known as sergeant's plate.

 

[byron ed]

Calling an artillery private an artillery private in the Quartermaster View is plain and abjectly wrong.

So instead a Quartermaster would have called an artillery private a ______________ ?

Frock coats were only issued to Foot or Heavy Artillery units, Field Artillery received Sack Coats and (roundabouts or jackets)

Good information. No one in this thread has ever questioned anything about issue coats, but ok, thanks.

 

[Package4]

That's the one, thanks. Known as sergeant's plate.

Known as a sergeant's plate to reenactors, but not requisitioned from the quartermaster in that manner

 

[Package4]

So instead a Quartermaster would have called an artillery private a ______________ ?



Good information. No one in this thread has ever questioned anything about issue coats, but ok, thanks.

It is indicative that the only picture that exists of the sword in period pictures is that being worn by a "foot/heavy" artillery sergeant, leading credence to the sword being issued to only those units.

 

[Schwallanscher]

It is indicative that the only picture that exists of the sword in period pictures is that being worn by a "foot/heavy" artillery sergeant, leading credence to the sword being issued to only those units.

come on, just because there is no pic doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't issued to the cavalry