British Infantry Officers Battle Swords in the 19th C...and up to 1914

[urbanspaceman]

A brilliant thread.
If you ignore the arrival of the rapier, which was of extremely questionable use on a battlefield and absolutely useless for cavalry, here in the UK during our civil war battles we had broadswords and backswords (generally with a variation on the 'basket' themed hilt). Cut by one or thrust by the other if exemplary performance was demanded. Previously we had the Arming sword which, to my inexperienced eye, appears to have both facilities in plenty. It had certainly proved its worth for a long time in a vast variety of campaigns. Why did we not retain it?
ps. It was realised that French wounded often survived being cut but British died of a thrust; this according to British surgeons.

[Will M]

Surgeons likely only saw the living, some would pass on. The idea that bayonets were not used much I believe is wrong. Bayonets deliver a thrust and likely several into the same soldier. They didn't see many bayonet wounds because most died of their wounds before they could be looked at. It was known that British sword blades tended to be dull and would likely create wounds less deep than sharpened blades. Had they been sharp and not getting dull rattling in steel scabbard, the cut would be more deadly.

[urbanspaceman]

This information came from British surgeons attending the wounded during the Peninsular wars and stated that penetrating punctures could rarely be fully repaired and the patients died, whereas cuts, ever dismembering cuts, could be far more successfully repaired.
The conclusion I came to was if greater attention was given to stabbing then greater death could be achieved.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of weapons we are dealing with here.
ps It was my understanding that bayonets were the main reason why swords became redundant. A Brown Bess with a 20inch bayonet is a formidable weapon, but it should have been backed up with a short cutting blade; unless you are Cavalry of course and I understand it is not sufficiently understood the degree that horses were used in WW1.

[toaster5sqn]

I'm going to have to take issue with Radbound's idea that a thrust is always quicker than a thrust.

For a smallsword or rapier held in a very point forward guard this may be true, but cut and thrust swords are usually held in a more upright guard and an effective cut is made by punching the hand forward and tightening the lower fingers while rotating the wrist to snap the sword blade onto the target. No it's not a massive cleave that will lop a limb off, but you don't want to make such an over committed cut that will leave you vulnerable if you miss anyway. The quick snap cut from the wrist often targets the forearm where any slice can be debilitating in a swordfight.

By comparison a thrust from the same starting position would involve rotating the hand to bring the point on line before punching the hand forward, this meaning the hand covers exactly the same distance for a cut or a thrust.

[toaster5sqn]

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert

[urbanspaceman]

Yes, isn't that Peter's point?

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,
Some examples from my collection of 19th century sword cutlers playing with the design of cutting swords to make them better at thrusting.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Guys,
Some examples from my collection of 19th century sword cutlers playing with the design of cutting swords to make them better at thrusting.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hello Bryce, Great examples here. I think the sharp Yelman and recurve idea is a well thought out concept.
What I would suggest here is that no matter how much design was being applied on blade style; much of which ended off being part of an arguement on cutting or giving point simply evaded the issue ...and the real concept fault was on technique of training...in the melee where all moves must be allowed...although if you follow my thoughts on this it becomes more obvious that the more facilities you have on your sword ...and in your head to damage your opponent by hook or by crook... and by whatever fighting skills you can use is the essence of how things should have been applied.

My way of looking at an Officer on the battlefield would have been as a gun platform with two pistols both on lanyards plus a sword with all sharp edges and with a spearpoint and spiked pommel...and at least one fighting knife or bayonet. and a couple of grenades...and Trained to Fight not Fence.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Yes, isn't that Peter's point?

Hi Keith... Exactly...The streetfighter in a bar room melee has more resources to use whereas the more conventional opponent in a boxing match follows recognised set moves and responses... What was needed was a sword armed technique which incorporated those moves used in brawling...The unconventional strike, the smash to the opponents face with the pommel...thus a no rules barred open minded free fighting technique /winner takes all approach. The arguement comes in when sword style becomes the focal point or when fieldcraft ...painting the sword black appears... but its probably a smoke screen... It was all to do with the training where the emphasis was on sword fencing instead of Sword Fighting..
Regards,Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert

Hello Robert, Fencing technique was drilled home ...depending on what sort of sword was being taught...To have saved the day for The Sword...what was needed was a decision to use one technique of fencing...blended with an open fighting form where all moves were allowed. Emphasis on how to fight than on how to fence... Both schools missed out fighting and filled up their programmes with Fencing...
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[toaster5sqn]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

Hello Robert, Fencing technique was drilled home ...depending on what sort of sword was being taught...To have saved the day for The Sword...what was needed was a decision to use one technique of fencing...blended with an open fighting form where all moves were allowed. Emphasis on how to fight than on how to fence... Both schools missed out fighting and filled up their programmes with Fencing...
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

Which was Hutton's complaint in the period, and why he started studying older manuals and eventually produced his own.

Robert

[Peter Hudson]

It is baffling to me that there were two very distinctly different swords; essentially the Spike form with IBeams and designed to stab/run through targets and to solidly block incoming strikes... and the more classic Cut and Thrust typically cavalry weapon...so that logically a lesson on both swords, though different in content, could be easily added to with the required techniques to turn the concepts into fighting skills. However I have not the faintest idea why this never transpired and as we know the baby went out the window with the bathwater !!...

It goes without meaning, for example, to have Rifle range zeroing and the various range practices and classification at different ranges from 100 out to 600 yards..yet no fighting skills through field firing exercises....and sniper training in battlefield conditions. It was as if sword fencing or the training of it, had frozen its self solid!

As a matter of interest I was looking at pistols and other personal weapons used by what is now used as skills for skirmishers...used in close quarter battle drills particularly in fighting in built up areas....and that there was a large, essentially available list of pistols and even twelve bore shotgun trench clearing specialist weapons being used in WW1.so that the suggestion to return swords and carry a swagger stick seems just mind boggling!!! The plot thickens.
Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert

A Scots Grey 1796 disc hilt from Waterloo. Heavy and deadly.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

A Scots Grey 1796 disc hilt from Waterloo. Heavy and deadly.

This is a misconception, the weight of the 1796 Pattern heavy cavalry troopers sword is about on par with many cavalry sabres of the time.

About a hundred to one hundred, fifty grams heavier than the 1796 Pattern light cavalry troopers, but lighter by the same amount to the French An XI light cavalry sabre and nearly three hundred grams lighter than the AN XIII Sabre of the line.

[Bryce]

As a matter of interest I was looking at pistols and other personal weapons used by what is now used as skills for skirmishers...used in close quarter battle drills particularly in fighting in built up areas....and that there was a large, essentially available list of pistols and even twelve bore shotgun trench clearing specialist weapons being used in WW1.so that the suggestion to return swords and carry a swagger stick seems just mind boggling!!! The plot thickens.
Peter Hudson.

Peter I think you just answered your main question yourself. This is the real reason for the demise of the sword. Any of these are a much better weapon and much easier to carry than a sword.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Magey_McMage]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

I'm going to have to take issue with Radbound's idea that a thrust is always quicker than a thrust.

For a smallsword or rapier held in a very point forward guard this may be true, but cut and thrust swords are usually held in a more upright guard and an effective cut is made by punching the hand forward and tightening the lower fingers while rotating the wrist to snap the sword blade onto the target. No it's not a massive cleave that will lop a limb off, but you don't want to make such an over committed cut that will leave you vulnerable if you miss anyway. The quick snap cut from the wrist often targets the forearm where any slice can be debilitating in a swordfight.

By comparison a thrust from the same starting position would involve rotating the hand to bring the point on line before punching the hand forward, this meaning the hand covers exactly the same distance for a cut or a thrust.

Apologies for coming in late on this, but this is actually a point (no pun intended) in the early modern/renaissance sword discussions. With the Italo-Iberian focus on geometry, the idea of a thrust needing a simple extension forward while a cut needed chambering backwards before forward momentum did lead to the belief a thrust was more direct and faster. I do not recall who actually proposed the following or if it is an oversimplification by my HEMA instructor but someone along the lines of Silver pointed out that you could simply hold your cutting sword above your head and now it would be automatically chambered the same way a thrusting oriented sword would be pre-loaded.

As to the other questions, changes in warfare and technology are largely to blame. I would say that cavalry was far from useless in WWI when it COULD be utilized in the proper way. I think the difference is that cavalry vs cavalry and cavalry as a breaking attack largely died. The speed in reloading is probably the biggest factor for the latter. While you can or could overrun a position with cavalry, the infantryman being able to fire off even 3 or 4 shots in the span of 40 seconds rapidly decreases the advantage the speed of horse provides. But cavalry as skirmishing and pursuing a rout/following up targets of opportunity was still a viable tactic. And for that, stabbing from horseback is much easier.

As far as the form of blade in the late 19th century through 1918, Britain was far from alone. The images attached are of the British 1912 sabre which I am sure you recognize, but also include others from the ~30 years prior up to 1914. In order:
-British 1912
-The French utilized the 1896 cavalry sabre, albeit unsuccessfully due to a weak blade.
-But alongside that was a very rare experimental model with a different grip. -Next, there is an exceedingly rare Prussian/German 1888 trials sword, with a rebated steel bowl guard, a canted grip with a thumb placement, and a straight blade.
-A Swedish 1893 cavalry pallasch and what I feel is the best sword in here. At ~1-1.1kg, it is far and away also the lightest and a rebated guard and even more robust blade with excess mass for rigidity would still make it quite light. As it is, it still has the most classic cut and thrust profile, of a form that goes back to 18th century Sweden and earlier
-The US 1913 Patton Sabre which is my least favorite (grip is too large and squared, the POB is too far forward to be an effective thruster but the blade is too narrow and too thick/canular to be an effective cutter as well) which rightly gets compared to a 1908/12 and a Swedish 1893 but I think a bit of credit must also be given to the French as Patton studied at Saumur cavalry school as well
-A screenshot of the 1895 series of Dutch cavalry sabres from the following article which I highly recommend: https://www.huzarenvanboreel.nl/wp-c...etherlands.pdf
-And a later Italian officer's sabre, although it should be noted the Radaelli/Del Frate type of officer-dueling so popular in Italy especially when Barbasetti proposed even more straight swords is likely more to do with Italian blade prefrence


I apologize if this appears to be off topic, but the point I am attempting to make is less that Britain alone decided to go from the 1896 Universal pattern of cavalry sword, of which I generally am a fan of depending on certain things (later grips were too straight and narrow and the guards tended to be thinner and less protective IMO). But moreover, that the late 19th century through the start of WWI saw almost all of the major powers gravitate towards a sword with the following characteristics:

-A larger, symmetrical or mostly symmetric bowl guard
-A grip that was optimized for a thumb-on-back grip (the italian 1888 for example has a cut in the guard and the grip ferrule has a flat piece that slots over the opening so when assembled it forms a protected slot for your thumb)
-A blade which is optimized for the thrust primarily


Not every country or model of sword followed this, the Swiss 1896/02 (my first combat sabre), the British mountain artillery, SOME German swords, and the Norwegian 1888 all have more classic compromise blades.

But if I may offer some sort of suggestion as to the mindset, or at least my interpretation, it is this: the change in sword in this period was not necessarily to make them ineffective in combat, but to redefine the mode of combat. Less for "fighting" and more for "killing." Which I admit sounds a bit edgy, but when you look at accounts of the Boer War and WWI examples in which cavalry did engage either on the Western Front, Mesopotamia, or other areas, there was relatively little hack-and-slash fighting but extremely abrupt bursts of high intensity movement. Anything else and you run the risk of getting shot from being stationary. As such, the optimized form of sword does favor something that can quickly stab through a chest, be withdrawn, and on the move.

As Matt Easton and others have said, it is paradoxical that it is easier to train men to go for a thrust, but when given no training, your first instinct is to use any item of length more for bludgeoning/cutting. I would posit some level of thinking along the lines of "cuts can be fatal, but proper edge alignment, sharpness, follow through all must occur, alongside the enemy having nothing on their body that can arrest the momentum of the cut such as webbing, bandoliers, or other things let alone deliberate protection makes cutting much less certain than seeing a piece of steel emerge 20cm out the other side of their body."

I think the comparison of these blades as so-called 'hand lances' really sells it. Largely, the sword is the only weapon in which romanticized notions of back and forth fights, sword against sword, man against man, have endured. The sword did not stop being a weapon, but it went back to ONLY being a utilitarian tool optimized for killing.

As to the hilts, there are a few parallel origin points:
-The honeysuckle hilt is an evolution of an earlier Austrian pattern I believe, similar to the 1796 LC and HC writ large.
-The acanthus hilt is derived from the Scinde Irregular cavalry
-The 1788 and others also share lineage from early modern Walloon or Mortuary hilted swords around the English Civil War

I know there were other rare and experimental hilts trialed, but we only have scant records on them unfortunately. Some units, especially the Yeomanry and Northwest Frontier units did have special patterns. I believe it was in Robson or Latham that one of the Yeomanry units was noted to have a half-basket from a list of regulation patterns. While it might be believed that this was just shorthand for the other bowl guards, they alone have this wording on theirs and it makes me curious what it might have been.

As an entirely unnecessary addendum, I feel that the best possible sword to meet these design goals would be taking the hilt of the German Trials sabre alongside possibly the grip or a more neutrally oriented (left vs right) and more canted 1912 grip, and the blade of a Swedish 1893, modifying it to be ~10mmx35mmx95mm at the base, and giving it a wicked hollow grinding. I also have a French pre-1882 Colonial sword with one of the canular/Z-shaped fuller/diamond cross section blades I find to be all but perfect, floats in your hand almost despite a 950g weight due to proper shaping, but is utterly stuff with the thin edges and width allowing for good cuts, it is my single favorite sword I own despite arriving covered in rust and costing me 260 euros in 2021. It is the last image and frankly even giving this a more symmetric guard and canted grip would make it damn near perfect and easy to manufacture.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello Magey_McMage,

Thank You for your excellent post,

I was just reading the following on the web and place it here for reference...

https://www.antique-swords.co.uk/184...e-sword-blades.


Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Please see https://www.fordemilitaryantiques.co...lkinson-latham

The above detail gives superb background on the subject at post.
It can also access part 2 and 1 on the same authors detailed research .

I am about halfway through putting together a quite large Post and I think the information here will throw a light upon this complex subject.
Regards,
Peter Hudson.