SwordSalesEU

Ah, the desire of every British military sword collector, to have a 1796 pattern British heavy cavalry sword that was at Waterloo!



Why? Because this was arguably British heavy cavalry's finest hour, and the swords they carried are so rare, unless you count reproductions which I guess out number authentic 99 to 1 (be warned). Why are they so rare? Because the British were broke, so when the 1796P was replaced in 1821, the British Army gave some to the few Yeomanry cavalry regiments that had men and horses large enough to carry them, and the rest were cut down as cutlasses and used for training until they were broken into little pieces.

But, on the basis the British did not manufacture any more 1796P's after Waterloo as they reduced the size of their army right down, as they were broke, then any authentic 1796P HC sword owner has a 1 in 2 chance that their sword was at Waterloo based solely on the fact around half of Britain's heavy cavalrymen were at Waterloo.

Of course, in some rare cases, 1796P HC swords may be marked to a certain regiment, normally on the scabbard throat area. But how do you know if not?

First, let's be sure the sword in question was bought by the British army. Easy enough. Does it have a crown acceptance mark to the blade? A crown over inspector's number like this one;



Next, does it have a spear point like this one;



You see, there was a general order given out by the British just before Waterloo that all 1796P's were to have their hatchet point tips ground down to spear point. Now, let me add, not all 1796P's at Waterloo were ground down to spear point, but the fact of having a spear point does indicate it was at Waterloo, where having a hatchet point (without any other provenance or contributing proof) indicates the sword was not, as only 1796P's in the battle zone were ground down, if you see what I mean.

So, an authentic 1796P heavy cavalry sword with a crown acceptance mark and a modified spear point almost certainly (99%) means it was at Waterloo.

And the photo above shows a blade with another tell-tale sign it was at Waterloo; it has substantial nicks to the cutting edge. Although the 1796P was designed purely for thrust, it is well documented the burly cavalrymen that wielded them did so like they were broadswords, waving them around with deadly effect.

Some 1796P's have yeomanry cavalry regiment markings. Were these at Waterloo? Again, you need to look at whether the sword has a crown acceptance mark and spear point. There were NO heavy cavalry yeomanry during the Napoleonic wars mostly because the large horses needed for heavy cavalry were in short supply and because yeomanry were trained as light cavalry, many being issued 1796 pattern light cavalry sabres, which are much more common than the heavy cavalry sword.

After the 100 Days War (Waterloo), and especially in 1821 when the new sword models were approved, swords previously used by regular army cavalry regiments were passed down to the yeomanry. The British were then marking their swords, so you may well find a 1796P heavy cavalry sword with no original regiment markings but with later yeomanry markings. One of the few yeomanry regiments that were issued pass-me-down 1796P's was the Worcester Yeomanry Cavalry. You can see why in a very detailed painting of them in 1838 by WJ Pringle - take a look at their head gear, some are wearing dragoon guard (heavy cavalry) style helmets while mounted on very substantial horses.

But how do I know 1796P HC swords did not have their blades arbitrarily modified to spear points after Waterloo? Because I have seen both hatchet and spear point 1796P's marked "WYC" (Worcester Yeomanry Cavalry), that is why. If it was a general order that all regiments with 1796P's were to modify their blades to spear point, there would be no hatchet point 1796P's marked to the WYC.