Talk:United States Marine Corps noncommissioned officer's sword

Marine Noncommissioned Officers' Sword, 1859-Present

This article, as it now stands, is so entirely filled with errors that it should be removed. There is not a single correct or verifiable statement in it. Specifically, the author is asked to cite sources for his assertions that have been noted. Failing that, the author should withdraw this text or revise it. It is recommended that at least one reference on American swords be consulted before any future contributions are made by the author on this subject. Jack Bethune 04:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it, sir. You might want to check the dates and times this article was started, it was less than an hour ago. --Mike Searson 04:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike, after checking the external link and the statements it contains about USMC swords, I now understand how so many things could be wrong in this article. Unwittingly, you have been misled by whoever wrote the external text, since there is almost nothing in it that is correct. As for the sources cited for the footnoted text, I can only wonder what else is wrong in them. If you wish, I will offer commentary and sources that will bring your article into line with what is currently known about USMC swords in general, and the NCO version in particular. In any event, I urge you not to consider the online statements contained in the external link, and to disregard it entirely. The same problem appears to exist in the other sources you cited. Instead, a useful reference to consult is Harold Peterson, The American Sword, which covers the history of Marine Corps NCO swords pretty well, but is out of date discussing the officers' Mameluke. Above all, I'd like to apologize for my initial negative reaction, and offer whatever help your might want to improve your important and valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Regards, Jack Bethune 05:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack,

That would be great!

I do have Peterson's book here somewhere (I moved recently and much of my "library" is still in cardboard boxes).

I honestly got tired of seeing this as a "blank page" and wanted to get started on it. That one link is almost Verbatim to what I was taught when I became an NCO and got my sword.

What negative reaction?  :)

Semper Fi, and I appreciate the assistance, sir! --Mike Searson 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike, a few comments that are offered as helpful suggestions regarding your article...

1. The sword adopted in 1859 for USMC officers was the Army's M1850 foot officers' sword. Not a "version" of the sword, the very same sword. No changes, no differences, exactly alike. This sword was regulation for USMC officers through the Civil War and was worn until 1875.

2. That same year, 1859, similar swords were adopted for wear by USMC NCOs. These swords had almost identical brass hilts, leather-wrapped grips, plain blades, and black-leather scabbards with brass mounts that were different from the regulation officers' swords, different in that the NCO version had an upper mount with frog stud and a brass tip (i.e., no middle mount, no carrying rings).

3. Swords probably had been worn by Marine Corps NCOs since the Revolutionary War. In the years before c. 1825, these were usually the same swords carried by Army NCOs.

4. The predecessor of the USMC M1859 NCO sword was a saber with an eaglehead hilt. This was the pattern adopted for Marine NCOs c. 1825 and it was regulation until 1859.

5. Marine officers began wearing their Mameluke sabers in 1875. These were slightly different from the Mamelukes carried by Marine officers from 1826 until 1859, but were very similar to those being worn today. Today's Marine officers' Mameluke sword is the M1875.

6. The sword worn by U.S. Navy officers today was adopted in 1852. That makes it the oldest sword pattern still in U.S. service.

I can provide sources for any of the above if you wish to add. Hope these extra details will be useful in your article. Regards, Jack Bethune 20:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Great informationt, Jack...I did not know that about the Naval officer's sword. Were those swords ever dropped for a period? I believe the Marines claim is that the NCO sword is oldest in "continual usage".

Perhaps you should check the older Mameluke Sword article as well.

Yes, please post the sources. I don't doubt your word, just need to source the content.

I may pull the article down and restructure it. Perhaps include a section on the "myths of the sword"? I think we have the potential for a great article here! Thanks again, I appreciate the help!

--Mike Searson 21:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike, you have made a lot of improvements to the article in a very short time. There are still remaining areas that should be corrected or added to, and since you are still massaging the text I won't touch it. However, I do suggest that you treat the M1859 NCO sword as the main topic and separate it from any discussion of the officers' sword, because right now the two swords are confusingly merged in the first paragraph. Also, you will want to describe the M1859 NCO sword more adequately, so that it is correctly differentiated from the officers' sword. There are a number of details that can be added to the info box (blade lengths, mfgrs, etc.), but these can wait till later. I will offer a list of sources that you can add, but in the meantime I strongly urge you to drop the external USMC link to the sword video. It is truly bad information and adds nothing but errors tbat contradict your article. Regards, Jack Bethune 01:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack,

I know what you mean. Here's my thoughts on how to proceed. 1. Introductory paragraph describing the details of the sword. 2. History of the sword, building from what is there now. 3. Use of the sword today...perhaps small detail from the Manual of the Sword or Drill use?

Possible additions: List of manufacturers from the 19th century through today. Folklore about the sword, maybe even origins of some of the misconceptions?

Please feel free to edit and add sources, even though I started this article I see this as a community project between Marines, historians, sword experts, etc. I can back out for a while so we don't walk on each other's edits!

Do you have any historical photos to add? I can add a pic of my own sword if necesarry. Thanks again! --Mike Searson 01:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

--Mike Searson 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sir,

This was an interesting read. In reference to some misconceptions, I must interject that the USMC is not the only US Armed Force to allow enlistedmen to wear a sword. The US Army still allows platoon sergeants and first sergeants to wear the US Army Model 1840 NCO Sword as directed by the unit commander on occasions of ceremony when troops are under arms. This rarely happens in practice outside of the 3d Infantry Regiment, where officers and NCOs can be seen to occasionaly wear the M-1902 and M-1840 respectively for ceremony. One of the exceptions to this can be seen in unit color guards, especially cavalry units. Some units will have the color sergeant carry a sword or saber while directing troops. Typically cavalry units will use the officers' saber, though, for obvious reasons.

In all fairness, there are no references to the wear of the Army sword or saber in current Army regulations; however, the current Army field manual for drill and ceremonies contains guidance for wear by soldiers (FM 3-21.5, App. F). -- A.G. Barker, SFC, USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.3 (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

THE UNITED STATES MARINES AT HARPER'S FERRY, 1859

Thought this might be incorporated somehow.

"Armed only with his light dress sword, Greene jumped from the cover of the abutment and bounded through the opening. Behind him came Major Russell, weaponless but brandishing a rattan switch. The darkened interior rocked to the echoing shots. The third Marine to scramble through the shattered door, Private Luke Quinn, took a fatal bullet in his abdomen. The fourth man, Private Mathew Ruppert, was slightly wounded in the face; but these casualties could not stem the blue-clad tide."

"The first figure to rise from the gloom as Greene rushed forward was that of Lewis Washington, an old friend. The Virginia aristocrat strode up to the officer, warmly took his left hand, then, pointing to a bearded man fumbling with a carbine, said, "This is Osawatomie." With all his strength Greene slashed at Brown with his sword. The first blow left a deep cut across the back of his neck; but the frail blade bent double on Brown's ammunition belt when Greene thrust at his heart, and John Brown was spared for the hangman." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Searson (talk • contribs) 17:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

References

Sword is scrapped

Jack,

In doing more research I found this: The Sword is Scrapped

The sword, symbol of authority and chivalry, and for thousands of years the instrument of battle most used by man, is today headed for the scrap heap, a casualty of a gunpowder war. Confined in modern usage to military ceremony, the swords are condemned to naval extinction by the Secretary of the Navy's order of October 15, 1942, abolishing them as a part of the uniform for the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps. The blast furnace has overtaken tradition.

The discarded swords, suggested Secretary Knox, might well be contributed to the scrap heap for remolding into modern armament.

After the war some form of dirk will be designated as a symbol of office, but the sword's demise is permanent.

The passing of the sword marks the end of an era. With its abolishment many graceful customs are lost to the naval service. Best known to the civilian public are the "arch of swords" made for the bride and groom at a military wedding and the cutting of cake at the wedding feast.

The importance of the sword as a weapon first made it a part of the fighting man's uniform, but its practical use began to decline with the extensive use of firearms. Nevertheless, it retained its importance in naval warfare long after it had become more or less obsolete on land. Well into the 19th century it vied, in the form of the cutlass, with the pistol and grenade as a necessary weapon for boarding parties, and there have been cutlass racks in evidence on even modern aircraft carriers.

The sheathed officer's sword, however, owes its survival to a different reason. As the gentleman's weapon of the 16th 17th, and 18th centuries, it was only natural that it should be incorporated into the naval officer's uniform. The wearing of the sword thus distinguished the well-born "gentleman" from the lower classes, and the naval officer was able to wear a sword as a "gentleman."

As a useful weapon, the sword and its relative, the cutlass, are now replaced by the bayonet in close-quarters fighting. And while there may be some regrets at the passing of this romantic weapon, the change is not without its compensations. Blades scrapped now will see far more battle than they would resting in their owners' scabbards

"The Sword is Scrapped." Bureau of Naval Personnel Information Bulletin. 309 (December 1942): 37. --- 42-857 - Swords-Abolished as Part of Uniform

JJ55-3/1510, 15 October 1942

ACTION: ALL SHIPS AND STATIONS

1.Officers of the Navy, Coast Guard, and Marine Corps, shall no longer be required to possess swords as part of their uniform equipment. 2.The various uniform regulations will be modified accordingly.

3.It is expected that a form of dirk will, in due course, be adopted as uniform equipment in lieu of the sword.

4.Due to the urgent need for metals, it is suggested that officers, who may so desire, turn in their swords for scrap.-SecNav. Frank Knox.

Source: "Swords-Abolished as Part of Uniform." Navy Department Bulletin. (Cumulative edition, 1943): 660.

Since it specifically mentions Officers and not NCO's could this be the basis for the claim of the NCO sword being the longest weapon in continual usage in the US Arsenal?--Mike Searson 17:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources from Harper's Ferry AAR: 1. Appendix C, Lee to Adjutant General, 19 Oct 1859, "Suppression of John Brown's Raid," Records Group 94, National Archives; muster rolls, MB, Washington and MB, Navy Yard, Washington.

2. Israel Green [sic], "The Capture of John Brown," "North American Review," v. 141, no. 6 (Dec 1885), pp. 566-567. --Mike Searson 17:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike, your info on the U.S. abolishing the military and naval sword in 1942 is consistent with Peterson, who mentions that fact in his discussion of USMC Mameluke swords. I hadn't seen the original text before, so appreciate your adding it here. Of course, after WWII the swords were reinstated, so that by the Korean War I believe the Army, Navy,Marine Corps, etc., were wearing them once again. That hiatus for Navy officers' swords does not disqualify them as the oldest official patterns still worn today. That's because ALL sword patterns were suspended during WWII, so no harm, no foul. By the way, have been tied up with other matters lately but will make further contributions to your fine article. There are still some areas that you will want to develop further, and I'll offer some details to add later. Best wishes, Jack Bethune 20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite

Mike, please take a look at the rewrite I offer here for consideration. It incorporates much of the research results now available in the published sources cited as references. If you think there is too much detail in some areas, feel free to edit as you wish, or emphasize the areas you feel have been neglected. The proposed text is offered for consideration by those interested in this subject, and ideas and contributions are welcome. Best wishes, Jack Bethune 01:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack,

I think it looks great. I'm a fan of longer articles, though unlike some editors who think everything can be wrapped up in a single sentence!

One of the sources I read, referenced the Officer's sword had a sharkskin grip as opposed to the leather wrap on the NCO model...any truth to that? --Mike Searson 05:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for your assessment of this new text. You are absolutely correct to note that the NCO sword had leather-wrapped grips, whereas almost all Army M1850 foot officers' swords had sharkskin grips. There were some Army officers' swords that also used leather grips, but these and other observed variations were departures from explicit Army regulations. Marine Corps swords almost always followed strict specifications regarding styles, materials, and finishes, and variances from regulation were very rare. Are you still planning to add the other sections you mentioned previously? I think they will add a great deal to the article and round it out. Best wishes, Jack Bethune 10:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Jack, you've done some outstanding work on the article! I plan on doing those addittions this upcoming week. Merry Christmas to you and yours! --Mike Searson 20:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mike, your inspiration and initiative have resulted in what we all hope will be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia and Marine Corps history. Congratuations and thanks for providing outstanding leadership. With best wishes for the holidays and a Happy New Year, Jack Bethune 00:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Stability and use

Are the weapons still forged in a way that they are actually usable, stable blades or are they just mass-produced to resemble the old swords?

Foreign-made swords

I think that readers of this article may be interested to know that the marine n.c.o. sword is also manufactured in France (Chevalier d'Auvergne), Germany (WKC), India (Windlass), and Spain (Armas Don Diego, Swords from Toledo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.4.22.12 (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Six pointed star.

I see no reference to the star of David, which appears near the base of the blade, and even in the picture it's mostly obscured. Surely this has sparked some interest, especially from conspiracy-minded tin foil hatters, yes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.244.221 (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)