On the present thread discussing a M1840 cavalry sabre, the subject came up concerning just how much were these weapons actually used during the Civil War. In discussions years ago I recall some statements suggesting that these cavalry sabres were not even sharpened.
Naturally firearms had become more accurate and preferred, and references suggest that while sabre use was significant in early part of the war, its use considerably diminished later. Men were poorly trained in thier use, and the cumbersome sabres were lashed to the saddles as they were reluctantly carried on campaign.
Still, these cavalry sabres were both imported and produced in the tens of thousands for Union forces, while Confederate forces were supplied from imports, limited production in makeshift and small factories, captured Union supplies and all manner of surplus weapons.
Despite these staggering numbers of weapons known to have been produced or imported, the medical records from the war reflect incredibly few wounds from swords, actually less than 1000 instances (inclusive of all edged weapons including bayonets).
The wounds seem to have been more reflective of blunt force trauma than cutting wounds, suggesting either unsharpened or poorly maintained blades or perhaps as mentioned, poor training in swordsmanship.
I'd like to hear more on just how effectively sabres were used in combat in the Civil War, and if they werent really used, why in the world were such huge stores of them produced and imported.
It seems like Ames M1840's were all over the place when I was a kid
and no cracks!! it wasn't just after the war ended!!!
All best regards,
Jim