Jump to content

1854 General Officer's Sword


stratasfan

Recommended Posts

Another sword from the family Sis is an archivist for. While filled with men who served in a variety of forces and positions, there were none who held the rank of General. A Colonel, yes, but not higher. Someone told Sis that the crossed sword and baton emblem on this sword denotes the rank of General, so shouldn't have been used by a Colonel, unless he bought it in anticipation of a further jump up the ladder that never happened? Any thoughts are welcome!

Again, the only pictures we have. This sword is sadly on a mount above a high door in an entryway.

 

 

14a.JPG

14b.JPG

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...

This is a "general officers" sword, this does not mean rank of a general. I have a nice one named to a Captain.  These are often confused with the rank of general.AFB6F526-BB17-45B7-9DD1-DA5FE22AA6FB_1_105_c.jpeg.4f4801dd72f2378a6c37e4a148b721c1.jpeg

Link to comment

@Will M That's a great bit of info. As you know, swords are a bit new to me. So, what ranks would apply for the sword in the original post above? Also, from the photos there, any idea about era or something that could give a hint as to which family member may have had this sword?

Link to comment

Swords are usually bought by the officer upon their commission, rank would be lieutenant. Many officers owned more than one sword and they could purchase

and wear new swords that fit their regiment. The sword I pictured was purchased when he was a Capt. and D.A.A.G. 

Your sword does not have the folding guard so the earliest it can be is 1854. Having a steel scabbard the rank is not above Capt.

Link to comment

I'll see if I can figure out a good match . . . a Lieutenant or Captain post 1854. How late would this sword style be in use?

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...
On 6/8/2021 at 2:00 PM, Will M said:

In use till 1895

 

Ah, then there are probably several family members who will fit into this . . . being a Lieutenant or Captain between the years of 1854 and 1895. I'll sort through dates and see who is a possible match. Any regiment, basically?

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm not sure on this but I just got a general officers sword who was with the 9th regt. of foot in the Crimea and later a commissary general with the 1884 Nile Expedition.

They will read as from a previous regiment. These officers stop being listed in their former regiment.  Harts army list should help find him.

 

Link to comment
On 6/22/2021 at 9:19 PM, Will M said:

I'm not sure on this but I just got a general officers sword who was with the 9th regt. of foot in the Crimea and later a commissary general with the 1884 Nile Expedition.

They will read as from a previous regiment. These officers stop being listed in their former regiment.  Harts army list should help find him.

 

 

They are only not listed with a former regiment when they've reached staff officer rank, is that correct?

No one in the family would have been a staff officer. I'd really be looking for a Lieutenant or Captain, as there are no gents in the family to reach Lt-Colonel until after 1895. 

Link to comment

I have a sword of a Capt. DAAG that was a general staff officer. I have another general officers sword coming also a Capt. as general commissary. 

What I've seen it's Capt. and up for a staff officer. Their former regt. of what I've seen is mentioned.

I'd look under Harts army lists for general officers.

Best to research the officers names and later attach the sword to the one that fits. 

You never know the sword may have been a gift or collected by an ancestor and have no military connection to them.

 

Link to comment
  • 4 weeks later...
On 6/24/2021 at 10:29 PM, Will M said:

I almost missed an important fact, the scabbard is steel so the rank is Capt and below.

 

How interesting! For above the rank of Captain, what would the scabbard have been made of? 

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...
On 7/28/2021 at 6:43 PM, Will M said:

Field officer sword scabbards are brass.

 

Thanks! Would the brass have worn more easily? Easily dented, etc.? Or was it just colour?

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...