Pointing out that a sabre they say is English and is actually French and has "Manufacture Royale de 1831"on the blade isnt really stating anything other than the obvious. The design is French, the blade is French, the scabbard is a French design. I just need to check the proof stamps on it to confirm the date and place of manufacture. If the Museum cannot be bothered to check the objects thay have - a cursory glance on a book on European edged weapons will tell you that that piece is French 1822 sabre- or simply take the assumed tradition at face value or simply dont know then I feel Im doing the right thing by say identifying an object for them in their collection.
Because the 1822 pattern sabre was used right up until WW1 that piece could have been acquired at ANY TIME.Unless there is a real and definate provenance supporting the Museum's claim that it was actually owned and carried by General Scarlett then...its just heresay.
Them saying that the French had no cavalry in the Crimea is complete ignorance, however and shows a complete lack of understanding of that conflict. Them also quoting Kinglake shows they have a limited knowledge of the historiograpghy of that conflict and dont realise that Kinglake is a load of crap and was considered a load of crap when the books were first written because its more journalism than history,is not objective, it is not complete (it stops with the death of Raglan), is terribly jingoistic, disseminates malicious gossip about Napoleon III and also ignores the contribution made by the French and Piedmontese, let alone the Turks, to the final victory at Sebastopol- it was the French not the British who captured the Malakoff which was the "key to sebastopol". The British failed spectacularly in their simultaneous assualt. The French army in 1855 included 119,000 infantry, 15,000 cavalry, 10,000 engineers and artillerymen and 5,000 naval troops. The British had just about 44,000 of all arms and the Piedmontese 15,000 or 17,000 but yet Kinglake and others of his ilk give the impression that it was Britain who was the major player and not France.
indeed, I don't doubt it, myself. Nevertheless, the softly-softly approach is best if any change is actually likely when it comes to labels on displays and programme materials... I've experienced it myself, sadly when I have been able to identify individuals in archive photographs, providing dating evidence, address/location information, newspaper articles and other photographs of the people concerned. Still no changes....
Yeah....tell me about it! The same goes for museums. I think its because people arescared of change and feel threatened by others, espeically if they obviously have more knowledge and/or are junior to the "powers that be".
is that it could be the one presented to him at the Court-house in Burnley on Wednesday 2nd May 1855, reportedly costing nigh on £200!? Actually the article clarifies that they used a different sword at the presentation as there hadn't been time to have one made epecially!? [cf. Preston Guardian, Saturday, May 5, 1855, p.6]
Merci beaucoup! But yeah the sabre has "Manufacture Royale de Klingenthal " on the blade and is obviously a French 1821 officers sabre.The lenght of it suggests Cavalry, but the hilt is 1821 model infantry as it hasnt got the three-bar hilt. However, my other M1821 French infantry officer sabre is very long and I believe the blade length was made according to the height of the officer, so it might just have been made for a tall infantry officer.
Now why would a British Cavalry General have a French infantry officers sabre?
Possibly. The sword I've seen is a bog-standard French cavalry officer's sabre 1822 pattern. There is no trace of gilding on the bronze hilt, but it has a black fish skin grip bound with brass wire and the hilt. The blade is steel and has no evidence of ever being blued and gilded. My example has a gilded bronze hilt and blued blade.
The Museum tell me it was carried by Genl. Scarlett actually IN the charge...
Because the 1822 pattern sabre was used right up until WW1 that piece could have been acquired at ANY TIME.Unless there is a real and definate provenance supporting the Museum's claim that it was actually owned and carried by General Scarlett then...its just heresay.
Them saying that the French had no cavalry in the Crimea is complete ignorance, however and shows a complete lack of understanding of that conflict. Them also quoting Kinglake shows they have a limited knowledge of the historiograpghy of that conflict and dont realise that Kinglake is a load of crap and was considered a load of crap when the books were first written because its more journalism than history,is not objective, it is not complete (it stops with the death of Raglan), is terribly jingoistic, disseminates malicious gossip about Napoleon III and also ignores the contribution made by the French and Piedmontese, let alone the Turks, to the final victory at Sebastopol- it was the French not the British who captured the Malakoff which was the "key to sebastopol". The British failed spectacularly in their simultaneous assualt. The French army in 1855 included 119,000 infantry, 15,000 cavalry, 10,000 engineers and artillerymen and 5,000 naval troops. The British had just about 44,000 of all arms and the Piedmontese 15,000 or 17,000 but yet Kinglake and others of his ilk give the impression that it was Britain who was the major player and not France.
Reply
Reply
Reply
is that it could be the one presented to him at the Court-house in Burnley on Wednesday 2nd May 1855, reportedly costing nigh on £200!? Actually the article clarifies that they used a different sword at the presentation as there hadn't been time to have one made epecially!?
[cf. Preston Guardian, Saturday, May 5, 1855, p.6]
Reply
http://www.bridgemanart.com/search.aspx?key=THA%20190597
Reply
French M1821 sabre for infantry officers.http://www.lehussard.fr/pic-show.php?arRef=203102&pic_file=203102_3.JPG
Reply
Reply
But yeah the sabre has "Manufacture Royale de Klingenthal " on the blade and is obviously a French 1821 officers sabre.The lenght of it suggests Cavalry, but the hilt is 1821 model infantry as it hasnt got the three-bar hilt. However, my other M1821 French infantry officer sabre is very long and I believe the blade length was made according to the height of the officer, so it might just have been made for a tall infantry officer.
Now why would a British Cavalry General have a French infantry officers sabre?
Reply
The Museum tell me it was carried by Genl. Scarlett actually IN the charge...
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment