Sword Sticks

[yellow]

I`m seeing numerous examples of sword sticks cropping up on the market as of late and I`m wondering if there is any evidence in any WW1 literature of any kind to back up the fact that these were indeed carried by some officers and NCO's of the British Army during the war?

I`ll be honest and say Ive never heard of them being used before but perhaps the Pals know different.

Thank you for your time.

[Muerrisch]

Never a mention in anything I have ever seen. Family heirlooms?

Officers were expected to carry ash-plants or the regimental pattern, blackthorn or whatever.

[centurion]

Can't see the point of an officer carrying a sword stick. The whole point of the sword stick is to conceal the fact that one is armed (which is why they are highly illegal today) wearing a military uniform sort of gives the game away - you are expected to be armed and are going to be shot at regardless.

[JulianB]

Depends what you mean by "stick" - walking stick !?

I once saw a "swagger stick", usual officer's leather thing which opened to reveal a a blade - not long enough to be a 'sword'. But I think this one dated to the 2nd WW.

[truthergw]

As has been said, not much point in pretending you were an unarmed officer just out for a stroll with this totally harmless walking stick. That said, I dare say someone carried one at one time or another. Perhaps to protect him on his way back to the billet from the officers' mess?

[nigelfe]

H'mm, the late George Macdonald-Fraser in his masterpiece 'Quartered Safe Out Here', states that in his British battalion most soldiers carried a kukri and a flick knife. Now the average German or Austrian soldier in WW1 was probably a bit of a wimp compared to a Japanese Imperial Guardsman when it came to close combat, but if soldiers thought a concealed weapon was useful then why not a sword stick in WW1?

[yellow]

My line of thinking was that when on leave in India or Egypt such an item might prove useful against cut purses and the like.

Also, as officers stopped carrying a sword in 1914, an enemy is less likely to shoot a soldier with a sword stick because it looks like a stick.

...........but if the Pals think this is a fictious weapon of the period and there is no evidence then that must be the truth.

Thank you for your opinions Pals.

[centurion]

Actually a soldier with a stick would be more likely to get shot because he looked like an officer. I can see that they might have been a personal defence in dangerous environments (although I would have thought that a holstered Webly on the Sam Browne would have been more effective) Years ago I heard an anecdotal account from a Salonika survivor whose company commander had a long silver tube in his stick full of some nerve restorer (probably distilled in Scotland). So perhaps the odd sword stick is not impossible but I would have thought rare.

[PhilB]

...........but if the Pals think this is a fictious weapon of the period and there is no evidence then that must be the truth.

Fictitious? Haven`t you seen that fine factual series "The Avengers"?

[PhilB]

Seriously, I feel that for officers used to carrying real swords and seeing them almost as a badge of office, it might have been infra dig to carry a sword stick in any military situation. In mufti? Maybe, if the situation warranted it.

[truthergw]

H'mm, the late George Macdonald-Fraser in his masterpiece 'Quartered Safe Out Here', states that in his British battalion most soldiers carried a kukri and a flick knife. Now the average German or Austrian soldier in WW1 was probably a bit of a wimp compared to a Japanese Imperial Guardsman when it came to close combat, but if soldiers thought a concealed weapon was useful then why not a sword stick in WW1?

A swordstick is not a concealed weapon. It would be very obvious as one crossed no mans land. It would immediately mark the carrier as an officer, as did riding crops, officers' ashplants, hunting horns and other impedimenta. It was very soon realised that the best thing an officer could carry was a .303, to look like an O.R. An officer was entitled to carry and brandish a real sword. What advantage woild be gained from a sword stick? Slightly off topic, there is record of a Canadian or American/Japanese soldier being allowed to carry a samurai sword into action. He was killed.

[yellow]

If one is to assume a stick is the mark of an officer would not a soldier carrying a revolover but just as conspiqious? I realise that OR's carried revolvers as well.

It may of happened earlier in some units than others but I dont believe it was until the end of the war that officers dressed in the unforms of the other ranks. German snipers could actually identify officers just from the cut of the top pockets.

Out of cusority did all OR's leave their swagger sticks at home?

Ive got a few photos of officers on leave in places like Egypt and India and it would appear that they are not carrying revolvers and for that matter I cannot see a stick either.

If no one can find any evidence then the sword sticks I have observed must be pure fantasy peices made for a collectors market.

[George Armstrong Custer]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 22 2008, 11:24 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fictitious? Haven`t you seen that fine factual series "The Avengers"?

I had one of those circa 1968! Where did you get the pic?

As far as swordsticks being offered for sale as Great War pieces supposedly used in the trenches, I think Yellow hits the nail on the head when he says

the sword sticks I have observed must be pure fantasy peices made for a collectors market.

ciao,

GAC

[centurion]

In the dust, smoke of battle, and in poor light generally, shape becomes the distinguishing factor. This was realised as early as the beginning of the 19th century when Wellington insisted that all British shakos and helmets be a different shape from the French (he and his staff were once nearly captured because the British Light Dragoons wore a shako the same shape as the French). So in WW1 things like the shape of helmet would often distinguish friend from foe before any other feature became distinguishable. Likewise the shape of some one brandishing a stick or sword would be different from someone carrying a rifle. As, I think Tom, has said many officers began to carry rifles (this also happened to a lesser extent in the 2nd Boer War).

At the time an unarmed uniformed officer would probably have been as safe as anyone else in India (away from the frontier) or Egypt, possibly safer as the authorities would make everbody very unhappy if something happened to them.

[truthergw]

If one is to assume a stick is the mark of an officer would not a soldier carrying a revolover but just as conspiqious? I realise that OR's carried revolvers as well.

..........................

An OR with a revolver would be doing a job which made carrying a rifle impossible. I suspect that the job would have made him a target, not the fact that he was carrying a revolver. OR tunics were being worn by 1916. Shoulder ranks were also introduced for the same reason, 16/17. In the very early day upto Loos, officers were expected to walk beside the men and carry their sticks. Pipers piped the men to the attack. Loos demonstrated that these practices were no longer tenable. Officers did not hide after Loos but they no longer made themselves conspicuous as they led or accompanied the assault. In the first year or so, it is not impossible that an officer would be carrying a sword stick instead of a standard officer's cane. It is hard to see what advantage he would derive from it.

[wainfleet]

OR tunics were being worn by 1916. Shoulder ranks were also introduced for the same reason, 16/17.

Shoulder ranks were worn from very early on in the war. When Graves joins the RWF in mid-1915 after brief service with the Welsh, he is rebuked in the Mess for wearing a "wind up tunic".

[centurion]

Shoulder ranks were worn from very early on in the war. When Graves joins the RWF in mid-1915 after brief service with the Welsh, he is rebuked in the Mess for wearing a "wind up tunic".

They were indeed worn from about mid 1915 (although Graves must have been a very early adopter or a line shooter) but unofficially. 'Funk' pips were not official until 1917 before then although generally tolerated in France it was still an offence to wear them in Britain. However the first batch of men commissioned from the ranks of the Artists Rifles went into action wearing OR tunics and improvised pips as there simply wasn't time for anything else. Even after 1917 there were some die hards (both metaphorically and literally) who insisted on wearing the cuff rank markings

[nigelfe]

I'm always amazed when the 'classic' WW1 attack is invoked as the normal situation. It wasn't, while carrying a rifle became normal for officers in these unusual situations what about the more normal circumstances of manning the trenches? The problem with pistols is the limited number of rounds and the time taken to reload in what must be a close quarter situation. I'd suggest some officers might have felt that a sword stick was useful backup if facing the Hun at close quarters. I'd also suggest it could be carried other that in the hand, perhaps poked down the boot like a riding crop? Even beside the camp bed when there was the possibility of a night raid.

[PhilB]

The problem with discussing swordsticks is that one can`t usually distinguish one from a normal stick in photos, as in this one of Gen French. I would make the point, though, that most swordstick handles seem to make them unsuitable for use as a sword.

[centurion]

QUOTE (Phil_B @ Feb 23 2008, 10:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would make the point, though, that most swordstick handles seem to make them unsuitable for use as a sword.

Yes if used against another swordsman (lack of any guard for example could quicly lead to badly slashed fingers) but useful against someone armed with a shorter weapon such as a knife or bludgeon (but an officer's revolver would be much better), or if used as an assassin's weapon. Not much use against a rifle and possibly too long as a trench fighting weapon.

[PhilB]

Quite. But if an officer had decided to use a swordstick, he would presumably want one which was as ergonomic as possible. If there was a demand for "military swordsticks", we should see swordsticks that were more functional? Perhaps Swordmaker could comment if there ever was a demand for a specialized weapon?

[truthergw]

The original post asked for evidence that officers routinely carried swordsticks. I have seen none. What an officer may have felt, or might have thought is mere conjecture. The evidence I have seen verifies that they carried a revolver or a rifle in an attack and revolver or trench club of some description in a raid. The whole point of a swordstick is that it is a disguised weapon. In a trench or in an attack, whether defending or attacking there is no advantage to be gained from carrying a concealed weapon. While an officer is freeing the blade of a swordstick he could be bayonetted or clubbed several times.

[centurion]

The evidence I have seen verifies that they carried a revolver or a rifle in an attack and revolver or trench club of some description in a raid.

Some officers are reported as carrying shotguns loaded with very large gauge shot.

[PhilB]

The whole point of a swordstick is that it is a disguised weapon.

Not the whole point - it is actually a two-in-one device, a walking aid and a concealed weapon. In an officer it could (in theory) also serve as a status symbol a la baton.

[truthergw]

Only if he tells everyone he meets, " This is a swordstick, you know".