UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons European Edged Weapons Unusual Danish dagger: could be Norway or Iceland?

Hello everybody,

Recently I have acquired an unusual dagger (see attached picture). While it looks like a typical early 19-th century Danish dagger (it has almost exactly the same shape, style and scabbard as textbook examples), there are two things that strike me as odd.

First, there are two lion-like heads on the cross-guard, instead of typical dolphins. Second, there are no Danish lions of the shield on the scabbard. While the first one could be just a matter of design, the second one looks to me as being much more important. The three lions on the shield are a part of coat of arms of Denmark. Hence, in my opinion, by removing them and having a plain shield the owner wanted to show (if not to underline) his disassociation with Danmark.

Does anybody know, what is this dagger? While the style is clearly Danish, the lack of lions on the shield suggests some other country. Norway comes to mind first. After its breakup with Denmark in 1814 Norwegian naval officers have likely used weapons similar to Danish (at least, for some time), yet with some design differences. That explains the lion heads on the cross-guard (lion is a heraldic symbol of Norway) and a lack of Danish lions on the shield.

Alternatively I could think of Iceland (until 1918 semi-autonomous province within Danish kingdom) or some former Dano-Norwegian colonies (Tranquebar, Serampore, Nicobar Islands, Danish West Indies and Danish Gold Coast). But, to me, Norway sounds more plausible.

Does anybody know what is it? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

In 1848, the three Danish states had their own war of independence. The two breakaway states had their own daggers. I have one from the independent states where they actually dropped the lions head. Your blade shape is identical although the grip set up is different. that would be my best guess.

I would also not rule out This being a private purchase hunting dagger.

Thank you for your input. However, I find such hypothesis a bit less less plausible then Norwegian roots of this dagger. First of all, it is clear that the lions were not scratched or otherwise removed from the shield. On the contrary: it has been made that way from the beginning. The style of this dagger is very similar to early 19-th Century French ones. After Napoleonic wars many Danes returned home from French service and brought similar styled daggers with them. However, it was more than thirty years BEFORE the war of 1848 took place. In other words, at the time this dagger was made the two provinces were solidly incorporated into Denmark. Hence, the lions should have been present on the shield.

By mid-19th Century the weapon's fashion has changed and Denmark switched mainly to English-styled daggers (whether straight or curved ones). If it were the dagger from that period with no lions I would have definitely associated it with the two rebellious provinces. But then, again, the design of this one is clearly the early 19th Century French "empire style". Of course, some officer could have acquired it earlier and still used it in late 1840-ties. But then the lions would have been there. The fact that they were NOT physically removed proves that the dagger has been made that way ("lionless", so to speak) in the early 19th Century. Which brings us back to the 1814 Norwegian breakup.

It could be. But to me the scabbard looks too "official" for a hunting dagger. Afterall, such design stayed on Danish naval daggers up to the present day. Do you think, it was allowed to use it on such "private" matters as hunting knifes/daggers? And, again, even if the "official" scabbard was used on a hunting dagger why the lions were removed?

BTW, have you ever seen such "tulip" handle on Danish daggers (or on any daggers for that matter)? Could it have some significance/importance as well?

Thank you very much for your help.

Very nice! What is the length of the blade? Thanks

Very good points on the earlier dagger, Which caused me to go to my collection because the scabbard you present looked very familiar.

Here is one of my Naval daggers. Note the scabbard design including the design of the foliage is identical to yours. Mine still has its original scabbard mouth and dagger, however.

Upon reflection, it appears yours is exactly the same and the lions have been professionally removed. Note the shield lion, foliage, scabbard tip. The scabbard tip in particular is interesting because yours is only the second I have seen with this tip.

It would appear that you have a naval scabbard with a different dagger, which you have concluded.

My overall experience with Danish daggers is that officers had some leeway in which dagger they wore. Yours might fall under that category. The real question, as you raised, was why remove the lions.

As to the grip. I assume the grip is ivory. Which tells me this is authentic. But why. which is your original question.

I would not understand why someone in a different country would modify a Danish scabbard to place a well made dagger into it. Obviously their skills were such that they could have an original scabbard.

Many questions and a beautiful dagger.

Good luck.

Certainly a dagger for the collection.

I have another navel dagger that demonstrates the flexibility of the regulations. This dagger was passed through 3 generations. 1st 1882, second 1906, and third 1925. NOte, no lions at all.

One more dagger with a flared grip design similar to yours, but not identical and without the two lions. It does demonstrate that this type of grip flaring was used.

I show these only so people can see the variations in the daggers.
I can post several army daggers, each with a different scabbard and slightly different grips. The scabbards are with and without lions. Apparently the lions did not have such a significance to the officers.

I have some questions on this dagger.
1: Is this brass or gold plate? Whatever it is looks new. Is it just the photo?
2. Can you give us a photo of the cross guard ends head on. You say they look like some type of lion. From the side they look like dogs. So can we have a close up of the front of the head?
3: verify the grip material. Is it some type of Ivory, or some type of composite.

For sure this dagger was not paired with this scabbard in 1834. This scabbard design did not exist until the early 1850's.

So, please supply the above information and we can try and help you.

1. It's gold plated. It came from a collection with a few other early daggers. Apparently the owner was the kind of person who likes to clean everything. So each dagger in that bunch was cleaned and, in some cases, polished. Hence, the "new" look.

2. The picture is attached. To me the heads look like female lion ("lioness"), panther or some sort of puma. Definitely not dogs. Funny enough, some Italian daggers have exactly the same cross guard, except that they use male lion heads.

3. It's ivory. A very old one with a crack.



I disagree. This design became official for Danish naval daggers in 1848. However, take a look at the second picture (sorry for the quality: it's a pdf cut-out from a reference book). The two daggers shown there are a well-known examples of early 19th Century Danish daggers. The one on the right has almost exactly the same design on the scabbard and no mouth at all (not to mention the same blade and general shape).

I believe this dagger has wrong scabbard. It's model 1848 dagger which SHOULD come in in the standard "ornamented" dagger. At certain point for some reason (lost, damaged, etc) the owner must have replaced that scabbard with another one, which fit.

Are there any Danish markings on the dagger? I mean, Greeks had exactly the same daggers (with a different scabbard though).

This is the dagger of Danish military doctors and veterinaries, model 1870. It has nothing to do with the Navy. But your idea of the shape of the grip is quite interesting. May be my dagger belonged to a naval doctor.



Well, I am not saying that each Danish dagger should have had a shield with lions on it. In fact, if there was no Danish insignia at all that would have been quite normal as well. However, on this dagger there is the shield but no lions. That's what's odd. It's like the US flag being without stars or stripes.

Hi Greakly,
As to the scabbard on the early naval. There is no doubt this is Danish dagger. It appears the scabbard was replaced by the third member who was in the Army. It obviously has a replacement scabbard. That was my point. You were basing your argument that this is some type of dagger that migrated to another country because the lions have been removed. Your argument being this is in fact a military dagger from a country different than Denmark. I have too many known originals with variances to accept that. I believe both the dagger and scabbard came from Denmark. Which is quite exciting. It is clear your dagger was pared with this scabbard at some point and the lions were removed professionally and the scabbard re plated. Otherwise the plating would be buffed off like the lions were.

On the design dating. I have seen reference books that list both dates. The 1852 date being after the rebellion. In any case, it does not matter if it is 1848 or 1852. The scabbard did not exist in 1834.

The daggers you show are most commonly seen as a Swedish design. I understand you are pulling these photos from some reference book, but these daggers are from before 1848. The daggers I deal with are after 1848. I have one of the State of Holstein that is only slightly different.

As to the one scabbard where you show the design, it is not the same as either the 1848 Holstein, nor the standard Danish and I am not sure how you see something else.

As to the cross guard design, these should be the first lions I have seen with no teeth.

In any case. It appears both these items, the scabbard and the dagger are original. However, Since they are clearly after 1848, and we have identified all the standard daggers for the military from 1848 onward in Denmark. Yours remains a question mark.

I wish you good luck in trying to pin this down.

Could you please show a picture of this dagger. Did they drop the lion's head or the three lions from the shield? If the earlier, then it's not necessarily means the dagger is from one of those provinces. Take another look at the reference book picture I posted earlier. The example on the right also does not have the lion's head on the scabbard. Yet, it's a known example of a Danish naval dagger from the early 19th Century.

The Holstein dagger properly has 5 lions on the shield. Three for the Danish State and two for the independent State of Sleswig. It is textbook for this dagger.

It does not have the large lion.

I can try and get a photo of this later today. Do you have the reference by Kurt Bang Petersen?

21 cm.

What if we approach this issue from a different angle. Has anybody seen any Norwegian dagger from early to mid-19th Century?