1845 Wilkinson Style Sword Blades

British 1845 Pattern 'Wilkinson' Style Sword Blades
By Matt Easton

The Wilkinson style officers' blade is a compromise cut and thrust sabre blade with a fuller (groove), found on huge numbers of antique British military officers' swords. It replaced the pipeback blade previously used on officers' swords. 

The new style of blade was promoted for British officers' swords by Henry Wilkinson from 1844-45 and it was made official regulation for Army officers in 1845 and for Naval officers in 1846. Henry Wilkinson himself stated that he had been making officers' blades to this pattern before it became regulation in 1845 and I own a similar blade from William IV's reign (died 1837). The 1845 pattern regulation blade remained in use until 1892 for infantry officers, until 1912 for cavalry officers and it is still regulation for artillery and Navy officers today.

The blade's key features are a single-edged backsword style blade (essentially triangular wedge cross-section overall), with a single fuller towards the back, usually slightly curved overall, though there are straight and more curved versions. It has a so-called spear point, located centrally to the line of the blade and the foible (or end region of the blade) is flattened-diamond section and double-edged for usually the last 8-12 inches of the blade.

This foible, with its flattened-diamond section, is light and together with the overall distal taper of the blade, it gives the 1845 pattern blade a lively feel in the hand, with a nimble tip. 

There is a considerable amount of distal taper on most antique examples, with blades being as much as 8-10mm thick at the base, by the tang shoulder, and tapering down to around 3mm at the central ridge of the spear point. 

Small changes to the profile and distal taper can make the design feel more 'choppy' or more 'flicky', as the maker or buyer prefers. It is therefore a design that is able to be adapted easily and can produce quite differently-handling swords, with minor changes to where the mass is distributed. 

The 'centre of percussion' is the part of the blade that exerts the greatest force on the target when hit and is sometimes marked by etching on the spine of the blade. This centre of percussion, or 'sweet spot', usually lies around where the fuller ends, which is not coincidental and combines a lot of blade strength with a good cross-sectional geometry for passing through objects when cutting.

The standard lengths were 32 1/2 inches for infantry and engineers officers, 35 1/2 inches for cavalry and anywhere between those for artillery officers. However, there was variation for individual preference and it was not unusual for officers to order longer or shorter versions. Standard widths were 1 1/8 inches for infantry, engineers and artillery, and 1 1/4 inches for cavalry, but again, we do find wider and narrower blades according to preference. Generally, a narrower version was known as 'Medium'; so a 'Medium Infantry' was 1 inch wide and a 'Medium cavalry' was 1 1/8 inches wide. The 'Medium Cavalry' also tended to be 34 1/2 inches long instead of the full 35 1/2 inches. 
The 1845 blade design, outlined by Henry Wilkinson, was intended to be a more practical fighting blade than the pipe-backed blade which was used as regulation for officers' swords between 1821 and 1845/6. The pipe-backed blade seems to have been devised around 1800 by the London sword maker Prosser and quickly became fashionable for officers' swords by the last years of the Napoleonic Wars.

Initially, the pipe-back was applied to relatively broad cavalry officers' sabres of the 1796 light cavalry shape, but by 1820 there was a tendency for officers' swords to become less curved and narrower, with points better adapted for thrusting.

In 1821 and 1822 respectively new patterns of swords were introduced for British cavalry (with different hilts for heavy and light cavalry) and infantry officers. In 1827 a new pattern of Naval officers' sword was introduced, as well as a steel-hilted version of the infantry officers' sword for Rifles officers. These all featured pipe-backed blades:
1821 pattern light cavalry officer's sword:
1821 pattern heavy cavalry officer's sword:
The pipe-backed blades were only used for officers' swords, while cavalry continued to use fullered blades after 1821, as they had done previously. 

During the 1840s specifically, the inadequacies of the pipe-back design, at least when used on narrow blades like the 1821 and 1822 officers' swords then in use, started to be noted.

There had been a growing opinion that swords were mere dress ornaments for officers, but during the Sikh Wars, Afghanistan and Chinese campaigns, it started to become apparent that officers did still require functional swords for self-defence. 

This would be highlighted to an even greater extent in the conflicts of the 1850s, but by 1845 Henry Wilkinson seems to have gained enough support at various levels to push for a new blade design for officers' swords, based entirely upon the sword's effectiveness as a weapon.

The pipeback design was deemed to be lacking in various areas:
1) It was too flexible for effective thrusting through layers of clothing, especially when equipped with an asymmetrical point
2) It was rather fragile and light for rough combat against things like Indian tulwars, having a very fine (thin) edge
3) The cross-section of the blade was not suited to efficient chopping, due to the 'rod' at the spine

My own experience with antique pipeback blades is that they often have bends and kinks in them. Though I must concede that they can feel fantastic in the hand because of their light weight compared to size, as well as having the capacity for very good edge geometry for cutting, due to the thin edge. My feeling is that they can cut well when the blade is sufficiently broad and the spine rod shaped correctly, but the design falls down when applied to narrow blades. They are undeniably however a quite fragile design.

John Latham, who took over Henry Wilkinson's business after he died, lecturing in 1862 and holding a pipe-backed 1822 pattern infantry officer's sword, stated:

"Here is an officer's regulation infantry sword of twenty or twenty five years ago. It is a specimen I believe of the worst possible arrangement of hilt, blade and shape that could possibly be contrived. It is crooked [curved], but has no regular curve, is wrongly mounted for thrusting and wrongly shaped for cutting."

As well as revising the design of the blade in 1845, Henry Wilkinson also picked on the issue of blade quality. He devised his own formula of sword steel (published here on my Research page) and introduced what he called an 'Eprouvette', which was a device for testing the toughness of the blades. Once a blade passed the test, these were then declared 'Proved'.
This was somewhat similar to the term 'Warranted' which had been in use since the 18th century, but Wilkinson standardized the testing and it seems he also made the testing more harsh.

Henry Wilkinson took particular issue with what were often termed 'tailors' swords'; that is, swords which were purchased from an outfitter together with a young officer's uniform, and to which no proper testing had been applied.

Writing in 'Engines of War; or Historical and Experimental Observations on Ancient and Modern Warlike Machines and Implements, including the Manufacture of Guns, Gunpowder, and Swords, with Remarks on Bronze, Iron, Steel, &c.' in 1844, Henry Wilkinson stated:

"A young gentleman going to India is presented with a regulation-sword purchased along with his shirts and stockings, and he only discovers, when opposed for the first time to some sturdy Afghan, that the hoop of an ale-cask would have been equally serviceable, being fortunate if he escape with a few severe wounds, as reminiscences of the mistake that has been committed. 
There is little inducement to the manufacture of a superior article when all parties, vitally and pecuniarily interested, exhibit so much indifference, which must arise, in some measure, from the difficulty of discriminating between a good sword and a bad one. 
An officer's sword undergoes no authorized proof whatever, and seldom, if ever, more than the manufacturer, with fatherly tenderness, chooses to inflict upon it. 
This state of things is giving place to a more correct notion of the importance of the subject, in consequence of the accounts received from those officers who have served in India. 
The swords of the private soldiers are all proved before they are received, either by the Ordnance, or by the East India Company, and if it be necessary for the privates, surely it is for the officers. 
It cannot be either an act of bravery, prudence, or economy in an officer to trust his life to the chance of an untried and doubtful, in preference to an efficient and proved weapon; but such is actually the case."

And from the same publication Henry Wilkinson went on to detail his improvements to the quality of officers' swords:

"Swords, the manufacture of which I have studied for several years, and now propose to enter into fully, in connexion with my own business. 
There are many essential properties in a sword besides the quality of the steel and the temper, which are either unknown to the makers generally, or wholly neglected, but which are most important to all who have occasion to use them, namely, - the mounting, the balance, the combination of strength and lightness; and elasticity with firmness. 
Every swordsman knows that a thrust is always more efficient than a cut, and a sword that is too elastic vibrates in the hand, and is more inconvenient to use than one that is firm. The centre of percussion, or that part of a sword in which its whole force is concentrated, and on which there is no vibration, ought to be distinctly marked, so that every one using it may at once know on what part the hardest blow can be struck, without regarding, or entering into the philosophy of the subject. 
To all these points I propose especially to direct my attention, so as to redeem, if possible, this branch of our manufactures; and in order to effect this object, and to give a more severe proof than has ever been attempted, I have invented a sword Eprouvette, which will represent a power similar to, but far exceeding any human force. It is easily adjustable to every kind of sword, and having ascertained, by means of a dynamometer, the maximum of human force in striking with a sword, I propose to subject every sword, manufactured under my direction, to the unerring and unfavouring power of my machine, which may be likened to the arm of a giant, with power sufficient to decapitate at a single stroke; after which proof, it is not likely these swords will ever break in any actual encounter. 
I propose, also, to prove the swords of any officer or civilian, who may desire to ascertain the capabilities of his own blade, and at the same time to afford an opportunity of ascertaining the individual strength of each person when making a cut, in order to compare it with the proof, to which I will afterwards subject the blade.
I feel assured that sufficient patronage will not be wanting to enable me to persevere in an attempt to render the swords of this country equal, if not superior, to any in the world.
The Machines are now ready for inspection and use, and certain days and hours in each week will be devoted to the proving of sword blades."

We have no verified examples of swords by Henry Wilkinson pre-dating 1844/1845 and his own words above seem to explain that he expanded into the sword-making business (from making firearms) in 1844 at the earliest.

In 1845 we see reference to the new regulation sword in numerous newspapers and journals:
The 1845 style blade was not exactly a new design. While it did replace the pipe-backed blades used previously on officers' swords, it bears quite a strong resemblance to cavalry troopers' blades as used by both the British light and heavy cavalry since 1821.

The spear-point is arguable more distinct of the 1845 type officers' blade, but overall it is hardly a revolutionary design. Henry Wilkinson more or less took the cavalry troopers' blade and mounted it on officers' hilts:
One feature which was new of the 1845 pattern officer's blade, although more aesthetic than functional, was the distinct roughly-square ricasso, featuring an embedded brass or gilt 'Proved' slug or disc. This was a feature which seems to have been introduced by Henry Wilkinson in 1845, to accompany his Eprouvette proofing test. It was immediately emulated by other sword makers who presumably felt the necessity to show their own blades had also been 'proved'.

The brass inserts were usually circular, though after around 1904 Wilkinson did introduce a hexagonal one to denote their 'best quality' swords. The brass proof slugs carry different markings and some are identified to specific makers - most notably Wilkinson, Pillin, Mole, Buckmaster and Thurkle. Many swords by unknown makers carry generic brass slugs, often simply having the word 'proved' in a circle, sometimes with a dot or fleur de lis underneath (the latter which may originally have been the mark of Charles Reeves). German (probably Solingen) imported blades seem to have often used a proof slug with a floral wreath above and below the word 'prooved' or 'proof', which can at first sight look a bit like Mole's proof slug.

The etching around the brass slug varies, but on Wilkinsons it is almost always a six-pointed star (like a Star of David, but not). This and the brass slug itself seem to have taken their inspiration from Indo-Persian swords. Some other makers used etching around the proof slug that was either floral, or very commonly, like a sunburst. I have observed that the sunburst motif appears very often on Birmingham-made blades and it is possible that there was some degree of regional tendency for the London makers to mostly use the six-pointed star, while the Birmingham makers used the sunburst. This is only a theory based on observation currently. 
On the reserve-side of the ricasso to the proof slug, we normally find either the maker or retailer's name etched, as on the Pillin example to the left below.

It is the correspondence between the maker's names and the proof slugs that have enabled us to recognize which slugs relate to which makers, but the majority of Victorian swords carry retailer or outfitter's names on the ricasso, which means that we can only identify a maker when we recognize the proof slug from other examples.

While it became totally standard to etch the maker or retailer on the ricasso after about 1850, between 1845 and about 1850 it was not uncommon for makers or retailers to be etched further up the blade, near the base of the fuller (even Wilkinson did this at first), as shown on the right below. This was presumably a hangover from etching styles on pipeback blades, but it did not take long for them to realize that it was much clearer and easier to etch on the flat side of the ricasso instead.
It is notable that as soon as the new regulation for officers blades came into effect (in 1845 for the Army and 1846 for the Navy) there was a very rapid switch by all sword suppliers to provide the new design of blade for sale.

Pipe-backed blades seem to have generally been removed from sale straight away, although we know that they remained in service for many years with officers who had purchased their swords before 1845. While the 1845 regulation encouraged new swords to assume the new pattern design, there was no requirement for officers to change their existing weapons. 
I would assert that the 1845 Wilkinson type blade was an improvement on the pipe-backed blades that went before. It was stronger, more rigid for thrusting, could give better cuts, parry more solidly and the spear-point was better shaped for penetration through resistant materials.

In many ways it was not really very different to successful blade types that had gone before. While most Victorian examples are slightly curved, there is a general tendency for the blade type to be straighter more often as the 19th century progressed. You can certainly find straight examples with earlier dates and curved examples with later dates, but the general rule is that blades got straighter from 1845 to 1892, when a new completely straight thrusting blade was introduced.

It was widely believed in Britain in the Victorian era that for a swordsman on foot the most important mode of attack should be the thrust, but it was not until 1892 that the British Army went fully with a dedicated thrusting design for officers' blades.

The 1845 type blade is what we would call a 'cut and thrust' design in that it can do both fairly well. I have myself used sharp examples of this blade to cut and thrust various mediums and they perform as well as many other types of historical sword and better than some. These are great sword blades.

Some writers who know little about swordsmanship have criticized compromise designs like this, which in the larger context of swordsmanship and the history of swords is frankly ridiculous. Most swords throughout history have been compromise designs and most swords used in war have needed to retain the ability to both cut and thrust.

Alfred Hutton, the most famed expert on swordsmanship in late-19th century Britain, and whose elder brother took part in the Charge of the Light Brigade, agreed that a sword intended for war should be able to cut and thrust. George Silver had said exactly the same thing in 1599 and the vast majority of earlier and later sword designs could do both.

There were some officers serving in dangerous parts of the British Empire (and some who served safely at home!) who felt very strongly regarding their preference of cut versus thrust. Some were strongly in favour of one or the other, while others believed both were necessary and were happy with the compromise design of the 1845 type blade.

Certainly there were lots of officers who actually used their swords in combat and were happy with the 1845 type blade. For example Robert Shebbeare VC, John Jacob and William Hodson all used swords in combat in the 1850s and all three of them are documented as having also owned Indian swords, yet they all utilized the 1845 Wilkinson type blade happily and without modification.

Nevertheless, the debate over cut versus thrust pervaded all discussions about sword design in the 19th century and in this context is this very interesting response by Henry Wilkinson himself below, aimed at a commentator who was strongly in favour of the cut. It is a particularly interesting piece, in that it gives us a little more understanding about Wilkinson's choice of blade type and why he retained a slight curve to the blades. From the Naval & Military Gazette and Weekly Chronicle of the United Service - Saturday 20 June 1846:
The 1845 Wilkinson type blade was used all over the British Empire in the last period that saw swords used with any frequency in combat. 

Some cavalry officers retained the blade type (on the 1896 pattern cavalry officers' hilt)until well after the dedicated thrusting 1912 pattern sword was introduced. I have owned examples that were manufactured after 1912, despite being officially superseded. 

Equally, when the infantry 1892 pattern thrusting blade was introduced, many infantry officers retained their 1845 pattern blades and when new hilts were introduced in 1895 and 1897, many infantry officers had their 1845 pattern blades refitted with the new hilts, but did not switch to the 1892 thrusting blade.

The 1845 pattern blade lives on in the regulation swords for officers of the Royal Artillery and Royal Navy.

For the story of the 1892, 1895 and 1897 pattern infantry swords, please see my related article.
Share by: