Be attacked by sb. with sth

From The Final Problem by Arthur Conan Doyle:

I took a cab after that and reached my brother’s rooms in Pall Mall, where I spent the day. Now I have come round to you, and on my way I was attacked by a rough with a bludgeon.

Apple’s built in dictionary gives:

1. rough: (mainly UK) a disreputable and violent person
2. bludgeon: a thick stick with a heavy end, used as a weapon

The passive clause “on my way I was attacked by a rough with a bludgeon” can be turned into active voice in two ways:

1. On my way a rough attacked me with a bludgeon.
2. On my way a rough with a bludgeon attacked me.

Version 1 states clearly that the bludgeon was the weapon used in the attack.

Version 2 only tells us that the rough was carrying a bludgeon. Whether he actually used it is not stated directly.

Both versions contain the same three elements: the act of attacking, the weapon, and the attacker.

I do not think Conan Doyle meant to leave it ambiguous whether the rough used his bludgeon. If the weapon played no part in the attack, why mention it at all? A phrase like “with a bludgeon” would serve little purpose unless the bludgeon was actually used. It would be an odd choice for a writer to include a weapon this way purely to suggest menace without it being used.

The following sentence

I knocked him down, and the police have him in custody.

My conclusion is that the rough did use the bludgeon in the attack, and the most faithful active form is:

“A rough attacked Holmes with his bludgeon.”

Is this reasoning sound? Which active form better reflects the original passive sentence?