Pen is mightier than the sword

[A Senefelder]

Fearn, as I recall that was Jason Dingledine cutting in the video when he still worked there if i'm thinking of the same one. I've swung Albion's various gladii on one of my visits and theres no missing that the gladius was a powerfull cutter. I haven't seen the video around in a while. I'll try to remember to ask Mike, thier sales guy, if they still have it around tommorow.

[aiontay]

I'm sure it was a good cutter. I suspect though that it was the training and tactics that made it even better. I just think the artillery guys were handed a sword that frankly they didn't know how to use by people that thought it looked cool rather than really thought through if it was the best weapon for the job at hand.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks David, and the sword was of course typically a back up weapon in the case of infantry ranks and artillery if emplacement was overrun. In the case of cavalry, the charge with the sabre was characteristically de riguer even into the 20th century with Great Britain and Europe (a great book on this subject is "Charge to Glory", James Lunt). I remember years ago talking with a British brigadier who led one of the last cavalry charges in India in plains in the Northwest Frontier about 1932. Best of all was handling the M1912 officers cavalry sword he wielded in that charge, and in a place of honor over his fireplace was a portrait of his horse.

The M1796 was indeed criticized by Napoleon and his marshals for the terrible wounds these sabres caused, and absolutely right, the French did favor 'giving point' as thrusts were usually fatal, encouraging the British to try to find an effective sword for both, beginning with the M1821/29 cavalry sabres. The M1796 was developed by then Captain Gaspard LeMarchant of the British cavalry ,see "Scientific Soldier", cannot recall author but biography of him and his study of the swords he considered to arrive at the chosen form which included tulwar, shamshir and other sabre types. If you read Robson, Wilkinson and some of the books on these military swords, it is amazing how much empirical study as well as field results from actual campaigns became intensely studied. There are a number of interesting prototypes for various patterns which actually did vary in blade length later in the 19th century though.
LeMarchant was truly a cavalry soldiers voice toward developing these swords, and was killed in a cavalry charge in Spain in the Napoleonic campaigns.

Very good point about regulation swords and thier being somewhat difficult in corresponding to other ranks troops with varying physical size as these were purchased en masse and issued indiscriminately without corresponding size considerations in most of the cases. With officers of course thier swords were custom order and privately acquired so you will often see dramatic variations in size.

Naturally in colonial or campaign circumstances, as in any field situation away from the 'parade ground' environment, men will use whatever best suits the need and as required and opportunity allows.


All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

Originally Posted by aiontay

I'm sure it was a good cutter. I suspect though that it was the training and tactics that made it even better. I just think the artillery guys were handed a sword that frankly they didn't know how to use by people that thought it looked cool rather than really thought through if it was the best weapon for the job at hand.

While I honestly don't think much of the artillery swords for various reasons (I'm not fond of metal handles, for one thing), I don't think they were intrinsically a bad idea.

Short swords were used by everyone from the hoplites to the legions for a variety of types of warfare, over a variety of terrains, for about 700 years, give or take, and they were generally side arms for people who used something else as a first weapon. Versions were carried by gladiators and by civilians.

Someone with a classical education would know this. They probably did not have a good idea of what would make a good short sword (archeology being in its infancy at that point, they'd have to depend on Trajan's column and similar artworks for designs), but when they were casting around for a good side weapon for their foot soldiers, they could do much worse than copying classical short swords.

Best,

F

[katana]

Hi Fearn,
agreed the short 'gladius' type swords are totally functional ...but only in certain environments/situations. One of the reasons why short swords were the common form in antiquity were due to forging/casting limitations. Once these metalurgical problems were 'ironed out' swords became longer increasing their reach and due to the mechanics of leverage etc the impact wound more devestating. With the longer swords Cavalry were much more effective. Swordsman facing opponents with the longer sword also found they were disadvantaged......generally. Of course confined spaces such as dense woodland, ship decks etc the opposite is true (situation/environment).

It seems that the short swords issued to the Artillery and some infantry were inaffective as a true weapon (back-up) when they were better (?) as an agricultural tool and regulary used as one. I have one in my collection ...it is very 'business-like'...but matched against longer swords and bayonet charges it has little chance.

My question revolves around the idea that the input of government 'pen pushers' had too much influence in a number of 'regulation millitary' swords....where other factors seem more important than suitabillity.

Are there any other ill conceived 'patterns'

Regards David

[fearn]

Hi David,

I'm not sure I've ever seen one, but I know that Burton railed against the "yataghan-bayonets" of the French in the 19th Century. In theory it sounds like a horrible design. In practice, I don't know.

Similarly, a saw-backed bayonet is kind of missing the point. The teeth will catch on anything you stab it into, so either it's not a functional bayonet or not a good saw.

Best,

F

[Billman]

I am no expert on weapons (edge tools in general and billhooks in particular are my area of expertise), but the armies of northern Europe until the end of the 19th century or even up to WW1 were often issued with fascine knives that were a short multi-purpose sword - they were used for cutting fodder for horses, wood for shelters and firewood and could double as weapon if needed... They were the 'Woodsman's Pal' of their era... Some did have a saw back so they could be used on heavier wood.....

They were later replaced with a version that was more like a billhook - the fascine knife of the american revolutionary army, and the tool of WWI machine gunners and pioneer corps (sappers) of the armies on both sides...

See also: http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...aschinenmesser and http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/sh...ife-Circa-date

For more images, see also: http://www.militaria-datenbank.com/s...?t\u003d135386 and
http://www.militaria-datenbank.com/s...?t\u003d134975 (via http://www.militaria-fundforum.com/s...74&language=en)

And even more from the Swiss army at: http://theswissriflesdotcommessagebo...com/topic/2409


Faskinkniv (Swedish/Danish) or faschinenmesser (German) of 1777 (brass handle), 1810 (sawback) and 1848 (wooden handle):