Please help on 1796 HC sword marks

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

...Many of these Heavy Cavalry swords were modified during their working lives usually the blade tip geometry was changed and sometimes the guard was cut to make it more comfortable and easier to draw ...

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

As for the modifications, I have understood that the Royal Scots Greys before leaving Gravesend for Belgium, were ordered to grind down the back edges of the blades on thier disc hilts. It is also my understanding that after Waterloo, the inner part of the discs were ground down and in many cases the langets removed (never quite understood the purpose of removing the langets) ...

I have read the following:
... There were a number of slight variations made in service including modifying the point from hatchet to spear point, removing the langets, and cutting away the inside of the disc to prevent wear on the uniform ... The change from hatchet point to spear point was believed to be a result of experiences in the Peninsula and one diary account by Cornet James Smithies makes reference to this being undertaken before Waterloo ... Modifications to the disc edge seem to be immediate with reference to 364 swords of the 2nd Dragoon Guards being altered by 'cutting the hilts' in 1797 ... The removal of langets was more frequently a field based operation and the result of the swords being difficult to quickly replace in the scabbard...
(from the "Swords and Pistols Website").

Fernando

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Fernando,
Seeing the photographs of the hilt and blade you appear to have a complete unmodified example. Having handled a few of these I wonder just how long one could wield such a sword in a battle situation. I suspect a lot of hours in practice would be needed before you could confidently handle a 'beefy' blade like this in actual combat. I wonder if, like the draw arm on longbowmen, the sword arm was noticeably more muscle intensive than its counterpart, I suppose it must have been. I look forward to more info on this most distinctive sabre.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. Wouldn't mind being let loose in the store that housed that list of equipment.

[Jim McDougall]

Pretty amazing 'intermediary' stuff Fernando ! and thank you for the note on the field modifications you added as well. It is amazing how much info is available these days with the computer, as opposed to how we did things in the old days...lots of letter writing, and waiting...(no more cracks about parchment Andrew!!! )

Actually I had heard about the term 'woodchopper' which was sort of derisively used describing both the M1796 swords for British cavalry. I recall that from an article written by John Morgan in "Classic Arms and Militaria" back in the 90's about the M1796 swords, and I think it was titled 'chopping wood' or to that effect. At that time I was very fascinated by these huge British disc hilts, and was talking with him a great deal on the ancestry of these swords to the M1769-1775 Austrian disc hilts, handled by then Capt. LeMarchant on campaign in Flanders. He was a brilliant officer and wanted to bring standardization of swords to the British army and proposed both the light and heavy patterns based on these and other European examples.
He was deemed the 'scientific soldier' and was killed in cavalry combat at Salamanca during the campaigns there.

The stamped crown with number was the mark used when the weapon was viewed, and this configuration was used up to about 1820, when a letter was also added. According to Robson ("Swords of the British Army", p.191) individual viewers used different numbers at different times, so it would likely be hard to determine with any certainty. The 'V' is puzzling, as it does not seem that letter was ever used to denote 'viewing', and it seemed that it would be rather indiscriminate, although it would seem that organized control in those times were somewhat irregular. The crowned number stamp would seem to negate the need for the V as a view mark. I had thought perhaps it might be an arrow, which of course were ordnance marks then, but this seems more the letter V rather than the phaeon, and there is no BO (board of ordnance initials).

The Gill contract I referred to remains completely unsubstantiated so I can only presume my memory, or mind was sound concerning this reference.
The Gill family was profoundly one of the key producers of swords for the service, and I cannot imagine there were not other contracts. It seems there is a work in progress on the Gill swords, but I do not yet have further details.

Norman, you are right, these swords would have been horrendously consuming in actual combat, and the only driving force that enabled these troopers to use them as such was virtually pure adrenalin. The amount of skill in the average troopers swordsmanship was limited, which was what drew the derisive comment from the French, and probably did resemble chopping action. The French cavalry were keen swordsmen, and adamantly preferred the thrust, emphasizing the conflict over that cut vs. thrust over the next century in many European armies.
From what little I recall of fencing (many many moons ago!) working at strengthening various muscle groups was essential before handling a blade, and even with the very light sabre, one was spent quickly in combat.
A great movie was "The Duellists" where the combatants in a heated duel were incredibly evenly matched swordsmen in the French cavalry, and fought until both were so exhausted they could barely left the sabres.It was often said that after combat in an engagement, and intense action, horsemen could be seen just sitting motionless in thier saddles with tears streaming down thier faces, strictly from the anticlimatic release of adrenalin.

Well, I didnt mean to write a book oops,

All the best,
Jim

[fernando]

By the way, for how long was this 1796 pattern in service ... in Britain, i mean ? Did i hear 1821 ?

Fernando

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

By the way, for how long was this 1796 pattern in service ... in Britain, i mean ? Did i hear 1821 ?

Fernando

Interestingly, the disc hilts stayed in service in Austria considerably longer than the British....the British came up with the M1821 which was a sheet steel bowl guard and the rest of the hilt was essentially like the M1821 light cavalry sabre with three branch guard. There were apparantly problems in manufacture and issuance of these patterns so they did not effectively come out until 1829... thus they are often termed M1829's.
The disc hilt was around only for a short while as these were issued, and many of course went to yeomanry units.
As mentioned, these were turned in to the armouries where they were stored when many were destroyed in the 1850's (again if memory serves.....no...I wasn;t there!! ).


BTW, while the chopping wood remarks were loosely applied, it seems it was more intended for the M1796 heavy swords, while the light cavalry sabres received contrary reviews. It was said that Napoleon decried these sabres as 'barbaric' for the horrendous injuries they inflicted, and at Waterloo it is known that the heavy cavalry swords also inflicted terrible wounds and carnage. While the chopping connotation suggested ineffectiveness, it sounds like in at least may cases there were very effective.

All the best,
Jim

[katana]

Hi Fernando,
Great sword .Could the 'V' on the guard be the Roman numeral for 5 ?

Regards David

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by katana

Hi Fernando,
Great sword .Could the 'V' on the guard be the Roman numeral for 5 ?

Regards David

Outstanding David!! You're always thinkin' !!! Very good question, did units in Portugal use Roman numerals in marking weapons?

All the best,
Jim

[celtan]

5 minutes of physical combat can leave you utterly devastated, specially when the muscle's "oxygen debt" manifests itself...

The sword thrust is far more lethal than the slash, since a sword's point concentrates an incredible amount of energy, being able to slip through the ribs or even pierce flat bones. The slash is an incredibly effective psychological weapon, since its effects are ghastly and destroy survivor's morale.

M

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Norman, you are right, these swords would have been horrendously consuming in actual combat, and the only driving force that enabled these troopers to use them as such was virtually pure adrenalin. The amount of skill in the average troopers swordsmanship was limited, which was what drew the derisive comment from the French, and probably did resemble chopping action. The French cavalry were keen swordsmen, and adamantly preferred the thrust, emphasizing the conflict over that cut vs. thrust over the next century in many European armies.
From what little I recall of fencing (many many moons ago!) working at strengthening various muscle groups was essential before handling a blade, and even with the very light sabre, one was spent quickly in combat.
A great movie was "The Duellists" where the combatants in a heated duel were incredibly evenly matched swordsmen in the French cavalry, and fought until both were so exhausted they could barely left the sabres.It was often said that after combat in an engagement, and intense action, horsemen could be seen just sitting motionless in thier saddles with tears streaming down thier faces, strictly from the anticlimatic release of adrenalin.

Well, I didnt mean to write a book oops,

All the best,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=celtan]5 minutes of physical combat can leave you utterly devastated, specially when the muscle's "oxygen debt" manifests itself...

The sword thrust is far more lethal than the slash, since a sword's point concentrates an incredible amount of energy, being able to slip through the ribs or even pierce flat bones. The slash is an incredibly effective psychological weapon, since its effects are ghastly and destroy survivor's morale.

M[/QUOTE


Most interesting perspective, Manuel, and I hadn't thought of those aspects, which are extremely well placed. The controversy over which was more effective, the cut vs. the thrust, carried through the entire 19th century, and ironically by the time the M1908 British and American M1913 huge bowlguard swords were introduced, the sword itself was essentially obsolete.

There was some intriguing study written by J.Christoph Amberger in his "Secret History of the Sword" concerning the medical aspects of sword combat, which despite sounding gruesome, was actually compelling when read objectively. There were some other similar studies done concerning the nature of warfare injuries revealed in archaeological discoveries that pertained mostly to Anglo-Saxon and Norse studies if I recall.

All best regards,
Jim

[celtan]

Hi Jim,

The medical aspects would make a very interesting sub-subject. Since you seem to have given a lot of thought to the subject, would you care to expound on same?

Best

Manolo



[QUOTE=Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by celtan

5 minutes of physical combat can leave you utterly devastated, specially when the muscle's "oxygen debt" manifests itself...

The sword thrust is far more lethal than the slash, since a sword's point concentrates an incredible amount of energy, being able to slip through the ribs or even pierce flat bones. The slash is an incredibly effective psychological weapon, since its effects are ghastly and destroy survivor's morale.

M[/QUOTE


Most interesting perspective, Manuel, and I hadn't thought of those aspects, which are extremely well placed. The controversy over which was more effective, the cut vs. the thrust, carried through the entire 19th century, and ironically by the time the M1908 British and American M1913 huge bowlguard swords were introduced, the sword itself was essentially obsolete.

There was some intriguing study written by J.Christoph Amberger in his "Secret History of the Sword" concerning the medical aspects of sword combat, which despite sounding gruesome, was actually compelling when read objectively. There were some other similar studies done concerning the nature of warfare injuries revealed in archaeological discoveries that pertained mostly to Anglo-Saxon and Norse studies if I recall.

All best regards,
Jim

[Jim McDougall]

[QUOTE=celtan]Hi Jim,

The medical aspects would make a very interesting sub-subject. Since you seem to have given a lot of thought to the subject, would you care to expound on same?

Best

Manolo




Hi Manolo,
It really is interesting, though I will confess, it is the least appealing aspect of studying weapons to me. It is of course obvious that swords were intended for a purpose, that is to kill and maim, and the results are not nearly as inspiring as the tradition and romantic aesthetics of the weapon.

I prefer to focus on the more subtle symbolism, history and developmental aspects of weapons, despite acknowledging some of the necessary recognition associated with thier use.

Thank you for your expressed confidence in my perspective though, received as a welcome compliment considering your own profound medical knowledge and its potential application in understanding the use of weapons. My observations would be cursory in comparison, as I've only briefly seen the references I mentioned.

All very best regards,
Jim