The Baskethilt Sword

A Baskethilt is an early modern period, heavy, straight bladed sword with a handguard shaped like, well, a basket.  I know,  I know -- hence the name.   Most people associate baskethilts with Scotland.  While the sword type was popular in the Scottish highlands, it  also saw use across Europe from the 14th - 19th centuries.   Note, however, that a baskethilt is not a claymore.  A claymore is a long, straight, bladed Scottish sword of Medieval origin.  Rather than a basket, it has a simple cross guard.   Mel Gibson carried a claymore in Braveheart.   Liam Neeson fought a duel with a baskethilt in Rob Roy.  

The baskethilt blade, while typically straight, is also found curved and slightly curved.   The type has seen use by both  a mounted and foot swordsman with the only real difference being the length of the blade.   Think about it --  long blades are better for horseman who need the length to reach opponents on foot.  Blade types can be of either backsword (with a flat spine) or broadsword (double edged blade).  

 

The sword shown above is an 18th century 3/4 basket backsword of English origin.  While the hilt offers good protection to the hand, because of the basket it also restricts mobility.  Further, the horseman faces a challenge when the need arises to hold the horse' reigns with the right hand.  The 3/4 basket, meaning that it only has 3 panels to the guard rather than the customary 4, leaves protection to the outside of the hand while opening the inside to increase mobility.  This particular sword dates to circa mid 18th century and was in my collection a few years back. 

Those who have a desire to own a baskethilt should be prepared to spend a significant amount of money for the genuine item.   Because the sword form is associated with Scottish  Highland clans, it is very popular among collectors and people if Scottish ancestry.    The collector should also beware of reproductions and fakes.  Be on thr lookout for the mating of an original hilt with a later blade.  It is not uncommon to find an original 17th or 18th century English or Scottish basket matched to an incorrect blade such as a 19th century Ethiopian kaskara. The Ethiopian blade appears very similar the correct earlier blade, but is typically stamped with crescent moons.  Also watch out for Victorian reproductions as well as the official British pattern 1828 sword for officers of Scottish regiments.  While the baskets of the pattern 1829 swords look very similar to the 17th and 18th century versions, the blades are significantly smaller and the whole assembly comes apart easily  by the loosing of the pommel nut.  This is so that the basket may be replaced by a simple cross guard for full dress or gala functions.  The 19th century swords also typically have a fishskin grip whereas the earlier swords will usually have a leather, bone, horn or wood grip. Of course, there is nothing wrong with the 19th century pattern sword.  It has the same rugged looks and appeal of the older versions. However, it would be very disappointing to find out that you paid the price tag of an 18th century sword, but only got a sword worth several thousand dollars less. 

The sword depicted above is a British pattern 1828 manufactured by Wilkinson Sword in 1860.  It is also formerly of my collection.  Another one that I wouldn't mind owning again.  With a Wilkinson, information regarding the date of manufacture and the intial owner may be obtained.   I cannot remember the name of the individual who initially purchased this sword. I did research the fellow years back, but unfortunately I did not obtain any information about him.   The blade on this sword is fairly stout, so it probably was not made for a non-military carrier such as a pipe band major.   My guess is that the owner was a militia officer.  

Confederate or Not?

I often peruse online auctions for swords.  Online auctions can be minefields for the collector.  No novice should purchase any sword or gun through an online auction without first doing some homework.

At any given time, you can find several swords up for auction described by the seller as Confederate made or used.   How can you be sure that he sword is really of Confederate manufacture or use.    I can't count the number of times that I have seen a sword up for auction, no matter it's age, described as Civil War.   Some sellers believe, or at least represent, that any edged weapon not marked US must be Confederate.  Why?  Well, simply stated Confederate weapons are worth more and if some unknowing buyer believes it, the $200 sword will fetch a much higher price.  Be careful.  Be very careful.

Here are a few beginners tips for CS edged weapons:

1)   Many CS made weapons are not as finely finished as those made in the US or Europe.  However, they weren't all made by blacksmiths either.   Some CS swords are very fine.  You can generally tell a CS manufactured sword by some common characteristics. Many CS swords have unstopped fullers (the blade groove does not have a defined termination point at the hilt), some faults (lines, dips, chips or cracks) in the blade or brass, reddish brass from a high copper content in the smelting and have substandard materials for grips (painted canvas instead of leather for grip cover; single strand brass, iron or copper wire for grip binding).  The hilt below demonstrates my point.  It is the hilt of a CS cavalry sabre made by Haimon Bros. of Columbus, Georgia.  Note the painted canvas wrap, iron wire and reddish hue to the brass.  

This sword was in my collection.   The scabbard was very crude with an ugly weld seam up the back. Not every CS sword will have exactly the same characteristics.  Identification and verification is a very fluid business.

2)   CS swords are typically not armory marked or dated.  Common reproductions bear the marking "Atlanta Arsenal, 1862."   I wouldn't touch any sword presented as CS that bears these markings.

3)  Confederates did use swords imported from Europe.  French pattern 1821 infantry officer swords (upon which the US model 1850 foot sword is based) were carried.  The British pattern 1853 cavalry sword was imported by and CS governments.  Any sword not of CS manufacture that is purported to be CS needs to have clear and acceptable  provenance to be deemed as such. Provenance is the proof that what is claimed is really true.  Documentation from a reputable source, a period photograph, an identifiable marking such as initials or a name etched or hand carved in the metal or wood is the type of  provenance that is needed.  Just because it is "of the type carried by CS officers or enlisted men" does not provenance make.   Beware also of false provenance.  Dishonest people will fake markings and  documents to create provenance.  There is also the false word of mouth provenance.  "I bought this sword from a street vender in New Orleans who said that it came from the family of an officer of the Wheat's Lousiana Tiger Zouaves who was captured at Vicksburg."   Yeah, right.    Is it also marked "Atlanta Arsenal, 1862"?    FYI, to my knowledge, Wheat's Tiger Zouaves were not at Vicksburg.   It is also a quantum leap of logic to assume that a French made sword was carried by a Louisiana officer simply because of common ancestry.  Look at the spine of French swords.  Typically the model,  arsenal and date of manufacture are there.  I've seen more that one French made "Civil War" sword bearing a post 1865 date of manufacture.  Word of mouth provenance starts either by intent so as to increase value (aka a little thing called fraud) or innocently enough do to a lack of knowledge.  It is, in my opinion, very dangerous in the collecting world, because the more times the false assertion is passed from owner to owner the more credence that it receives.   To borrow from Baboo, the unfortunate Pakistani restauranteur on Seinfeld, "word of mouth provenance, you very, very bad man!"

5) While I'm on my rant, let's talk about barn and attic finds.  Yes, I'm sure that some Civil War swords have been found in attics and barns.  That's where we all put the junk that we don't need anymore, but are too lazy to throw away. But this many attic and barn find swords is a bit ridiculous. Perhaps a law was passed in 1866 requiring all swords carried home by veterans to be put in attics and barns.  Who brought these swords home anyway?  Officers? Okay, I can see that. Enlisted men?  For what purpose would a mustered out enlisted man need with a 3 foot long cavalry sword?  Plow blade?  Very Biblical, but not very practical. I'm sure that some sentimental soldiers took their blades home, but I simply don't believe that the vast majority looked back on their years of service with that much fondness or sentimentality.   With the attic or barn find, ask "who put it there, when and for what purpose."  When was it found and how.  That barn or attic better be someplace where nobody has ventured in a long time.

6) Along the same lines, just because a sword is found in a Southern state does not make it Confederate.   I love an auction for an 1860 US cavalry sabre purchased by the seller from a previous owner in Kentucky decreed to be a CS captured and used US sword.  Based upon what?  The fact that it came from Kentucky. First of all, and I'll probably offend someone here, but I just don't consider Kentucky to be a Confederate state -  because it wasn't.  It was a border state with allegiance to both North and South. There are a myriad of reasons why that sword was found in Kentucky. First of all,  relic dealing is an online business and items reach buyers all over country and the world.  Maybe the previous owner bought it online or at a show.  Maybe the sword is original to the state.  It could be surplus from a US regiment.  Perhaps it is surplus US army stock sold or given to the state for keeping in its armory.  Perhaps it was issued to a Union Kentuckian who carried it in the war and brought it home--easy now, see above. Perhaps a Confederate Kentuckian captured and used it.   Hey, I've had dozens of British swords in Mississippi, that doesn't make any of them Confederate.  Provenance makes the difference.  

7) If its too good to be true, then you have been taken.  Even with the decline of sword values due to the recession, CS swords have still commanded higher than US sword prices.  Swords ID'd to a known CS manufacturer, either by marking or characteristics, still obtain prices in the thousands.   I'm not saying that it is impossible to stumble upon a great deal.  However, for the most part, an online auction does not result in a less than market value sale price.  There are simply too many collectors in the know who purchase online.  if everyone else isn't bidding, then neither should you.

5) Buy reference books and visit reputable dealer websites.  Get a keen eye for the subtle features.  Learn what it should look like and what it should cost.

Now, go online and see how many questionable CS swords offered at auction that you can find. Its fun.

The Baker Rifle

The wars in the colonies, specifically the French and Indian War (otherwise known as the Seven Years War) and the American Revolution, significantly altered British military tactics.  Britain was a superpower in the 18th century.  It's navy ruled the seas and its infantry was feared by Europeans and the colonists alike.   British firepower, perfected in linear tactics, controlled the field.   Infantry presented itself in open fields, marched within 100 yards of each other and unleashed volley after volley directly into each other's ranks from smoothbore flintlock muskets.  When one side was significantly weakened, the stronger launched a bayonet charge causing the weaker unit to either flee the field or suffer at the end of a the nearly  two foot long triangular spike bayonet.   In the eighteenth century, the British officers were masters of  linear tactics performed by magnificently disciplined troops.   It was unheard of to fight in the winter and ungentlemanly to target officers.  The American wars changed all of that.

Native Americans, first employed by the French, knew nothing of linear tactics.  Rather, native Americans utilized concealment, ambush and fear to fight their battles.  The Canadian French adopted the tactics of their native American allies in the French and Indian War.  British General Edward Braddock's disastrous 1755 campaign on Fort Dusquesne educated British officers as to these new tactics.  The British expedition suffered a crushing defeat in which ambush and concealment soundly defeated linear tactics.  While British regulars and colonial militia tried to form up and fire volleys in ranks, native Americans and Frenchmen, firing from behind cover, decimated the British ranks and targeted and killed officers, including General Braddock.

Ambush and concealment carried forth into the American Revolution.   At Lexington and Concord, American militia melted when facing British linear assault.  However, the British suffered stinging losses on the return to Boston from the same militia who executed ambush along the march route and peppered the British from concealed positions.   The weapon of choice of many a militiaman was  the Pennsylvania rifle.

Hunting rifles existed for years prior to the American Revolution and were used by traditional European huntsmen such as chasseurs and jagers.    Grooves cut in the weapon's barrel spun the ball as it traveled and increased distance and accuracy.  The British reaction to American tactics was to create light infantry units -- troops trained to move fast and fight independently, often in units of two.  While not armed with rifles, British light infantry were the seed of the rifle regiments formed in the early 19th century.  These elite regiments wore the green jackets harkening back to those worn by chasseurs and  jagers,  were trained in the tactics of light infantry and were armed, when possible, with the Baker rifles.  British rifle regiments,  the 95th Regiment of Foot (the Rifles) and the 60th Regiment of Foot (the Loyal Americans --the unit was originally intended to be recruited from loyal colonists), served with particular distinction during the Napoleonic Wars.  Bernard Cornwell fans know well that his intriguing fictional character, Richard Sharpe, rose from the ranks to hold a commission in the 95th (a feat which actually did occur from time to time, but not very often).

Ezekiel Baker developed his rifle in the early 19th century in response to a call from the British government  for a weapon with which to arm its riflemen.  Baker beat out stiff competition from very qualified gunsmiths,  including Henry Nock, and won the contract in February of 1800.   Over 22,000  Baker rifle were manufactured over the long lifespan of the weapon.  It  served until 1837 at which time it was replaced by the Brunswick rifle.

             Photo source:  web.science.mq.edu.au

The first thing noticeable about the Baker when compared to the standard British Napoleonic era longarm, the smoothbore Brown Bess, is its length.   The .75 calibre Bess stands a good nine inches taller than the Baker.  However, even with its shorter barrel, the .625 calibre  Baker is greatly outclasses its smoothbore cousin in accuracy and effective range, making it more suitable for harassing fire and sniping. The downside of the Baker, and other early rifles, is the increased loading time. Because of the need for the round to fit tight against the grooves of the barrel, it took some force to ram the round down the barrel.   Often, a cloth patch was used to ensure a snug fit--hence the patch box incorporated into the rifles stock (one easy way to spot any 18th and 19th  century rifle is by the patch box cover on the stock).    Repeated firing compounded the situation, as fouling of the barrel made for a tighter fit.  For assistance in loading, rifleman were issued mallets with which to pound the ball down the barrel.   An average rifleman got off two rounds per minute.  The average soldier armed with a smoothbore musket fired around 3 rounds per minute.    The smoothbore sacrifices accuracy and range for speed of firing.  A smoothbore musket, such as the Brown Bess, is somewhat accurate up to 100 yards.  The Baker is accurate up to 200 yards.  For close defense the rifleman was issue a sword bayonet, rather than the standard triangular bayonet.

I do not and have not owned a Baker rifle.  Maybe one day I will.

A New Orleans Made Confederate Foot Officer's Sword

Confederate made or used weapons are highly collectible.   More so than any other Confederate item, officer's swords are the most desireable item.  Perhaps it the mystic of the "lost cause."    After all, German WWII militaria prices are  much higher than those of any other nation.   French Napoleonic items are  typically valued greater than comparable Britsh items.  So what is it about the loser's stuff that is so desired by collectors?   My opinion is that it is a matter of supply and demand.   There were comparatively fewer Confederate manufactured swords than Union manufactured swords. Even fewer Confederste swords have survived over the past 150 years.   Also,  in most instances, we can say that a sword produced by a known CS maker was manufactured between 1860-1865.   That cannot be said for every "Civil War" Sword. US sword patterns for the most part were in service existed prewar and continued as official patterns for several years postwar. For whatever reason, CS officer's swords simply fetch higher prices on the market.  Often, they are of poorer quality in both materials and manufacture, but I must admit that they are truly appealing.

Over the years I have owned four Confederate swords.  I have had the pleasure of owning two cavalry sabres and two foot officer's swords (remember these are the officers that did not serve mounted, captains and below, hence the designation as "foot officer").  The sword pictured below is one of the foot officer's swords that I have owned.  This particular sword is completely devoid of markings, but it can still identified as a product of a New Orleans manufacturer.

Prior to its fall in 1862, New Irleans was the home of several well known Sword cutlers.  The most famous of these being  Thomas Griswold & Co., which produced very high quality officers swords as well as other blades.  Also manufacturing in New Orleans were Agudier Dufihlo and Blaise Pradel.  Both Dufihlo's and Pradel's names appear on one of my favorite CS swords- a staff and field officer's (those what got to ride on horses) sword incorporating the Lousiana state seal in the guard which depicts a pelican feeding her young.  The sword shown below is believed to be a Pradel product based upon its likeness to a Pradel marked foot officer's sword.  The sword itself is a copy of the US pattern 1850 foot sword.  It exhibits typical New Orleans manufacturing characteristics of an unstopped fuller (channel) in the blade, a two piece pommel cap (the base of yhe sword which holds the whole lot together) that is braised together and a bulbous quillion (the curled thingy coming off of the guard).  The sword has a metal, black painted scabbard regarding which there is some debate as to whether or not it is original to the sword.  Nevertheless, the scabbard is a period piece and not a reproduction.

This sword is no longer in my collection and I truly enjoyed having the opportunity to study it.   My family hails from Louisiana.  I have ancestors that served in the Cobfederate Army , particularly the 1st Louisiana Cavalry and the 3rd Louisiana Infantry.  One of my ancestors was Vicksburg.   Given my family's history, I felt a connection.

The Conversion Musket Part II

While armories and contractors converted many a musket from flintlock to percussion in the 1850s, there were not enough percussion muskets available to equip the thousands that would flock to enlist in 1860 and 1861.    While federal armories had been and were producing new percussion weapons, such as the Springfield  Models 1855 and 1860 (the Confederate government utilized equipment captured from the Union armory at Harpers Ferry in April of 1861 to produce copies of the federal Springfield muskets at Richmond, Virginia and Fayetteville, North Carolina), and state and federal governments were importing European arms such as the British pattern 1853 Enfield rifle musket and the Austrian Lorenz,  conversion of muskets from flintlock to percussion continued at break neck speed to meet the needs of the troops in the field.  The musket shown below is one such musket.

This smoothbore musket started life as a Model 1822 flintlock musket manufactured by contractor W.T. Wickham of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1833.  As depicted below, it is a bolster conversion which, based upon the manner in which the conversion was performed, is most likely the work of  M.A. Baker.    Baker operated in Fayetteville, North Carolina from 1857 to 1862.  Pre-war, he manufactured sporting rifles.   During the war, he received a contract to alter muskets and common (civilian) rifles from flintlock to percussion.  It is also believed that he received a contract from the State of North Carolina to manufacture percussion locks as examples exist bearing his name on the face.  

This conversion is particularly crude.  The pan has been cut away leaving a gap in the metal.  No time or effort was expended to create and insert  proper bolster in the angular cut (one manufactured to sit flush in the cut.  Rather, the gunsmith utilized a round bolster in a square cut -- the proverbial round peg in a square hole.  He also changed the bands holding the barrel to the stock.  The original bands were held in place by metal retention springs mounted on the wood stock.  The gunsmith replaced these with Enfield type bands which tighten by virtue of a screw on the bottom.    As depicted below, the gunsmith scored the Roman numeral XV on the top of the lock.   A corresponding mark exists in the stock where the lock in inserted.  The gunsmith made the marks to ensure that he placed the lock back with the correct stock and barrel.

It is with a musket such as this that many a soldier would first see battle -- especially the early battles of First Bull Run/Manasas in 1861 and Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing in 1862.  While neither as accurate or  reliable as an 1860 Springfield or an Enfield, the smoothbore conversion musket served better than the flintlock or shotgun that some soldiers, especially Southerners, carried until they could pick up or were issued a more modern long arm.

The Conversion Musket

By the 1840s, the percussion cap musket was state of art.  State and federal  armories  had plenty of flintlock weapons, but precious few percussion muskets.   Rather than dispose of these weapons and incurring the expense of purchasing new percussion muskets,  state and federal governments both commissioned armories and contractors to alter flintlock muskets to the percussion ignition system.  Hence, the birth of the "conversion"  musket.  

Altering a flintlock musket to percussion occurred in two manners - the bolster conversion method and  the "Belgian" cone method.   Both processes required the flintlock pan and hammer to be removed.   The gunsmith removed the hammer by simpy removing the screw securing it to the lock.   Removing the pan required cutting it off of the lock.   The gunsmith performing a bolster method conversion would then drill a hole into the right side of the barrel, where the pan met the touchhole, and attach a hollow metal part into which a percussion nipple, or cone, would be screwed.  He would then attach a standard percussion hammer.  A Belgian cone conversion, aptly named for its use in Belgium, required drilling a hole on top of the barrel, offset to the right, and screwing a cone into it. In place of the pan, the gunsmith often inserted a brass plug.  The gunsmith then attached a hammer which serpentined to the left to accommodate the cone's placement on top of the barrel.   The quality of the conversion, both bolster and Belgian, depended upon the skill of the gunsmith.   Some conversions look as it the weapon has not been altered in any way.  Some look like they were performed by a high school shop class -- if such existed in 1840s and 1850s.  

Standard Flintlock Musket Lock

Bolster Conversion

Belgian Cone Conversion

Most conversions from flintlock to percussion were accomplished in the 1850s.  As a result, state and federal armories were stocked with antiquated smoothbore muskets, converted from flintlock to percussion, by the time hostilities between north and south commenced in April of 1861. 

The muskets depicted above are exemplary.  They are not and have never been in my collection.  In Part II of this post, I will discuss  a conversion musket that is in my collection.

The Early 19th Century American Naval Officer's Sword

British Pattern 1803 Flank Officer's Sword

Utilizing animal imagery to decorate swords is not uncommon.  Europeans did so for centuries.   Hunting swords, popular in the 16th - 18th centuries, are often adorned with dog or wolf pommels (the pommel is the butt of the sword, so to speak).   Many 18th century short swords (for foot officers)  and hangers (for foot soldiers) also have stylized animal heads for pommels.   The British lion head has always been a popular patriotic symbol of that nation.  While it appeared on many a flank officer's (light infantry or grenadier) sword between 1781 and 1802, in 1803 George III made the lionhead pommel part of an official British sword pattern (depicted above -- one of my favorite patterns).    

American military fashion of the early 19th century century followed that of Great British.  Adoption of British fashion is a bit ironic  given the conflicts fought by the nations.  Still, many early Americans considered themselves transplanted Englishman.  Many were former English colonists and some had served in the military with their English cousins.   Regardless, the British military in this time was a major world power -- and one to be emulated.  Hence it is not strange that early American sword styles follow those of Great Britain.  Naturally, the Americans replaced the symbol of British might, the lion, with that of American pride and strength, the eagle. 

The sword depicted above and in the pictures below is an American naval eagle head sword in the collection of Mississippi Department of Archives and History.  Last year I volunteered to  assist the MDAH by reviewing, commenting on and, where necessary, attempting to identify,  the swords in the state's vast collection.  I saw this sword for the first time last Fall and immediately became interested in it.   The use  eagle head pommels in America dates to the infancy of the Revolution.  Its heyday, however,  is between 1800 - 1850 period --- a time in which American military fashion ceased following that of Great Britain and instead adopted that of France.   The eagle was a symbol of ancient Rome.   It was adopted by the French Revolutionaries as symbol of republicanism.   Napoleon I, who first served as the leader of the French Republic before declaring himself L'Emporeur, carried forth the symbol inyo the First Empire.   In fact, French First Empire battle standards are referred to a "eagles.".  The  flag attached was important.  However, the gilded eagle perched on top of the pole was the object sacred to regimental pride.  While not really allies, the American government helped fund Napolean's wars through the Louisiana Purchase.  The Americans shared a bond with France dating back to the American Revolution.  Two nations were united, though not officially as allies, when the Uniteds States fought France's then mortal enemy, Great Britain, during the War if 1812.   I do not mean to insinuate that American popularity of the eagle head sword in the early to mid 19th century is merely French infatuation.  However, I do not believe that the bond between the countries can be ignored.   

I believe that this sword dates somewhere between 1812-1840, given the style of etching on the blade  and the width of the blade.   The width of the blade suggests to me that this sword originates from a time period when fighting by sword was a likelihood, not just  a possibility.   The later antebellum eagle heads swords appear to me to be for peacetime officers.  Their  as their blades tend to be more  narrow and  they look more suited for the ballroom rather than the battlefield.  The MDAH card references this sword as a pattern 1841 Naval Officer's Sword.  While it most certainly resembles the hilt of 1840s eagle heads, as stated above I believe that this sword is earlier,  also because  of the blade decoration.   The blade is hand etched with anchors and 13 stars in a circular pattern  as well as other military motifs and the style of script more closely resembles that seen on late 18th century and early 19th century swords.    The ornate furniture of its leather scabbard carries the same motif -- anchors and 13 stars.  

The blade of this particular sword is marked to the English cutler Jos. Rodgers and Sons, Sheffield.    Joseph Rodgers and Sons originated in the mid 18th century in Sheffield, England.  While it manufactured swords, the company is better known for its knives, including Bowies.  Jos. Rodgers and Sons remained in business until 1975, but in its later years  making more mundane blades  such as scissors and razor blades.  It is not strange that this sword was made by a. British company for American trade.  For centuries  British, French and German cutlers made swords for export.  Sheffield, England was a center for knife making, much as Solingen,Germany and Klingenthal, France are known for sword manufacturing.   Even after the ugliness of the Revolution, the sabre rattling of the impressment of sailors and the War of 1812, business was still business.

What interests me most  about this sword is how and why it came into the MDAH collection. Of course, donors can given anything they want and not every sword  in the collection has some relationship to Mississippi.   Was it the sword of a Mississippian that served in the United States Navy?  Did a former U.S. naval officer carry this sword when he served in the Confederate navy?    The catalog  card is silent as to who donated this sword and when it was acquired   It sure makes me wonder.............