Talk:Gothic hilted British infantry swords

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

I will add photos to this page (once I've taken them). Predicting a couple of NPOV statements- I use "elegant and aesthetically pleasing". Robson does make such a statement, and although subjective is neccessary as it explains the long life of the sword despite its weakness. The weakness itself is also, of course slightly subjective, but the Latham quote justifies it. I probably shouldn't say the piece about direct comparison of the blades either (I'm sure the fact that this is aparant with the two swords to hand would be regarded as Original Reserch), but it is getting late and I need to hit save. I do intend to refine this further. Epeeist smudge 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name[edit]

This can't be the best name for this article. --Xyzzyplugh 01:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does look ugly,but I wanted to get the pattern names in for consistancy with other articles. I'll give it some thought. Epeeist smudge 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon vs. equipment[edit]

I reverted the move from victorian era equipment back to weapons. They were worn, sharpened on active service and their fghting qualities commented on and widely driticised (see Robson,I don't have the reference handy). The straight bladed patterns were used in fighting in the Sudan. They may have had marginal application as a weapon, but they were a weapon. Epeeist smudge (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1892 or 1897?[edit]

"However, in 1892 the cut and thrust blade was replaced by a straight dedicated thrusting blade with a thick, fullered, dumbbell section and a sharp spear point. A stronger sword, unburdened by the design compromises of a requirement to cut well, this was a much better fighting sword (Robson reports on its good performance against the Dervishes in Sudan)." - this sound like the 1897 Pattern British Infantry Officer's Sword. Anyone able to clarify? Snori (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Gothic hilted British infantry swords (1822, 1827, 1845, 1854 and 1892 patterns)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Gothic hilted British infantry swords (1822, 1827, 1845, 1854 and 1892 patterns) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 26 § Gothic hilted British infantry swords (1822, 1827, 1845, 1854 and 1892 patterns) until a consensus is reached. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]