I was reading something the other day about the American Civil War. I know that swords were already falling out of use in the Civil War but there was still some sort of significance attached to them. I am thinking in particular about the scene of Lee and Grant at the Appomatox courthouse.
I know Lee had a very beautiful sword that was crafted in Paris that was, upon its arrival to America, was smuggled through the Union line and into the Confederacy for delivery to Lee.
There are conflicting views about what happened in the courthouse. Some believe that Lee attempted to turn his sword of to Grant as a symbol/gesture/tradition of surrender. Grant, in turn, refused to take the sword as it was so beautiful. Others say the Lee never offered the sword and Grant never asked for it.
My question lies more in the significance of this transfer from the the surrendering party to the victor. I am having trouble finding some source material that speaks specifically to how this tradition came about and the significance surrounding it. Also how Lee and Grant might have been in some way aware of this tradition.
So while not particularly relevant to the Civil War, I would imagine this is very similar to a broader point.
So generally speaking when an army surrenders a key part of this process is in surrendering/ handing over weapons to the captor. A large part of this is down to practicality, in that unarmed soldiers are less of a threat than armed ones. However, it’s also to some degree a ceremonial act, symbolic of a giving up the fight.
Within the last few centuries of warfare, particularly with the rise of ranged weapons, swords became a weapon which was decreasingly practical as a battlefield tool. Around the 1800s swords were largely limited to being either a weapon for cavalry in close combat, or the sidearm of officers who were not expected to be fighting except in dire circumstances. Swords therefore became a weapon broadly associated with the officer class, and largely a symbolic item indicating one’s status and rank as a commissioned officer. This carries on to the present day in many armies where officers are taught foot drill with swords for ceremonial purposes (i.e British officers in the Guards Regiments at Buckingham Palace).
So therefore the sword is a representative of an individual’s officer status. After surrendering there was often an implicit ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that officers would not cause trouble to their captors, and that in return they would be afforded the respect their rank deserved. When surrendering officers would in many cases offer their sword to the individual accepting their surrender as a symbolic act of formal capitulation. However, in some cases a respected enemy, or one thought to have shown them-self to be honourable was allowed to retain their weapon as out of respect for their person and rank.
This is an interesting phenomenon in military history, and one which was not entirely uncommon. Although not a great source for historical study, I believe that the HBO series Band of Brothers displayed this quite well. Wherein in one of the last episodes, a main character is offered the sidearm of a German officer whose surrender he received. In the show I believe the character rejects the weapon - presumably out of respect for his German counterpart - however, in real life I believe that the weapon was in fact accepted.