Hi David,
Just to return to your original topic, which is really a great one for discussion. I know exactly what you mean with your original title but I wanted to get on board with the course you wanted to set about the disconnected development of regulation patterns.
The sword you chose as an illustration (the cabbage cutter) was a great one, and really shows the 'looks good on paper' syndrome. Sort of reminds me of the old one, 'definition of a camel" a horse designed by a committee'!
With regulation military swords, often there was much more concern with 'fashion' than effectiveness toward the end of the 18th century, and France by then was in its neo-classic stage. The French Revolution carried forth many allusions to the ancients in its themes and particularly Roman subjects, so the later adoption of the 'gladius' atavistically in military setting is hardly surprising. At least they did not have the troops start wearing togas!
The close ties to France after the American Revolution in many respects led to following thier lead in military fashion, and many of the U.S. military swords and elements of uniform followed French military fashion. Here again, the patently decorative 'gladius' type weapon was adopted for the artillery officers in 1833, and indeed later found its way into Confederate use by the time of the Civil War. The bizarre similarity to to ancient Roman swords in at least one instance presented an interesting conundrum to a 'would be' archaeologist a number of years ago, I believe it was in the New York area.
One of these was dug up inadvertantly, and in a news item declared to be evidence of Romans in America from ancient times!!!! Pretty sure his chagrin must have proven unbearable soon thereafter.
Despite the colorful portrayals of sabre waving charges during the Civil War, in actuality swords were seldom really used, and commonly not even sharpened. Naturally there were exceptions in degree with certain officers in flamboyant circumstances, but with rank and file troops, these were mostly a traditionally dictated encumbrance. In medical terms in references I have seen over the years, it is noted that of the remarkably few sword related wounds seen, most were blunt force trauma, further suggesting less than sharp blades. In addition, most troops were poorly trained in sword excercise, which is one of the leading reasons why the M1840 heavy cavalry sabre was nicknamed 'the old wristbreaker'. It was actually a very effective sabre, if used properly, however if not....indeed could result in painful repercussions.
Another unfortunate experiment in trying to adopt the use of anachronistic weaponry a'la European style by Union troops were the few units of cavalry assigned to become lancer units. This was largely disastrous, and the men were from most accounts far more dangerous to each other than to a potential enemy combatant. Again, Im sure there are opposing perspectives (which Id love to hear!) but what I read was as noted. As far as use of the lance in North America, its use by American Indian warriors and Spanish lanceros was tremendously effective (one of the most remarkable events of Californio lancers being at the Battle of San Pasqual during the Mexican War).
With the British, one of the greatest advances in the development of effective regulation swords was with LeMarchant, a brilliant young cavalry officer who proposed what became the first officially recognized military pattern cavalry swords in 1796. Though the heavy cavalry sword was ill received, the light cavalry sabre proved to be one of the most effective sabres known, and despite being superceded by other patterns subsequently, remained in use throughout the 19th and even into the 20th century. For cavalry swords, it was always the battle of cut vs. thrust and the never ending quest for the universal sword that could effectively deliver both.
By the time the issue was 'resolved' (with M1908 British and M1913 'Patton' US swords) the sword was for all intents and purposes obsolete. The M1908 British swords were actually used though, while the 'Pattons' never saw combat.
As always, I hope these notes will add perspective and possibly even more discussion. Thanks for posting the topic David!
All best regards,
Jim