![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Arms Historian
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 10,192
|
![]() Quote:
I guess in a way my 'question' is a bit rheotorical, but I was hoping for those informative rebuttals that might prove flaws in my statements, which simply recount notes from the published material I have seen. As distasteful as the image noted is, and outside the scope of the Civil War focus here, I did find an interesting note claiming that soldiers were actually ordered not to sharpen thier sabres during the Indian wars as they would become lodged in the victim. It seems odd to negate the actual purpose of the weapon, and while there were some notably despicable attacks on villages, it would seem that the sabre for combat was not particularly favored. According to H.L.Peterson ("The American Sword" , p.16) the effectiveness of the sabre was virtually useless against the guerilla type tactics used by Indian warriors, and the sabre was "...frequently left behind when cavalry took to the field". Returning to the Civil War, and with the 'order' not to sharpen sabres of the Indian wars period, I am wondering if perhaps the minute numbers of wounds throughout the Civil War recorded from sabres might have been due to injuries not of enough magnitude to require treatment. While blunt force trauma, such as one case with severe head wound caused by skull fracture (Beller. op.cit. p.30), not cutting, it does seem dull swords were a fact. Since the soldier referred to here was a Union soldier, and reference has been made to poor training and sword maintainance of the rank and file in Union forces, it appears that this suggests the situation was comparable among Confederate rank and file. If only minor injuries were sustained, such as bruising etc. from sword attacks, possibly this might explain the minimal instances reported. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|