Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanspaceman
Quote Jim: "Regarding the M1796 swords, there was a cavalry officers version with hilt like small sword and heavy straight blade, but these were dress swords. Apparently some officers took them to the Peninsula and considered them worthless in combat."
Hi Jim. Yes, I was referring to the Infantry Officer's sword as this allowed for both cut and thrust.
Do you know why they were regarded as worthless?
|
I did not realize you indeed meant the M1786 infantry officer, and I had to retrace what I recalled from reading passim quite some time ago. I had somehow interpolate the shell guard M1796 cavalry officers sword, which was intended to be worn dismounted, and apparently as a dress sword.
It had the same basic straight 'spadroon' blade of the infantry swords.
(Robson, "Swords of the British Army" 1975, p.67, pl. 59)
Re: the 1786 infantry officers sword:
In Robson, (op. cit. p. 106), "...the pattern 1786 sword was clearly intended as a fighting weapon and its blade was not ill adapted for the purpose. However its hilt was extremely flimsy and gave only minimal protection for the hand".
These were basically official issues of the c. 1780s 'spadroons' whose blades as previously discussed were a well adapted blade for cut and thrust both.
Apparently the use of the 1786 had no 'live trial' until outbreak of war with France in 1793. It is there that use in the early campaigns brought attention to these deficiencies.
p.108 (Robson, op.cit.) re: the introduction of the M1796 infantry officers sword as a result of trying to resolve the issues of the '1786'.
"...as a fighting weapon this sword was scarcely any improvement on its predecessor, the shells gave slightly better protection to hand", but the flimsy elements were still very fragile.
Here Robson notes, as I had suggested, "...infantry officers swords were really NOT intended for serious hand to hand fighting, but even so, the M1796 was among the least satisfactory of its kind and regarded with contempt by most of its wearers". (p.108, op.cit.).
So it seems that my observation refers to the infantry model 1796 (but the 1786 as well as it appears both did see use in the campaigns in degree), and the cavalry version was a dress sword which probably did not see use on campaign.
As far as I recall, in various sources 'passim', in the constant debate (which raged through the 18th, 19th into 20th century) over cut vs. thrust, the remarks I have seen were mostly toward cavalry combat, and in comments noting the deadly result of the thrust. In the Napoleonic campaigns, as I had mentioned previously, the cuirisseurs used heavy, straight blade swords and as heavy cavalry were the initial shock forces. The light cavalry were also were admonished to 'give point' with the high tierce downward thrust of the saber.
Years ago I did a study on what I have always termed 'the Austrian notch', which was a deliberate notch on sword blades near the point which I first noticed in Wagner (1967) on Austrian swords. It was claimed this was intended to 'worsen' the wound by the author, but while making sense on the straight thrusting swords.......why on a saber????
The notch, despite long research, was never satisfactorily explained, despite many contacts with East European museums, authorities, fencing institutes etc., however I did find, 'the notch' was on some French cavalry sabers of the period (1750s-1820).