British Infantry Officers Battle Swords in the 19th C...and up to 1914

[Peter Hudson]

These weapons became extinct as in 1914 a general order was issued instructing the withdrawal of these swords and their replacement by the Officers Cane. Swords remained in use as Parade items. Today the puzzle of what happened appears baffling to say the least however in opening this story it will become clearer that the 19th Century acted like a magnifying glass amplifying the quite amazing story ..In fact almost every type of British sword was resurected and variants of Cutlasses Rapiers Heavy and Light Cavalry spikes and even Colichemardes ...Amazingly almost the only style not to have been reintroduced was the Katana and Wakezashi types of Japan. The fact is that they had evolved a weapon system that needed two swords since fighting could require multiple designs. Was there a sword in the British Armoury that could have served in this task ..As it happens this is also ironic since quite clearly Japanese swords were excellent at chopping and slashing with the sharp edge and with the excellent Tanto point...as well as being good for running through a target...something that British had difficulty with since their swords were often too flexible and often would not penetrate Russian greatcoats in the Crimea War ...for instance...

For me this has been something of a journey down memory lane and since I was commissioned in 1969 and used a sword in The Royal Marines for a decade and for another ten years in The Sultan of Omans Land Forces both of similar design but of course only for Parade duties...In fact insofar as sword style and design was concerned and provided ones sword was clean and presentable almost any British sword was allowed provided it was of a Victorian or after style although I think the Omani swords were I think POOLEY designs...The Corps also required the other associated equipments to be of the standard Sam Brown Belt, Leather over wooden Scabbard, Brown Leather Sword Frog, and Sword Knot .

It must have been odd in the early days in 1914 in the trenches..when Officers were instructed to get rid of their weapons and even more odd to replace them with a short cane...but there is evidence that the attrition rate on the battlefield was very high ... Snipers targeted Officers and particularly in the Boer war the toll was incredible...

Some of the cornerstone factors or principles governing the subject of fieldcraft was that individuals ought not ignore things like shape... shadow... shine... silhouette as it gives their position away...to snipers...Sitting atop ones horse or simply moving around on foot and holding a shiny sword was equivalent to shining a massive lamp on yourself ...To combat the shine effect some even painted their scabbards and blades in a dark varnish or paint...To a reasonable sniper this was a waste of time and so the demise of the sword was assured....especially since the battle ranges in the earlier Boer confrontation their weapons were The German Mauser fitted with a telescope...meaning they could hit a target well over 1000 yards away ...In the Trenches in WW1 battle ranges were more often a fraction of that.. However I am not convinced that the use of a 2 foot long cane would have been of the slightest use but what weaponry would you have carried to be more effective? You have to remember that troops attacked in lines upright and at a walking pace......Canadians couldn`t believe this and quickly they at least switched to running and zig zagging ...

Personally on weaponry and looking at what was available I would have considered a sawn off carbine and a couple of revolvers.. It should be remembered that Officers in those days bought their commissions plus much of their equipment including weapons and ammunition. Cavalry Officers had also to buy their own Horse. It must have annoyed many and to others it was the giving up of his badge of office ...The entire century had been taken up with finding the best sword and in the complicated design testing and distribution of these weapons when suddenly a piece of paper arrives trashing the weapon forever...relegating the once famous swords to parade only...


Before I begin to unleash pictures of the myriad of different designs I will discuss in part 2 the following;
Why did British swords have a peculiar kind of half basket hilt ...?
Where did it originate? ....
How many new sword designs were there entering the British military say between 1796 and about 1914 and what was the net effect ?
While it was still a weapon what was the reason why sword style was designed as either a cut n thrust or a spike...and how could one system be better than the other ...?
What was the real reason for the demise of the British Battle Sword?

Peter Hudson.

[kronckew]

I have a 'two foot cane' -covered in brown leather. It has a nice stiletto blade inside it.

[Peter Hudson]

I have one inscribed TOLEDO... Actually a superb item but also illegal to even possess one in my day... The type of stick ordered to be used instead of a sword in 1914 was essentially without a spiked blade ...just a stick... covered in leather... A catastrophic end to the sword...

Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

It has been said that the design of the Hilt on British Army Infantry Officers originated with the Scinde Irregular Cavalry in India. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Horse_(Scinde_Horse) It appears to be a sort of rolled Indian floral design usually called Leaf pattern but it originated in Persia and gave rise to what we know in the UK as Paisley Tie Pattern or in India as Mirri Botteh... Leaf Pattern.
Indian metalworking craftsmen often cut patterns out on miniature brass boxes... I have a racing grasshopper box with incised design all over it... It seems probable that the style and design was taken as perfect for the Irregular Scinde Cavalry Hilts and the same design was the origin for the Paisley concept... which can be compared favourably on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paisley_(design)
View a good description on https://thelanesarmoury.co.uk/shop.php?code=25818 which shows the Leaf style and perhaps consider that the leaf pattern was a known Indian and Persian design and how it eventually influenced 19th Century British Sword Hilts... in Leaf Scroll or Leaf Pattern structuring...
Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

This is a fascinating topic Peter!! and wrought with complexity, especially as the detail expands into sword stick/cane and even more into the native regiments of East India Co. later into British Army.

I had no idea John Jacob was involved in creating this interesting sword hilt design in British cavalry officers swords. The notion of pierced work in the sheet guards of these heavy cavalry officers swords seems to have begun with the M1796 period types, which I believe were termed 'honeysuckle' pattern.

When the M1829 swords came out for both light and heavy cavalry, the M1821 swords both had the three bar design hilt for both troopers and officers.

The 1829 heavy cavalry had the sheet bowl hilts, with the troopers plain and the officers with pierced designs in the guard which I thought were extension of the designs on the 1796.
As these swords were of course produced until superceded in 1853 by the pattern of that year for ALL cavalry, light and heavy....it does seem quite possible that a design for the pierced work in the officers hilts might have been connected to John Jacob as noted.

He was a brilliant officer of the East India Co. and very innovative as in the famed battle of Meeanee in Sind in 1843, he had used straight swords attached to rifle barrels and intro the 'sword bayonet'.
After that campaign the remarkable pun supposedly issued by Sir Charles Napier...PECCAVI (Lat. -I have sinned) was issued noting his victory taking Sindh for the EIC.

The sword pictured is the heavy cavalry officers of 1829, which continued until 1853. Jacob went into Sind in 1838 forming irregular cavalry unit as these were termed, comprised of native forces commanded by British officers. This is of course the standard pattern for the British regular cavalry, so the pattern design for the Jacob sword was likely following this type work but using the more native related theme as described. The Sind regions were of course highly influenced by Persia, so quite understandable.

These men were keenly sensitive to the combining of tribal and ethnic forces and the cultural significance of many elements, so it would not be surprising that Jacob would propose designs using these kinds of themes.

The belt plate is from later in 1850s recognizing the battle honors from Sind, and the Scinde Irregular Horse (Jacobs Horse) as cavalry were termed.

Illustrated are John Jacob, and one of the Muslim Rissalders (NCO) of the Scinde Horse.

[Hotspur]

I have just one HC officers sword from 1869. My own thoughts on why a half basket would be access. A half basket goes back earlier, just like half heart counterguards.

The evolution of the swords are covered by lettered authors, such as Dellar. On Facebook, Steve Goodyear has done a lot of the variety of evolution.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/140258999335255/user/100008637461346/

Another reason for a half basket is wear

Cheers
GC

[Will M]

The Crimean War was responsible for officers ordering special order swords during and after the war. They realized their regulation swords with brass hilts and fullered blade was lacking. One example is a Wilkinson infantry sword with steel patent hilt and solid flat blade. The officer ordered this sword after the Crimea and wore it in Afghanistan into 1879.

[Peter Hudson]

I have just one HC officers sword from 1869. My own thoughts on why a half basket would be access. A half basket goes back earlier, just like half heart counterguards.

The evolution of the swords are covered by lettered authors, such as Dellar. On Facebook, Steve Goodyear has done a lot of the variety of evolution.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/140258999335255/user/100008637461346/

Another reason for a half basket is wear

Cheers
GC

HELLO Hotspur and thank you for the details ...I see your last illustration is the Reeves Hilt with the Tang the same width as the blade at the Forte. This ensured a full and heavy strike and a great block and must have been formidable as a Heavy Cavalry weapon. Thanks also for the other illustrations including the 5 ball guard. Certainly in terms of design in the 19th Century we see the famous 3 bar hilt...some call it a 2 Bar and in particular The Royal Artillery Officers Sword stuck to that format as up until today its the same. I have both the Heavy Cav and Light Cav version.
The full length blade on the Heavy Cavalry Sword would have suited most establishments with its slightly curved wide blade and spear point with raised central format and sharpened on both sides of the spear point back to about 12 inches ...and with the cutting edge fully sharp as far back as the hilt. This meant it was a great cutter and had an effective quite rigid spear point for giving point thus good in the melee...and you will note how this arguement caused a massive debate later...Regards Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

The Crimean War was responsible for officers ordering special order swords during and after the war. They realized their regulation swords with brass hilts and fullered blade was lacking. One example is a Wilkinson infantry sword with steel patent hilt and solid flat blade. The officer ordered this sword after the Crimea and wore it in Afghanistan into 1879.

Hello Will... Your flat bladed Wilkinson looks formidable. This blade was designed to cut.There was no fuller, pipeback or raised back blade to impede cutting. Some variation was allowed and Officers could choose a fully criss crossed backstrap and either the same pattern on the pommel or polished.Cavalry quite often preferred the hilt to be of a pistol grip style turned down at the pommel so a straight profile could be offered in the charge...The Wilkinson I had in 1969 was literally a spike formed of a very sharp point supported by two I Beams either side of a fuller running three quarters of the blade length to a narrowing spear point.Flat blades though effective in the slash and cut were regarded as a bit heavy but frankly that is what heavy Cavalry needed in their role.Thus we see two different sorts of requirement here...so we begin to see the problem. Regards Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

This is a fascinating topic Peter!! and wrought with complexity, especially as the detail expands into sword stick/cane and even more into the native regiments of East India Co. later into British Army.

I had no idea John Jacob was involved in creating this interesting sword hilt design in British cavalry officers swords. The notion of pierced work in the sheet guards of these heavy cavalry officers swords seems to have begun with the M1796 period types, which I believe were termed 'honeysuckle' pattern.

When the M1829 swords came out for both light and heavy cavalry, the M1821 swords both had the three bar design hilt for both troopers and officers.

The 1829 heavy cavalry had the sheet bowl hilts, with the troopers plain and the officers with pierced designs in the guard which I thought were extension of the designs on the 1796.
As these swords were of course produced until superceded in 1853 by the pattern of that year for ALL cavalry, light and heavy....it does seem quite possible that a design for the pierced work in the officers hilts might have been connected to John Jacob as noted.

He was a brilliant officer of the East India Co. and very innovative as in the famed battle of Meeanee in Sind in 1843, he had used straight swords attached to rifle barrels and intro the 'sword bayonet'.
After that campaign the remarkable pun supposedly issued by Sir Charles Napier...PECCAVI (Lat. -I have sinned) was issued noting his victory taking Sindh for the EIC.

The sword pictured is the heavy cavalry officers of 1829, which continued until 1853. Jacob went into Sind in 1838 forming irregular cavalry unit as these were termed, comprised of native forces commanded by British officers. This is of course the standard pattern for the British regular cavalry, so the pattern design for the Jacob sword was likely following this type work but using the more native related theme as described. The Sind regions were of course highly influenced by Persia, so quite understandable.

These men were keenly sensitive to the combining of tribal and ethnic forces and the cultural significance of many elements, so it would not be surprising that Jacob would propose designs using these kinds of themes.

The belt plate is from later in 1850s recognizing the battle honors from Sind, and the Scinde Irregular Horse (Jacobs Horse) as cavalry were termed.

Illustrated are John Jacob, and one of the Muslim Rissalders (NCO) of the Scinde Horse.

Hello Jim, Thanks for your reply and I see you went straight into search mode and nailed it in regards to the Indian Scinde Cavalry link.
When looking at the 19th Century most people give up on seeing the difficulty or problems being tied to the everlasting arguement or discussion about two different kinds of blade. Often they give up! I can see why but thats not the whole story.

Please allow me the example seen in Samurai fight style. They realised that there were two sorts of fighting...and that to compete in both a warrior needed two swords...The Katana for fighting out in the open...and a Wakezashi for fighting in close quarter battles in buildings and Forts.

It also occurred to me that they better understood blade construction so that great care was taken in producing blades that could slash and chop with the ability to skewer or stab a target thus building into the blade in no particular order here thick backblade for blocking, a very sharp powerful blade and a well designed stabbing blade that could be used at very close quarters. But they also realised that you need two swords to do this...in fact they also had a dagger which was like a miniature of the main sword called the Tanto.The name given to all their 3 weapons points was in fact Tanto Point.

Part of the problem in Europe was that we also needed to fight in utterly different battle scenery...but we only had one sword.The plot thickens... My question to Forum laid out at the end of my Post at 1 in bold letters ...wasnt answered in 1914 ...They didnt answer it in my opinion because they were completely blinded by the arguement...They didnt understand that they actually needed two swords but worse than that they were thrown by not getting the question right...

In the 1900s through to WW1 Sword designers and specialists built more than 20 different sword styles so can anyone see the problem that this created... Meanwhile I will start placing sword pictures so members can best answer that burning question at my initial post....Thanks Jim.

Regards Peter Hudson.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
The officers heavy cavalry sword is actually the 1821 pattern with the 'honeysuckle' guard. I have a Wilkinson example dated to 1879. The 1821 pattern heavy cavalry officers sword was adopted by officers of the light cavalry in 1896 and was subsequently designated the universal cavalry officers pattern. The heavy cavalry continued to use the 1821 pattern until superseded in 1912.
The 1821 is still carried today by the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen at Arms. Attached is a photograph of the Wilkinson 1821 pattern H.C. (date 1879) sword against an 1821 pattern troopers L.C. sword by Osborn. You will notice the L.C. sword (pre 1840 production) is far more substantial than the later H.C. sword.
Regards,
Norman.

Ref., R. Dellar The British Cavalry Sword 1788-1912.

[Jim McDougall]

Norman, thank you so much for those important notes on the heavy cavalry officers swords!!! Perfectly explains the case with these officers swords, and quite honestly (I am more than a bit rusty as I have not been in this arena for decades!) I had entirely forgotten these developments.

Peter, as noted, this topic is quite fascinating, and while the title is directed toward the infantry swords for officers of the British army, it is difficult to adhere directly to those alone. The dynamics of British military swords overall were at play, and as can be seen, certain features of character and design had key influences into the sword patterns used by various elements and departments of the army.

With officers, the sword was not only a combat weapon, but a fashion and status oriented arm, and typically personally commissioned by many officers by outfitters who catered to their whims, but still followed basic the regulation patterns in degree.

Since these swords were privately purchased, and often not only costly but important elements of status oriented and personal accoutrement held for dress, parade and ceremonial occasions.

Officers had the option for using swords that were often simpler versions of the other ranks weapons, or often even variations of them, in the field or on campaign. These were casually known as officers 'fighting swords', which were typically more rugged and sound examples which followed some degree of uniformity, but in certain circumstances, especially in colonial contexts, these could deviate in many directions. This included the use of native weapons or swords using elements of these traditional forms.

This was very much the case with John Jacob, who like many British officers, who learned that it was important to be keenly aware of the ethnic and traditional sensitivities of the tribesmen they commanded. The designs in the hilts of the officers sword mentioned previously incorporated designs which were important in just this manner and was strategically intended.

In these colonial circumstances, the use of the sword by British officers in combat continued profoundly well into the 20th century, particularly in India.
In example, I once had the honor of interviewing a British Brigadier who as a young officer in the Khyber Agency in 1931, led one of the last cavalry charges wielding the M1912 sword for officers. It was an experience holding this weapon as he recounted his stories, as he had written his autobiography, "The Last of the Bengal Lancers", as he was in the 6th/13th Bengal Lancers regiment. The 13th had previously been known as "Watsons Horse" in the same manner as "Jacobs Horse" previously noted.

The photos were taken the day of that interview in the 90s at his home in Sonoma, Calif.; his 1912 officers sword; him on his horse just prior to that charge; Ge, Francis Ingall as we talked.....in this time he repeatedly glanced at the portrait of his 'charger' "Eagerheart" adoringly, and quite literally beamed as he described these events. The troopers sword was of the 13th and inscribed 13 BL........thus promptly identifying one of these I have had for years (pictured with scabbard) unmarked....but made by Bourne & Son (a subcontractor for Wilkinson) probably 1890s for the India dept.,

I can imagine I was as well, as I thought of watching 'Bengal Lancers' films repeatedly as a boy, and was ever fascinated by the 'Khyber Pass'. Here I was actually talking to a British officer who was there!!!

Getting to the constant controversy over blade design, it was said that the British M1908 cavalry sword was one of the finest designs ever achieved, and that it universally served both requirements for cut and thrust. The legendary Wilkinson sword firm masterfully produced these.

In WWI during what was known as the Mesopotamian campaigns, in Palestine British cavalry commanded by General Allenby were equipped with these swords, covered entirely in leather both hilt and scabbard, for not only protection from heat and sun, but the revealing glint.

General Allenby proclaimed , " men....you may go into the field without your breeches....but you WILL carry your sword!!!"

These distinctively appointed M1908 swords were accordingly termed with the eponym 'Allenby Swords'.

On the other hand, in the US, General George Patton, designed the huge cavalry sword, the M1913, which like the M1908 was deemed a brilliant sword. Ironically, even with the outbreak of WWI, these never went to the lines, nor was it ever used in combat. A skilled horseman as well as swordsman, Patton was ever disappointed, and as cavalry was reorganized into armored units, it was said that his face was lined with tears as his men stacked their swords for the last time.

ADDENDUM:

Brigadier Ingall was delighted with my story of my driving down the freeway with lances (indeed from Bengal Lancers) protruding with T-tops off my Corvette!! as recounted in my recent interview.

[Jim McDougall]

In previous post, the sword cane was noted, and it would seem that this convention was likely popularized from the exposure in India of certain innovative combination or concealed blades. While the enclosed blade in certain cases in canes did not begin there and is recorded earlier in numerous other instances, it seems officers in India began the popularized fashion from seeing them there.

The thing with this is that in the highly coded matters of nobility, status, and honor within the ranks of officers and civilian gentry, the notion of a concealed weapon was considered 'dastardly' and ungentlemanly, and profoundly looked down upon.
This was the reason for the restriction with these, and the sword stick was considered perfectly acceptable. While not bladed, fencing skills were taught using these as a weapon of self defense, using similar movements and attacks. With these seen in that sense, not just as an element of fashion, but a genuine weapon deadly in use as required....it is not surprising they became known as 'swagger sticks'.

As discussed, one of the distinct characteristics of officers, is the 'swagger' which represents not only their authority, but formidability.

Getting to the presence and use of the sword in other ranks, especially later into the 19th century. It must be remembered that officers were typically, if not invariably, of high echelon in their status. As such, much of their training as a gentleman involved the arts of fencing, as the primary martial art of these times. It was not just the act of sword combat, but confidence and skills in combative self defense circumstances.

It was these skills which were in accord with officers and their choice of weapons as well as key features in their use. While in command, though officers were intended to direct their troops, and were not expected to participate in the fray, it was difficult for many, if not most, to restrain themselves.

With other ranks however , the use of the sword was virtually a mechanical, rote exercise, using predescribed movements and positions. These men were unfamiliar with the sword itself, let alone the philosophies and skills that were inherent in the study of fence.

Anecdotally, in America during the Civil War, the M1840 dragoon saber, a heavy sword designed after French model, was derisively called by other ranks, 'the old wristbreaker'. This was because of its heft, and if used improperly, could cause injuries to ones wrist among other issues. These raw recruits, had no inclinations toward the formidable use of a weapon that required up close use rather than the less contact oriented gun.

Returning to the use of the sword by other ranks, these men were more adequately trained from the 18th well into the 19th as their lives depended on it. With the advent and concentration on firearms, these skills waned with cavalry, while the infantry had given up use of the sword in favor of the bayonet by the 1780s.

Still, the primary issue with the sword, even more than design in many respects, was not lack of training, but poor maintenance and care.
In India, the British cavalry were in awe of the deadly skills with the saber exhibited by Sikh horsemen in campaigns in 19th c. They were more than horrified when they realized that the inadequacy of their own regulation swords acquiesced to deadly Sikh sabers, which were in fact old M1796 sabers now obsolete, honed to razor sharpness and kept in wood lined scabbards.
Their own standard care was lacking, blades inadequately sharpened, and dulled further by the iron scabbards.

Even in America, once again, the blades of sabers were seldom sharpened, theoretically done only prior to battle (we know even then they werent).
In reading through medical records of the Civil War, only several instances of wounds from swords were accounted. These were invariably caused by blunt force trauma.

While the struggle with sword blade design raged through the 19th century, it seems one of the key factors which may have been at hand as the many accounts and complaints which were examined, may have been excluded, was the poor maintenance of swords, and poor training.

Although troopers were indeed 'trained' in the rote manner preciously noted, the strict and numbered actions followed without common sense or situational judgement also played a part.

In an anecdote from the Crimea, one trooper complained that a Russian horseman as they exhanged, responded to his 'cut so and so' in accord with numbered sword exercise... to which he responded accordingly with again 'cut so and so'. THEN, he exclaimed, the fool gave me a cut 'so and so'....completely out of the 'rules'....and knocked him off his horse!!!!
How dastardly!! not 'according to Hoyle!'. :)

In the photo, example of Victorian sword cane, often termed 'malacca' for the source of the cane used enclosing the blade. The blade is a Solingen epee blade, used on dueling swords of the period, again adding to the mystique and swagger of these gemtlemans defensive yet fashionable accoutrements.

[Pertinax]

My specimen.
British Infantry Officer's Sword M 1895/1897. The blade spine bears the serial number 49731, likely dated 1915.

[Peter Hudson]

Norman, thank you so much for those important notes on the heavy cavalry officers swords!!! Perfectly explains the case with these officers swords, and quite honestly (I am more than a bit rusty as I have not been in this arena for decades!) I had entirely forgotten these developments.

Peter, as noted, this topic is quite fascinating, and while the title is directed toward the infantry swords for officers of the British army, it is difficult to adhere directly to those alone. The dynamics of British military swords overall were at play, and as can be seen, certain features of character and design had key influences into the sword patterns used by various elements and departments of the army.

With officers, the sword was not only a combat weapon, but a fashion and status oriented arm, and typically personally commissioned by many officers by outfitters who catered to their whims, but still followed basic the regulation patterns in degree.

Since these swords were privately purchased, and often not only costly but important elements of status oriented and personal accoutrement held for dress, parade and ceremonial occasions.

Officers had the option for using swords that were often simpler versions of the other ranks weapons, or often even variations of them, in the field or on campaign. These were casually known as officers 'fighting swords', which were typically more rugged and sound examples which followed some degree of uniformity, but in certain circumstances, especially in colonial contexts, these could deviate in many directions. This included the use of native weapons or swords using elements of these traditional forms.

This was very much the case with John Jacob, who like many British officers, who learned that it was important to be keenly aware of the ethnic and traditional sensitivities of the tribesmen they commanded. The designs in the hilts of the officers sword mentioned previously incorporated designs which were important in just this manner and was strategically intended.

In these colonial circumstances, the use of the sword by British officers in combat continued profoundly well into the 20th century, particularly in India.
In example, I once had the honor of interviewing a British Brigadier who as a young officer in the Khyber Agency in 1931, led one of the last cavalry charges wielding the M1912 sword for officers. It was an experience holding this weapon as he recounted his stories, as he had written his autobiography, "The Last of the Bengal Lancers", as he was in the 6th/13th Bengal Lancers regiment. The 13th had previously been known as "Watsons Horse" in the same manner as "Jacobs Horse" previously noted.

The photos were taken the day of that interview in the 90s at his home in Sonoma, Calif.; his 1912 officers sword; him on his horse just prior to that charge; Ge, Francis Ingall as we talked.....in this time he repeatedly glanced at the portrait of his 'charger' "Eagerheart" adoringly, and quite literally beamed as he described these events. The troopers sword was of the 13th and inscribed 13 BL........thus promptly identifying one of these I have had for years (pictured with scabbard) unmarked....but made by Bourne & Son (a subcontractor for Wilkinson) probably 1890s for the India dept.,

I can imagine I was as well, as I thought of watching 'Bengal Lancers' films repeatedly as a boy, and was ever fascinated by the 'Khyber Pass'. Here I was actually talking to a British officer who was there!!!

Getting to the constant controversy over blade design, it was said that the British M1908 cavalry sword was one of the finest designs ever achieved, and that it universally served both requirements for cut and thrust. The legendary Wilkinson sword firm masterfully produced these.

In WWI during what was known as the Mesopotamian campaigns, in Palestine British cavalry commanded by General Allenby were equipped with these swords, covered entirely in leather both hilt and scabbard, for not only protection from heat and sun, but the revealing glint.

General Allenby proclaimed , " men....you may go into the field without your breeches....but you WILL carry your sword!!!"

These distinctively appointed M1908 swords were accordingly termed with the eponym 'Allenby Swords'.

On the other hand, in the US, General George Patton, designed the huge cavalry sword, the M1913, which like the M1908 was deemed a brilliant sword. Ironically, even with the outbreak of WWI, these never went to the lines, nor was it ever used in combat. A skilled horseman as well as swordsman, Patton was ever disappointed, and as cavalry was reorganized into armored units, it was said that his face was lined with tears as his men stacked their swords for the last time.

ADDENDUM:

Brigadier Ingall was delighted with my story of my driving down the freeway with lances (indeed from Bengal Lancers) protruding with T-tops off my Corvette!! as recounted in my recent interview.

Hello Jim, and thank you for your posts 12 and 13. In fact your end picture on 12 was so near the answer ...to the conundrum of what actually caused the downfall of the use of swords as Battle Field weapons for Officers ...The business of Training!! ...

In The UK there were essentially two schools of Battle Field fencing with Sabre or Spike...This was almost impossible since there was a complete contradiction going on...It was virtually impossible to deal with one form without contradicting the other... Spike design was for stabbing and lunging but the sabre was for cut and thrust. Each need to be examined against the two different designs of sword...On the one hand The Sabres werent the best at lunging on the other straight spike blades didnt cut so well ...and as I say these were different swords for different sorts of opponents and for different environments and different targets....As an infantry Officer which school would an Officer attend or follow?...

There were two kinds of Cavalry...Heavy and Light...where did their allegiance lie...Further into the discussion was the fact that casualties would more likely not survive being run through but those injured in a slice or chopping action fared much better...Just to compound the issue was the fact that Officers with swords drawn could be seen miles away because of the mirror flash effect of sunlight on their sword blade and hilts. At the same time pistols and short rifles were developing so the multiple firearm choice was a far better solution to arming officers across the board.
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,
This is a great thread. British sword design is something that I find very interesting. My collection although focused on the Napoleonic period, contains many examples that show sword manufacturers were thinking about how to make their blades better at specific purposes.

Peter, I have to disagree about the paisley influence on British sword hilt design. I think it is much more about the Honeysuckle flower, which first originated prior to the 1796 patterns. Below is a photo comparing an example of a honeysuckle themed hilt on an earlier sword and a 1796 pattern heavy cavalry officer undress sword.

Also Jim, the 1908 pattern cavalry sword is a superb thrusting weapon, but is basically just a spike, with almost zero cutting ability, even when sharpened.

Cheers,
Bryce

[Bryce]

G'day Peter,
I completely agree with your point that there is no one sword design that will suit all purposes. Swords can be specialised for a single purpose, which makes them useless for other situations or they can be designed for "general purpose" where the design is a compromise and they aren't ideal for any one particular purpose. There are examples in history of soldiers carrying two swords, one being a thrusting blade and another being a cutting blade, or in the case of Lancers a lance and a sabre.

I think your example of the Japanese carrying a katana and wakizashi as being better than the British example though is flawed. The katana and wakizashi are basically identical in design, with the wakizashi just being a little shorter. The blade design, apart from length is basically the same. The way the blades are constructed also makes them blade heavy, making them difficult to use one handed, unless the blade is relatively short, so you can't easily use a katana and a pistol at the same time.

It is always about specialise or compromise.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Peter Hudson]

G'day Guys,
This is a great thread. British sword design is something that I find very interesting. My collection although focused on the Napoleonic period, contains many examples that show sword manufacturers were thinking about how to make their blades better at specific purposes.

Peter, I have to disagree about the paisley influence on British sword hilt design. I think it is much more about the Honeysuckle flower, which first originated prior to the 1796 patterns. Below is a photo comparing an example of a honeysuckle themed hilt on an earlier sword and a 1796 pattern heavy cavalry officer undress sword.

Also Jim, the 1908 pattern cavalry sword is a superb thrusting weapon, but is basically just a spike, with almost zero cutting ability, even when sharpened.

Cheers,
Bryce
Hello Bryce, Excellent pictures showing what is called honeysuckle design...I actually never heard of that name til I saw it on this thread noted by Jim and yourself. I should have my camera functioning soon and hope I can get a series of pictures uploaded of some more examples of swords in my collection. ...I dont actually have any Scinde Cavalry so its really good to see your exhibits.Thanks again for the great pictures.
I should add that the perforations cut through most of the styles in the 19th C. are a different design to the Scinde Cav. but I accept the influence of the general shape...and I have come around to accepting more than one source in the influence of these hilts.
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Bryce]

G'day Peter,
I don't have a Scinde cavalry sword in my collection, but I do have the 4th Light Dragoons pattern sword of Alexander Low. Some of the decoration on this hilt is similar to the Scinde pattern. Low ordered this sword with a custom hilt and Toledo blade from Henry Wilkinson on his return from the Crimean War, having survived the charge of the light brigade.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Peter Hudson]

My specimen.
British Infantry Officer's Sword M 1895/1897. The blade spine bears the serial number 49731, likely dated 1915.

Hello Pertinax , I have a few George V swords here and some with different Rulers Cyphers on the blades...and some with different capital letters on the stub on the blade test mark.My examples also have the I Beam either side of the Fuller ...Cavalry Swords in the 1820s had a massive fuller running to a spear point but from the end of the fuller to the point...about 12 inches of blade was raised as a central ridge . I often read of swords being too bendy at the foible caused by having no raised central ridge ... this mistake is common on many 19thC. examples.
Regards
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

G'day Peter,
I don't have a Scinde cavalry sword in my collection, but I do have the 4th Light Dragoons pattern sword of Alexander Low. Some of the decoration on this hilt is similar to the Scinde pattern. Low ordered this sword with a custom hilt and Toledo blade from Henry Wilkinson on his return from the Crimean War, having survived the charge of the light brigade.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hello Bryce, Oh I thought this was a Scinde Cavalry Sword, I have to say its a superb piece... Thanks for showing this.
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

One thing I like to feed in are good videos on all things antique weaponry... especially in this case on Swords..Please do hit the buttons and view these as they are very well placed for easy viewing and are excellent for information...I use the Matt Easton videos which I find very good so expect a few of these to turn up ... Matt has an extensive range of the 19thC.British Sword variety thus I will feature his work a lot..

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJm6OBHZcxs

Peter Hudson.

[Will M]

Here is a Scinde cavalry sword, a Wilkinson made in 1856. Maj W.T. Johnson. He used this sword while charging a rebel gun. The first photo the sword is over a 1796 trooper sword to compare blade curvature that looks to be the same.

[Peter Hudson]

Here is a Scinde cavalry sword, a Wilkinson made in 1856. Maj W.T. Johnson. He used this sword while charging a rebel gun. The first photo the sword is over a 1796 trooper sword to compare blade curvature that looks to be the same.

Hello Will,
Interesting seeing it lined up with the`1796 and I imagine how that would have been used against Tulvars and the like. The floral design looks amazing and was apparently from Icanthus leaf designs. This was a great Officer and the Sword and battle Honours you present with it are great to see...
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[toaster5sqn]

The cut vs thrust debate raged for a century until they attempted to settle it scientifically.
Consulting military doctors it was noted that men arriving in field hospitals with stab wounds most often perished of them while those with cuts could usually be saved. This led to the obvious conclusion that the thrust was deadlier than the cut and swords were designed accordingly.
All in all a classic example of survivor bias, all they proved was that those suffering fatal stab wounds were more likely to live long enough to reach hospital.

Robert

[Will M]

I wonder was the intent for sword wounds to kill or put out of action. The later takes up much more resources of the enemy. A good dismembering cut would be as deadly as a thrust. Like any wound dependent on its location and quantity. It is more natural to cut then thrust, a cut moves faster unless you are mounted and moving.

[Radboud]

It is more natural to cut then thrust, a cut moves faster unless you are mounted and moving.

It is more natural to cut, or more accurately describe it "swing" an object about, be it a sword or a club. But thrust is always faster than a cut.

The shortest distence between two points is always a straight line. With a cut you are drawing the blade back, even if slightly for a wrist cut, further for a stronger cut. For a thrust you are simply pushing it forward with the weight of your body for power.

[Peter Hudson]

Great replies... but hold on... ...
I have posed the question at post 1 in bold letters and now is the time face it... What was the problem? People were being trained were they not?

But were they being trained to Fence or Fight? This was the dilema ...

Trainers were teaching Fencing skills ..How could that fail?

And now I will place before you the situation... caused by the failure to teach fighting compounded by the wrong sort of sword ...often called a spike with I beams and hardly any cutting facility and the abject failure by the mainly two separate forms of Fencing and never the twain shall meet..and the infighting and disagreement ending in the whole thing being... The End of Swords...Fighting wins wars ...Fencing does not.

I turn to Matt Eastons brilliant paper and ask you all to read it to the end ...where you will see that the whole thing failed because ... we failed to teach Fighting and taught Fencing instead.
Please see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Sword_Fighting_and_Sword_Play/SuJad-18J5YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&kptab=getbook

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[urbanspaceman]

A brilliant thread.
If you ignore the arrival of the rapier, which was of extremely questionable use on a battlefield and absolutely useless for cavalry, here in the UK during our civil war battles we had broadswords and backswords (generally with a variation on the 'basket' themed hilt). Cut by one or thrust by the other if exemplary performance was demanded. Previously we had the Arming sword which, to my inexperienced eye, appears to have both facilities in plenty. It had certainly proved its worth for a long time in a vast variety of campaigns. Why did we not retain it?
ps. It was realised that French wounded often survived being cut but British died of a thrust; this according to British surgeons.

[Will M]

Surgeons likely only saw the living, some would pass on. The idea that bayonets were not used much I believe is wrong. Bayonets deliver a thrust and likely several into the same soldier. They didn't see many bayonet wounds because most died of their wounds before they could be looked at. It was known that British sword blades tended to be dull and would likely create wounds less deep than sharpened blades. Had they been sharp and not getting dull rattling in steel scabbard, the cut would be more deadly.

[urbanspaceman]

This information came from British surgeons attending the wounded during the Peninsular wars and stated that penetrating punctures could rarely be fully repaired and the patients died, whereas cuts, ever dismembering cuts, could be far more successfully repaired.
The conclusion I came to was if greater attention was given to stabbing then greater death could be achieved.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of weapons we are dealing with here.
ps It was my understanding that bayonets were the main reason why swords became redundant. A Brown Bess with a 20inch bayonet is a formidable weapon, but it should have been backed up with a short cutting blade; unless you are Cavalry of course and I understand it is not sufficiently understood the degree that horses were used in WW1.

[toaster5sqn]

I'm going to have to take issue with Radbound's idea that a thrust is always quicker than a thrust.

For a smallsword or rapier held in a very point forward guard this may be true, but cut and thrust swords are usually held in a more upright guard and an effective cut is made by punching the hand forward and tightening the lower fingers while rotating the wrist to snap the sword blade onto the target. No it's not a massive cleave that will lop a limb off, but you don't want to make such an over committed cut that will leave you vulnerable if you miss anyway. The quick snap cut from the wrist often targets the forearm where any slice can be debilitating in a swordfight.

By comparison a thrust from the same starting position would involve rotating the hand to bring the point on line before punching the hand forward, this meaning the hand covers exactly the same distance for a cut or a thrust.

[toaster5sqn]

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert

[urbanspaceman]

Yes, isn't that Peter's point?

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,
Some examples from my collection of 19th century sword cutlers playing with the design of cutting swords to make them better at thrusting.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Peter Hudson]

Yes, isn't that Peter's point?

Hi Keith... Exactly...The streetfighter in a bar room melee has more resources to use whereas the more conventional opponent in a boxing match follows recognised set moves and responses... What was needed was a sword armed technique which incorporated those moves used in brawling...The unconventional strike, the smash to the opponents face with the pommel...thus a no rules barred open minded free fighting technique /winner takes all approach. The arguement comes in when sword style becomes the focal point or when fieldcraft ...painting the sword black appears... but its probably a smoke screen... It was all to do with the training where the emphasis was on sword fencing instead of Sword Fighting..
Regards,Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert

Hello Robert, Fencing technique was drilled home ...depending on what sort of sword was being taught...To have saved the day for The Sword...what was needed was a decision to use one technique of fencing...blended with an open fighting form where all moves were allowed. Emphasis on how to fight than on how to fence... Both schools missed out fighting and filled up their programmes with Fencing...
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

G'day Guys,
Some examples from my collection of 19th century sword cutlers playing with the design of cutting swords to make them better at thrusting.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hello Bryce, Great examples here. I think the sharp Yelman and recurve idea is a well thought out concept.
What I would suggest here is that no matter how much design was being applied on blade style; much of which ended off being part of an arguement on cutting or giving point simply evaded the issue ...and the real concept fault was on technique of training...in the melee where all moves must be allowed...although if you follow my thoughts on this it becomes more obvious that the more facilities you have on your sword ...and in your head to damage your opponent by hook or by crook... and by whatever fighting skills you can use is the essence of how things should have been applied.

My way of looking at an Officer on the battlefield would have been as a gun platform with two pistols both on lanyards plus a sword with all sharp edges and with a spearpoint and spiked pommel...and at least one fighting knife or bayonet. and a couple of grenades...and Trained to Fight not Fence.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[toaster5sqn]

Hello Robert, Fencing technique was drilled home ...depending on what sort of sword was being taught...To have saved the day for The Sword...what was needed was a decision to use one technique of fencing...blended with an open fighting form where all moves were allowed. Emphasis on how to fight than on how to fence... Both schools missed out fighting and filled up their programmes with Fencing...
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

Which was Hutton's complaint in the period, and why he started studying older manuals and eventually produced his own.

Robert

[Peter Hudson]

It is baffling to me that there were two very distinctly different swords; essentially the Spike form with IBeams and designed to stab/run through targets and to solidly block incoming strikes... and the more classic Cut and Thrust typically cavalry weapon...so that logically a lesson on both swords, though different in content, could be easily added to with the required techniques to turn the concepts into fighting skills. However I have not the faintest idea why this never transpired and as we know the baby went out the window with the bathwater !!...

It goes without meaning, for example, to have Rifle range zeroing and the various range practices and classification at different ranges from 100 out to 600 yards..yet no fighting skills through field firing exercises....and sniper training in battlefield conditions. It was as if sword fencing or the training of it, had frozen its self solid!

As a matter of interest I was looking at pistols and other personal weapons used by what is now used as skills for skirmishers...used in close quarter battle drills particularly in fighting in built up areas....and that there was a large, essentially available list of pistols and even twelve bore shotgun trench clearing specialist weapons being used in WW1.so that the suggestion to return swords and carry a swagger stick seems just mind boggling!!! The plot thickens.
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

While there is similarity between Scinde Cavalry hilts, 19th C British Officers Infantry Sword hilts and the Paisley Tie Design it appears that the Cyprus tree gives the Tie Design and the Icanthus the Cavalry Hilt... both Indian designs ...and both very similar.

Both the 19thC British Infantry and The Scinde Irregular Cav hilt shapes are very very closely similar in general shape but the cut floral application is distinct in each but this does not make it any easier to unscramble, however, if something pops up to clarify this bit of the puzzle I will note it for the thread.

Meanwhile I am collecting a pipeback quillepoint Scinde Irregular Cavalry Sword in a few days and should have mastered how to use my new camera by then so illustated pictures can be seen on thread soon.. Please add your 19th C. British swords to thread and feel free to comment..

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

While the similarity between Scinde Cavalry hilts and the Paisley Tie Design it appears that the Cyprus tree gives the Tie Design and the Icanthus the Cavalry Hilt... both Indian designs ...and both very similar.
Both the 19thC British Infantry and The Scinde Irregular Cav hilt shapes are very very closely similar the floral application is distinct in each however this does not make it any easier to unscramble...but if something pops up to clarify this bit of the puzzle I will note it for the thread. Meanwhile I am collecting a pipeback quillepoint Scinde Irregular Cavalry Sword in a few days and should have mastered how to use my new camera by then so illustated pictures can be seen on thread soon.. Please add your 19th C. swords to thread and feel free to comment..


Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert


A Scots Grey 1796 disc hilt from Waterloo. Heavy and deadly.

[Radboud]

A Scots Grey 1796 disc hilt from Waterloo. Heavy and deadly.

This is a misconception, the weight of the 1796 Pattern heavy cavalry troopers sword is about on par with many cavalry sabres of the time.

About a hundred to one hundred, fifty grams heavier than the 1796 Pattern light cavalry troopers, but lighter by the same amount to the French An XI light cavalry sabre and nearly three hundred grams lighter than the AN XIII Sabre of the line.

[Bryce]

As a matter of interest I was looking at pistols and other personal weapons used by what is now used as skills for skirmishers...used in close quarter battle drills particularly in fighting in built up areas....and that there was a large, essentially available list of pistols and even twelve bore shotgun trench clearing specialist weapons being used in WW1.so that the suggestion to return swords and carry a swagger stick seems just mind boggling!!! The plot thickens.
Peter Hudson.

Peter I think you just answered your main question yourself. This is the real reason for the demise of the sword. Any of these are a much better weapon and much easier to carry than a sword.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Will M]

Officers were a snipers target, wearing a sword was like waving a red flag. I can't recall the reference to this, there was a British officer wearing his sword engaging a German soldier, but as he got to him he decided to kick him in the groin. He said something like it was not in the best military tradition but quite effective.

[Peter Hudson]

Peter I think you just answered your main question yourself. This is the real reason for the demise of the sword. Any of these are a much better weapon and much easier to carry than a sword.
Cheers,
Bryce

Yes I know what you mean; But its 2025...in 1914 they didnt have 20/20 hindsight...Arguably the greatest military technical and tactical mind was Jacob...of Jacobs Horse... inventor of probably the the best 12 bore shotgun ever invented...and with an incredible pair of rifled barrels that could send its bullets down range 2 kilometers...accurately...and who had developed a form of Cavalry based tactics fighting not in uniform but by blending in... in civilian clothes masquerading as civilian caravans through deserts and mountains...Thinking out of the box was his great strength...so with some luck he could have managed the disaster of 1914... Sadly it wasnt to be as he died before his special gun could complete its trials...however trench warfare did invent an excelllent WW1 trench shotgun and pistol design moved at pace. However I stick to my guns on this as clearly it was a mess if not an outright disgrace and Officers in the battlefield deserved a sharper better action plan than send your swords home and carry your swaggerstick instead.
Peter Hudson.
ps. However ...I need a new camera as my old one is kaput!...and I need to rattle on and get .some pictures of 19th C British Infantry Officers Swords ...anyone else is invited to send it theirs .I am sure there are lots.

[Jim McDougall]

John Jacob designed the double barrel cavalry carbine in 1854, but it was apparently somehow destined for South Africa. That same year, through requests for supply from the Malabar Police in India, these went there instead. They ended up issued to the 12th Lancers who were posted to Madras.

The East India Company acquiring these with Jacob designing the unusual sword bayonet which was to be attached to these. The EIC contracted with S Swinburne & son to produce these. While an interesting concept, it was apparently found these were more effective as short swords than with the use in bayonet manner.

While the bayonet in less cumbersome design remained effective, later sword types were shorter and better suited for use at the end of a rifle. Infantry continued with the bayonet instead of the sword, while cavalry still maintained the sword for some time.

I agree with Peter, if more attention was paid to innovative officers who understood the requirements and more effective application of tactics and weaponry in accord with the circumstances in which they were to be employed, far more effective results would have resulted. There are countless records of military blunders and disastrous outcomes which came from narrow minded adherence to misguided rules and regulations. Situations are dynamic and volatile, and not 'one size fits all'.

[Bryce]

Here is Osborn and Gunby's attempt to produce a serious cut and thrust blade. Known to collectors as the "Osborn and Gunby blade".
Cheers,
Bryce

[Tim Simmons]

Some really super swords being shown in this thread.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello Tim , I quite agree , in fact these exhibits are the best I have ever seen including the weapon being studied which when fired ...ranged at 2,000 yards must have been incredible.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

To which I add;
A British, Jacob’s Double Barrel Rifle Carbine, From The Early British Raj. Period. In fact the weapon I speak of was an experimental version and rather a special one off piece but it was very similar and I thought to include the write up...

The gun is the very inspiration for the famous Military Jacob's Rifle, used by the Scinde Irregular Force, Jacob’s Rifles, in the early 1850's, and this was commissioned for an officer of the regiment.

A writer of the period described shooting a rifle of this form:
“The recoil is by no means pleasant. Jacob recommended a powder charge of some 2 drams 68 grains of gunpowder! This rifle does not seem to have any advantages at sporting ranges; but for military purposes it has been strongly recommended. Especially in reference to the explosive shells which are used with it. The shells require a short stout barrel, and cannot be used with a long thin one, like the Enfield still, Enfield-style rifles were actually manufactured with Jacob rifling, and seemed relatively popular. For killing large animals, like the elephant or rhinoceros, they are particularly qualified; and I should strongly recommend elephant hunters to examine the merits of this rifle. This rifle was made to accompany the howdah pistol as the big game hunting rifle to be equally at home on foot, on horseback or while standing in a howdah on one's elephant. But also for perfect use in Indian irregular cavalry by gentlemen officers.

The Jacob's rifle was designed by General Jacobs of the Honourable East India Co. who was so admired and respected by all who knew him, for his intelligence and skill of command, he had a city named after him, in modern day Pakistan, called Jacobabad. He had spent 25 years improving rifled firearms, carrying on experiments unrivalled even by public bodies. A range of 200 yards sufficed in cantonments, but at Jacobabad he had to go into the desert to set up butts at a range of 2000 yards. He went for a four grooved rifle and had numerous experimental guns manufactured in London by the leading gunsmith George Daw and completely at his expense. Jacob, like Joseph Whitworth, was renowned not only as a soldier but as a mathematician, and his rifle was as unconventional as its designer. Rather than using a small .45 caliber bore Jacob stayed with more conventional .57-58 caliber (Bill Adams theorizes that this would allow use of standard service ammo in a pinch). In any case his rifle used four deep grooves and a conical bullet with corresponding lugs. Though unusual the Jacob's rifle, precision made in London by master gunsmiths like George Daw, quickly gained a reputation for accuracy at extended ranges. They appealed in in particular to wealthy aristocratic scientists like Lord Kelvin, who swore by his. Jacob wanted to build a cannon on the same pattern, but died early at age 45.
A few Jacob’s were used during the American Civil War, and those were privately owned, usually by men able to afford the best. There is one account of one of Berdan’s men using one (the chaplain, Lorenzo Barber), who kept one barrel of his double rifle loaded with buckshot and the other with ball.

Jacob's Rifles was a regiment founded by Brigadier John Jacob CB in 1858. Better known as the commandant of the Sind Horse and Jacob's Horse, and the founder of Jacobabad, the regiment of rifles he founded soon gained an excellent reputation. It became after partition part of the Pakistani Army, whereas Jacob's Horse was assigned to the Indian Army. A number of his relatives and descendants served in the Regiment, notably Field Marshal Sir Claud Jacob, Lieutenant-Colonel John Jacob and Brigadier Arthur Legrand Jacob, Claud's brother.

As commander of the Scinde Irregular Horse, Jacob had become increasingly frustrated with the inferior weapons issued to his Indian cavalrymen. Being a wealthy man, he spent many years and much money on developing the perfect weapon for his 'sowars'. He eventually produced the rifle that bears his name. It could be sighted to 2000 yards
(1 830m), and fire explosive bullets designed to destroy artillery limbers. It also sported a 30 inch (76,2cm) bayonet based on the Scottish claymore.

Jacob was an opinionated man who chose to ignore changing trends in firearm development, and he adopted a pattern of rifling that was both obsolete and troublesome. Nevertheless, his influence was such that during the Mutiny he was permitted to arm a new regiment with his design of carbine. It was named Jacob's Rifles.

Orders for the manufacture of the carbine and bayonet were placed in Britain, and all was set for its demonstration when Jacob died. In the hope the East India Company would honour the order, production continued for a little over a year.

[Peter Hudson]

More detail here..https://www.royalartillerymuseum.com/our-collection/jacob-rifle-and-sword-bayonet
Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

Old notes, found this:

From "Charge to Glory", James Lunt, (1976) p.1:
"...the charge will always remain the thing in which it will be the cavalrymans pride to die, sword in hand". -Cavalry Journal, 1909.

He dedicated the book to his friend, Capt. Arthur Sandeman, of the Central India Horse, who died leading a contingent of about 60 mounted sowars of the Burma Frontier Force in the last mounted cavalry charge of British cavalry on March 21, 1942.
On patrol at Toungoo, Burma, which was the site of the airfield for the famed American Volunteer Group (the 'Flying Tigers') , seeing a body of military they first mistook for Chinese, then realizing it was Japanese infantry who opened fire....
Capt. Sandeman instinctively raised his sword, the over 60 sowars, mostly Sikhs, charged , in the old style with sabers. He and most of the sowars were killed,

[Triarii]

Coming late to this, during the C16th and C17th the rapier was indeed noted as being unmilitary, being too long for the battlefield and unable to pierce any form of protection.

However, one reason the introduction of the rapier for use by gentlemen was initially condemned was because a thrust through the body was invariably fatal whereas cuts from broadsword and backsword blades were often survivable. Masters of Defence were expected to prove their mastery via fights with live blades and the 'swashbucklers' would fight with live blades and both would live to tell the tale.

Work by Dr Ismini Pells on pensions claimed and issued to soldiers of both sides during and after the ECW / BCW / WOTK showed that only 4% of those claiming pensions (usual health warnings etc) were due to sword injuries. From that we can either deduce that swords were rarely used (unlikely for example given the preponderance of cavalry during that era and the contemporary accounts of stormings) or that swords rarely inflicated debilitating injuries. I incline to the latter, suspecting that many wounds were treatable cuts.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello Triarii, well its all confusing and to many its all rather not worth arguing about but the upshot was that swords in the context of serious conflict weapons ...ie WW1 in 1914, were off the battlefield. So really it makes no difference which style was used... They all went home.
...To us this was a catclysmic end to the whole business of collecting and history of weapons...Other than for parades and ceremonial duties...apart from the odd individual military action...the sword was finished...and the corner was turned in favour of gunpowder weapons...and associated weaponry like Bayonets. Swords continued and indeed were diverted to be used in wars further afield like in the orient and in other spheres like in India...The amazing orders to get swords off the Battlefield and replace them with swagger sticks to one side...sub units were reorganised to replace the sword including the use of shotguns and pistols etc. The American soldiers developed a useful pump action shotgun they knicknamed The Trench Broom. and there were some useful revolver and magazine fed pistols as a backup weapon...and the use of cavalry moved apace to include the use of Mounted Infantry
using shorter barrel carbines etc.
However having said all that ... I still think it worth considering what blades were being used at the time and how was sword design handled up to its sudden demise. Indeed I think the period during which swords were removed from the battlefield spans a vital opportunity to view the many blade styles that aoppeared in our historical record. There was a bounceback of styles covering hundreds of years of sword development...As an example look at the 1821 pipeback which was redesigned with a solid backblade in 1845 and with a huge fuller and retaining its spear point...and for use up til the end of the 19thC. The old 1821 wasnt simply ditched but went on to be purchased for Indian Cavalry such as The Scinde Irregular...Jacobs Horse...while at the same time blades of every shape size and style appeared.as if the late 19th C.was being held up as a mirror for all things Sword Style...and yet just around the corner it was all about the come to a halt! Thus its important place in our study I think.
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Magey_McMage]

I'm going to have to take issue with Radbound's idea that a thrust is always quicker than a thrust.

For a smallsword or rapier held in a very point forward guard this may be true, but cut and thrust swords are usually held in a more upright guard and an effective cut is made by punching the hand forward and tightening the lower fingers while rotating the wrist to snap the sword blade onto the target. No it's not a massive cleave that will lop a limb off, but you don't want to make such an over committed cut that will leave you vulnerable if you miss anyway. The quick snap cut from the wrist often targets the forearm where any slice can be debilitating in a swordfight.

By comparison a thrust from the same starting position would involve rotating the hand to bring the point on line before punching the hand forward, this meaning the hand covers exactly the same distance for a cut or a thrust.

Apologies for coming in late on this, but this is actually a point (no pun intended) in the early modern/renaissance sword discussions. With the Italo-Iberian focus on geometry, the idea of a thrust needing a simple extension forward while a cut needed chambering backwards before forward momentum did lead to the belief a thrust was more direct and faster. I do not recall who actually proposed the following or if it is an oversimplification by my HEMA instructor but someone along the lines of Silver pointed out that you could simply hold your cutting sword above your head and now it would be automatically chambered the same way a thrusting oriented sword would be pre-loaded.

As to the other questions, changes in warfare and technology are largely to blame. I would say that cavalry was far from useless in WWI when it COULD be utilized in the proper way. I think the difference is that cavalry vs cavalry and cavalry as a breaking attack largely died. The speed in reloading is probably the biggest factor for the latter. While you can or could overrun a position with cavalry, the infantryman being able to fire off even 3 or 4 shots in the span of 40 seconds rapidly decreases the advantage the speed of horse provides. But cavalry as skirmishing and pursuing a rout/following up targets of opportunity was still a viable tactic. And for that, stabbing from horseback is much easier.

As far as the form of blade in the late 19th century through 1918, Britain was far from alone. The images attached are of the British 1912 sabre which I am sure you recognize, but also include others from the ~30 years prior up to 1914. In order:
-British 1912
-The French utilized the 1896 cavalry sabre, albeit unsuccessfully due to a weak blade.
-But alongside that was a very rare experimental model with a different grip. -Next, there is an exceedingly rare Prussian/German 1888 trials sword, with a rebated steel bowl guard, a canted grip with a thumb placement, and a straight blade.
-A Swedish 1893 cavalry pallasch and what I feel is the best sword in here. At ~1-1.1kg, it is far and away also the lightest and a rebated guard and even more robust blade with excess mass for rigidity would still make it quite light. As it is, it still has the most classic cut and thrust profile, of a form that goes back to 18th century Sweden and earlier
-The US 1913 Patton Sabre which is my least favorite (grip is too large and squared, the POB is too far forward to be an effective thruster but the blade is too narrow and too thick/canular to be an effective cutter as well) which rightly gets compared to a 1908/12 and a Swedish 1893 but I think a bit of credit must also be given to the French as Patton studied at Saumur cavalry school as well
-A screenshot of the 1895 series of Dutch cavalry sabres from the following article which I highly recommend: https://www.huzarenvanboreel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2022-Lohmeijer_and_Manders-Derue_inspired_swords_and_sabres_in_the_Netherland s.pdf
-And a later Italian officer's sabre, although it should be noted the Radaelli/Del Frate type of officer-dueling so popular in Italy especially when Barbasetti proposed even more straight swords is likely more to do with Italian blade prefrence


I apologize if this appears to be off topic, but the point I am attempting to make is less that Britain alone decided to go from the 1896 Universal pattern of cavalry sword, of which I generally am a fan of depending on certain things (later grips were too straight and narrow and the guards tended to be thinner and less protective IMO). But moreover, that the late 19th century through the start of WWI saw almost all of the major powers gravitate towards a sword with the following characteristics:

-A larger, symmetrical or mostly symmetric bowl guard
-A grip that was optimized for a thumb-on-back grip (the italian 1888 for example has a cut in the guard and the grip ferrule has a flat piece that slots over the opening so when assembled it forms a protected slot for your thumb)
-A blade which is optimized for the thrust primarily


Not every country or model of sword followed this, the Swiss 1896/02 (my first combat sabre), the British mountain artillery, SOME German swords, and the Norwegian 1888 all have more classic compromise blades.

But if I may offer some sort of suggestion as to the mindset, or at least my interpretation, it is this: the change in sword in this period was not necessarily to make them ineffective in combat, but to redefine the mode of combat. Less for "fighting" and more for "killing." Which I admit sounds a bit edgy, but when you look at accounts of the Boer War and WWI examples in which cavalry did engage either on the Western Front, Mesopotamia, or other areas, there was relatively little hack-and-slash fighting but extremely abrupt bursts of high intensity movement. Anything else and you run the risk of getting shot from being stationary. As such, the optimized form of sword does favor something that can quickly stab through a chest, be withdrawn, and on the move.

As Matt Easton and others have said, it is paradoxical that it is easier to train men to go for a thrust, but when given no training, your first instinct is to use any item of length more for bludgeoning/cutting. I would posit some level of thinking along the lines of "cuts can be fatal, but proper edge alignment, sharpness, follow through all must occur, alongside the enemy having nothing on their body that can arrest the momentum of the cut such as webbing, bandoliers, or other things let alone deliberate protection makes cutting much less certain than seeing a piece of steel emerge 20cm out the other side of their body."

I think the comparison of these blades as so-called 'hand lances' really sells it. Largely, the sword is the only weapon in which romanticized notions of back and forth fights, sword against sword, man against man, have endured. The sword did not stop being a weapon, but it went back to ONLY being a utilitarian tool optimized for killing.

As to the hilts, there are a few parallel origin points:
-The honeysuckle hilt is an evolution of an earlier Austrian pattern I believe, similar to the 1796 LC and HC writ large.
-The acanthus hilt is derived from the Scinde Irregular cavalry
-The 1788 and others also share lineage from early modern Walloon or Mortuary hilted swords around the English Civil War

I know there were other rare and experimental hilts trialed, but we only have scant records on them unfortunately. Some units, especially the Yeomanry and Northwest Frontier units did have special patterns. I believe it was in Robson or Latham that one of the Yeomanry units was noted to have a half-basket from a list of regulation patterns. While it might be believed that this was just shorthand for the other bowl guards, they alone have this wording on theirs and it makes me curious what it might have been.

As an entirely unnecessary addendum, I feel that the best possible sword to meet these design goals would be taking the hilt of the German Trials sabre alongside possibly the grip or a more neutrally oriented (left vs right) and more canted 1912 grip, and the blade of a Swedish 1893, modifying it to be ~10mmx35mmx95mm at the base, and giving it a wicked hollow grinding. I also have a French pre-1882 Colonial sword with one of the canular/Z-shaped fuller/diamond cross section blades I find to be all but perfect, floats in your hand almost despite a 950g weight due to proper shaping, but is utterly stuff with the thin edges and width allowing for good cuts, it is my single favorite sword I own despite arriving covered in rust and costing me 260 euros in 2021. It is the last image and frankly even giving this a more symmetric guard and canted grip would make it damn near perfect and easy to manufacture.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello Magey_McMage,

Thank You for your excellent post,

I was just reading the following on the web and place it here for reference...

https://www.antique-swords.co.uk/1845-wilkinson-style-sword-blades.


Regards,
Peter Hudson.