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

[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

[Will M]

Officers were a snipers target, wearing a sword was like waving a red flag. I can't recall the reference to this, there was a British officer wearing his sword engaging a German soldier, but as he got to him he decided to kick him in the groin. He said something like it was not in the best military tradition but quite effective.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Bryce

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

Yes I know what you mean; But its 2025...in 1914 they didnt have 20/20 hindsight...Arguably the greatest military technical and tactical mind was Jacob...of Jacobs Horse... inventor of probably the the best 12 bore shotgun ever invented...and with an incredible pair of rifled barrels that could send its bullets down range 2 kilometers...accurately...and who had developed a form of Cavalry based tactics fighting not in uniform but by blending in... in civilian clothes masquerading as civilian caravans through deserts and mountains...Thinking out of the box was his great strength...so with some luck he could have managed the disaster of 1914... Sadly it wasnt to be as he died before his special gun could complete its trials...however trench warfare did invent an excelllent WW1 trench shotgun and pistol design moved at pace. However I stick to my guns on this as clearly it was a mess if not an outright disgrace and Officers in the battlefield deserved a sharper better action plan than send your swords home and carry your swaggerstick instead.
Peter Hudson.
ps. However ...I need a new camera as my old one is kaput!...and I need to rattle on and get .some pictures of 19th C British Infantry Officers Swords ...anyone else is invited to send it theirs .I am sure there are lots.

[Jim McDougall]

John Jacob designed the double barrel cavalry carbine in 1854, but it was apparently somehow destined for South Africa. That same year, through requests for supply from the Malabar Police in India, these went there instead. They ended up issued to the 12th Lancers who were posted to Madras.

The East India Company acquiring these with Jacob designing the unusual sword bayonet which was to be attached to these. The EIC contracted with S Swinburne & son to produce these. While an interesting concept, it was apparently found these were more effective as short swords than with the use in bayonet manner.

While the bayonet in less cumbersome design remained effective, later sword types were shorter and better suited for use at the end of a rifle. Infantry continued with the bayonet instead of the sword, while cavalry still maintained the sword for some time.

I agree with Peter, if more attention was paid to innovative officers who understood the requirements and more effective application of tactics and weaponry in accord with the circumstances in which they were to be employed, far more effective results would have resulted. There are countless records of military blunders and disastrous outcomes which came from narrow minded adherence to misguided rules and regulations. Situations are dynamic and volatile, and not 'one size fits all'.

[Bryce]

Here is Osborn and Gunby's attempt to produce a serious cut and thrust blade. Known to collectors as the "Osborn and Gunby blade".
Cheers,
Bryce

[Tim Simmons]

Some really super swords being shown in this thread.