Sword

[Tut11]

Beautiful sword! Thanks for posting the images. @White Flint Bill

 

[JPChurch]

Certainly not patterned after a Greek sword

 

[Package4]

yep - a blade just short of 20 inches (that's not counting the handle). if you look at that ruler (i guess it shows inches) ...

What Lanyard Puller said. It's a Confederate forge copy of an 1832 pattern Artillery short sword, to note there's no Federal Eagle stamped into the knob nor are there blood grooves on the blade as on the Federal Ames contract item. The comparatively primitive quality and irregular outline of the blade is another clue.

It's been insisted by armchair historians that the Federally-issued swords were not of much value to CW Federal field Artillery and so rarely used (except for heavy artillery in garrision or substitute Navy cutlass). Yet, it's been countered that if such swords were so useless, why would the Confederates have used up their sparse resources to copy and issue that very pattern of sword to their field Artillery? The OP example is a case in point. Perhaps these swords were more common in field Artillery service North and South than the armchair historians claim they were.

You would be hard pressed to find a field photograph or relic hunter finds of many of these, that is why the "arm chair" historians make those claims. Their survival rate also indicates that there were initial issues and then either sent home, returned to arsenal, or disposed of. Many of the extant US models were sent back to arsenals, pistols and revolvers easily sufficed to take their place. Theory dictated that these swords would be used to disable the wheels by destroying the spokes, in event of capture, I would contend that spiking the gun would be quicker and more effective.

The Confederacy mimicked the Federal Army, initially, since many came from that arm prior to heading South. They did what they knew and as such, they initially produced the short artillery sword, though not great numbers.

Famed "arm chair" sword historian and author William Albbaugh III:

"Obviously this is a foot artillery sword copied after those used by the Roman gladiators 2,000 years ago. In the days of the Roman, when one man was pitted against another similarly armed, such a weapon was highly effective. In the 1860s, it was issued to foot artillerymen in the hopes that so armed they might disembowel or chop the legs of opposing cavalry that had overridden their supposedly "secure" artillery position. Soldiers of the 1860s found repeating carbines and a 36in cavalry blade did much towards dimming the effectiveness of the short sword as a weapon. After one such encounter with the enemy most soldiers relied heavily upon their legs rather than this weapon." Confederate Edged Weapons William A. Albaugh III, ppg. 140-141.

 

[Package4]

What Lanyard Puller said. It's a Confederate forge copy of an 1832 pattern Artillery short sword, to note there's no Federal Eagle stamped into the knob nor are there blood grooves on the blade as on the Federal Ames contract item. The comparatively primitive quality and irregular outline of the blade is another clue.

It's been insisted by armchair historians that the Federally-issued swords were not of much value to CW Federal field Artillery and so rarely used (except for heavy artillery in garrision or substitute Navy cutlass). Yet, it's been countered that if such swords were so useless, why would the Confederates have used up their sparse resources to copy and issue that very pattern of sword to their field Artillery? The OP example is a case in point. Perhaps these swords were more common in field Artillery service North and South than the armchair historians claim they were.

I believe another case in point that these were early issues and then taken home or disposed of, is the story of the original post, two brothers in the Danville, VA artillery, one mortally wounded at Sharpsburg and the other captured there. How then did this sword end up at home? I would proffer that it came home on leave, early on and it stayed there. Upon his exchange, 6/29/63 the surviving brother joined the cavalry 7/30/63 and would not have been issued a short sword.

 

[byron ed]

Theory dictated that these swords would be used to disable the wheels by destroying the spokes, in event of capture, I would contend that spiking the gun would be quicker and more effective....In the 1860s, it was issued to foot artillerymen in the hopes that so armed they might disembowel or chop the legs of opposing cavalry that had overridden their supposedly "secure" artillery position.

Well, that's a new one. Wherever the "disabling the wheels by destroying the spokes" idea came from, it's ridiculous. There's no way you could in a short time splinter even one spoke, let alone enough spokes to disable the wheel. Anyway the sword was not optimized as an edged weapon* and could not effectively chop hardwood to the point of failure (even if John Brown found it effective on human flesh).

Pulling the axle pins or better yet, as mentioned and per period accounts, spiking the tube could be done much quicker. Think about it. Hacking away at spokes is "Keystone cops" stuff -- let's just agree to toss out that concept and speak of it no more.

So back to how it could be used for a realistic and effective defense. First of all, crews were not issued individual pistols or carbines, so mostly a moot point there (some artillerists armed themselves with pistols anyway). The idea was that command did not want crews relying on pistols over using the piece itself with canister shot, followed by implements in the event of a breach -- implements including the short swords on hand used mostly to clear brush or mark wheel return position during combat.

The sword's intended defense method is apparent in the sword's construction itself. *Anyone who has held one of these is quickly aware that it is as much a club as it is a sword. It's heavy and stout. You could break an incoming horse's shins, thus toppling the rider, then a thrust (as Roman centurions used them) to dispatch the downed rider. In this it it would be effective, anyway enough that the Feds issued it into 1863, and for the Rebs to use up precious resources to make their own.

 

[byron ed]

You would be hard pressed to find a field photograph or relic hunter finds of many of these, that is why the "arm chair" historians make those claims. Their survival rate also indicates that there were initial issues and then either sent home, returned to arsenal, or disposed of.

or, as much, these swords were useful for a wide variety of chores, in service or home front, and were relatively easy to toss into a wagon or be taken home, so why would there be many left on a battlefield?

Survival rates are indicator in determining use. A factor only.

 

[Package4]

Well, that's a new one. Wherever the "disabling the wheels by destroying the spokes" idea came from, it's ridiculous. There's no way you could in a short time splinter even one spoke, let alone enough spokes to disable the wheel. Anyway the sword was not optImized as an edged weapon* so could not effectively splinter hardwood. Dent it maybe, but not splinter it to the point of failure. Pulling the axle pins or better yet spiking the tube could be done much quicker. Hacking away at spokes is "Keystone cops" stuff -- let's just agree to toss out that concept and speak of it no more.

So back to how it could be used for a realistic and effective defense. First of all, crews were not issued individual pistols or carbines, so mostly a moot point there (not that some artillerists didn't arm themselves with pistols anyway). The idea was that command did not want crews relying on pistols over using the piece itself with canister shot, followed by implements in the event of a breach -- implements including the short swords on hand used mostly to clear brush or mark wheel return position during combat.

The sword's intended defense procedure is apparent in the sword's construction itself. *Anyone who has held one of these is quickly aware that it is as much a club as a sword. It's heavy and stout. The idea was to break an incoming horse's shins, thus toppling the rider, then a thrust (Roman combat style) to dispatch the downed rider. In this it it would obviously be effective, anyway enough that the Feds issued it into 1863, and for the Rebs to use up precious resources to make their own.

If you would supply proof of their use, I would gladly change my opinion, but recoveries in the field and photographs are bereft of their existence in the field. yes, there is the occasional field recovery usually early war sites and off to the side of the road. That they were issued is not proof, the 1864 Artillery cap was issued as well, but rarely seen in photographs.

I know of two that have been found in the field, one near Fredericksburg, VA in the 50s and another turn of the century find in Richmond (southern short artillery swords). The others are in great shape and in fact not that rare, proof that they were socked away and not used.

Photographs show most mounted with either a cav or artillery saber.

 

[Package4]

or, as much, these swords were useful for a wide variety of chores, in service or home front, and were relatively easy to toss into a wagon or be taken home, so why would there be many left on a battlefield?

Seriously! Relic hunters find brass hilted saber bayonets, M1840 artillery sabers, artillery worms etc, but do not find the 1832 pattern sword of either side, plus no photographs of it in the field with said batteries, is proof that they were rarely used.

Why would you use it and what would you use it for? By the time you could swing at a horses leg you would be dead or run over, it was excess weight. More than half of a battery was mounted and the M1840 is very evident, both on waist belts and saddles in photographs, yet try as I might I still can't find a picture of a short artillery sword in the field. I also see more pistols/revolvers on artillerymen than this sword.

Not to mention that Heavies were all armed and issued cartridge boxes with muskets, but were also charged with fortress artillery duties.

I agree with you that they were taken home, right after issue.

 

[byron ed]

That they were issued is not proof....others are in great shape and in fact not that rare, proof that they were socked away and not used.

Well that's having it both ways. The problem, and I've noticed this is common among reenactors, is using the word "proof" when in nearly all cases "indication" is all that should be claimed.

So true enough, that these swords were issued is not a proof they were used, which is why proof wasn't claimed. That these swords were issued, however, is an indication they were used. That many surviving swords have been found in great shape is not either a proof that they were socked away and not used. That many surviving swords have been found in great shape is an indication that they were socked away and not used.

 

[byron ed]

...By the time you could swing at a horses leg you would be dead or run over, it was excess weight.

Or, there was ample opportunity and timing to crack a horse's shin with a short sword. Jumping out from a low stance behind the wheel as cavalry invades between the guns is not very much of a stretch. Most crew grabbed rams or splinter bars, but a short sword is something else that could be grabbed. Still, I realize it's unlikely there was a sword for every gun. The odd short sword would ony only be at a gun in the first place when needed for brush clearing or marking wheel position, etc.

As far as the excess weight problem, that would only apply if it were part of an individual soldier's accrutement, worn on them. I've not noticed anyone claiming that. Artillery had battery wagons from which all kinds of tools and weapons, even carbines, even short swords, were accessible.

...the M1840 is very evident, both on waist belts and saddles in photographs, yet try as I might I still can't find a picture of a short artillery sword in the field.

The 1832s were were apparently not worn, though there was a frog designed for that.

...I agree with you that they were taken home, right after issue.

But not that as many stayed in the field? They continued to be issued into 1863, and the Rebs apparently felt a need for them on the battlefield as well. I won't use the word proofs. These are indications. Reasonable indications. There's nothing to be served by one of us "winning" a "slam dunk" on the topic.

 

[8thFlorida]

I mentioned this sword a while back. It was in my grandmother's house. Her grandfather and his brother were in the Confederate artillery.
View attachment 175192
View attachment 175193

What do you experts think? Is this a Confederate sword?

Great piece. I've never seen one before.

 

[Belle Montgomery]

For any interested, this sword likely belonged to Sgt. George William Keesee of the Danville (Va) Artillery, killed at Sharpsburg. If not, then to his brother Cpl. Peyton Clay Keesee, who was wounded that morning alongside his brother. Peyton was left behind to tend to his dying brother, was captured and later exchanged. When his term was up he transferred to Co. C of the 5th Virginia Cavalry. Fortunately for me, Peyton survived the war.

Before I rescued this sword from her, my mother was using it as a wood stove poker.

Awesome!

 

[White Flint Bill]

Many thanks for all the great comments, and a special thanks to @Lanyard Puller and @ucvrelics.com. Much obliged, gentlemen!

 

[Package4]

Many thanks for all the great comments, and a special thanks to @Lanyard Puller and @ucvrelics.com. Much obliged, gentlemen!

It is certainly a treasure and relatively rare piece of history!

 

[Lanyard Puller]

With apologies to White Flint, who I figure to be enjoying all this hoopla, but I've been misquoted concerning the US 1832 short sword, etc. in the short time it took to go to a gun show and return. Lacking any concern over this small slight, I've taken the liberty of posting enough CSA, short swords, some with horse blood and flesh still on them, to keep this off topic festival alive for weeks to come.... Here we go, but I've got to put my gun show stuff away. See yaw'l in a few days. Enjoy the eye candy.

 

[byron ed]

...I've taken the liberty of posting enough CSA, short swords, some with horse blood and flesh still on them, to keep this off topic festival alive for weeks to come....

Don't beat yourself up. Including a few Bowie knife photos hardly comprises an "an off topic festival."

 

[Topazy]

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

thanks in advance
Topazy.

 

[byron ed]

...Have a qestion: To what era do these swords belong?
thanks in advanceTopazy.

No swords exactly. I'm seeing three military-issue bayonets and one non-military hunting knife. If the butt of the knife is aluminum we at least know it was made in the 20th century. It has the look of later 20th century and there are ones like it being made today.

It takes a deeper dive to figure out the bayonets -- i.e. what year and what military long gun each was made for. The three may cover anywhere from Antebellum to post-WW1 decades. Seeing the length of the blades would help i.d. them, though someone here will know just by the handles and lug rails.

Welcome to the Forum. Just some advice: Bayonets and knives begin to go off-topic to this thread (per the original post, it's about Artillery short swords) so don't be shy about starting a new thread with the photo instead.

 

[JPChurch]

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

the one above the knife looks like a Mauser bayonet

 

[byron ed]

the one above the knife looks like a Mauser bayonet

...meaning made to fit any one of a number of Mauser lock pattern rifles from before WW1 to post WW2. Anyway, not CW. Time to move this to a new thread.