Pen is mightier than the sword

fearn · 8th May 2011, 10:31 PM

So far as I know, the pen is mightier than the sword, but only if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp. (Courtesy Sir T Pratchett).

Rick · 8th May 2011, 11:34 PM

We try to leave the schoolboy humor in the cloakroom .....

fernando · 9th May 2011, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

We try to leave the schoolboy humor in the cloakroom .....

Sure thing.
Thread title edited.

Jim McDougall · 9th May 2011, 03:00 PM

Hi David,
Just to return to your original topic, which is really a great one for discussion. I know exactly what you mean with your original title but I wanted to get on board with the course you wanted to set about the disconnected development of regulation patterns.

The sword you chose as an illustration (the cabbage cutter) was a great one, and really shows the 'looks good on paper' syndrome. Sort of reminds me of the old one, 'definition of a camel" a horse designed by a committee'!

With regulation military swords, often there was much more concern with 'fashion' than effectiveness toward the end of the 18th century, and France by then was in its neo-classic stage. The French Revolution carried forth many allusions to the ancients in its themes and particularly Roman subjects, so the later adoption of the 'gladius' atavistically in military setting is hardly surprising. At least they did not have the troops start wearing togas!

The close ties to France after the American Revolution in many respects led to following thier lead in military fashion, and many of the U.S. military swords and elements of uniform followed French military fashion. Here again, the patently decorative 'gladius' type weapon was adopted for the artillery officers in 1833, and indeed later found its way into Confederate use by the time of the Civil War. The bizarre similarity to to ancient Roman swords in at least one instance presented an interesting conundrum to a 'would be' archaeologist a number of years ago, I believe it was in the New York area.
One of these was dug up inadvertantly, and in a news item declared to be evidence of Romans in America from ancient times!!!! Pretty sure his chagrin must have proven unbearable soon thereafter.

Despite the colorful portrayals of sabre waving charges during the Civil War, in actuality swords were seldom really used, and commonly not even sharpened. Naturally there were exceptions in degree with certain officers in flamboyant circumstances, but with rank and file troops, these were mostly a traditionally dictated encumbrance. In medical terms in references I have seen over the years, it is noted that of the remarkably few sword related wounds seen, most were blunt force trauma, further suggesting less than sharp blades. In addition, most troops were poorly trained in sword excercise, which is one of the leading reasons why the M1840 heavy cavalry sabre was nicknamed 'the old wristbreaker'. It was actually a very effective sabre, if used properly, however if not....indeed could result in painful repercussions.

Another unfortunate experiment in trying to adopt the use of anachronistic weaponry a'la European style by Union troops were the few units of cavalry assigned to become lancer units. This was largely disastrous, and the men were from most accounts far more dangerous to each other than to a potential enemy combatant. Again, Im sure there are opposing perspectives (which Id love to hear!) but what I read was as noted. As far as use of the lance in North America, its use by American Indian warriors and Spanish lanceros was tremendously effective (one of the most remarkable events of Californio lancers being at the Battle of San Pasqual during the Mexican War).

With the British, one of the greatest advances in the development of effective regulation swords was with LeMarchant, a brilliant young cavalry officer who proposed what became the first officially recognized military pattern cavalry swords in 1796. Though the heavy cavalry sword was ill received, the light cavalry sabre proved to be one of the most effective sabres known, and despite being superceded by other patterns subsequently, remained in use throughout the 19th and even into the 20th century. For cavalry swords, it was always the battle of cut vs. thrust and the never ending quest for the universal sword that could effectively deliver both.
By the time the issue was 'resolved' (with M1908 British and M1913 'Patton' US swords) the sword was for all intents and purposes obsolete. The M1908 British swords were actually used though, while the 'Pattons' never saw combat.

As always, I hope these notes will add perspective and possibly even more discussion. Thanks for posting the topic David!

All best regards,
Jim

fernando · 9th May 2011, 04:56 PM

Hi Jim,
Very interesting and rather wise reasoning on the theme of swords anachronism, as opposed to the period in which 'right swords were used in right hands', a binomial in which the gladius appears to be one of the more charismatic examples.
On the other hand, the climax of the gladius in the hands of Romans was itself an ascension of this sword, as having being copied from other peoples and adapted and regulated to their (Roman) tactical needs.
That's why they candidly called it Gladius Hispaniensis, as having faced it in the hands of Iberians and Celts, when they fought them in the Iberian Peninsula, which they called Hispania.
Actualy it appears that a common Roman practice was, like with the gladius, adopting and improving foreigner weapons.
... Not meaning at all that such practice is a demerit.

katana · 9th May 2011, 08:24 PM

Thank you Gentlemen for your replies

Hi GC

,
thank you for the pictures and references.I am not certain, but I think some infantry units were also equiped with this sword. However, as an artillary sword I still think, assuming that its combat effectiveness was not paramount, a machete would have been a much better option to clear 'brush' etc. The 'gadius' in this situation was neither combat effective or really that good at cutting foilage. Artillary positions were often main targets of any strategic offensive. Often with the intention of over-running a position and gaining control of the cannon ....and then using it to bombard the original 'owners'. This often meant soldiers would eventually end up fighting 'up close and personal' either defending/attacking the cannon position. After all, the quicker a cannon position is taken the better ...and a stand-off position with defenders and attackers exchanging volleys of lead would allow the cannon to be still used against your troops or alternatively give the defenders time to 'spike' the cannon, making it inoperative.

Hi Jim

,
excellent summary. Even though the sword was 'superceded' by firearms, it still had its place as a back-up weapon. Obviously with the very slow reloading times of early firearms ...bayonets were introduced, effectively making your musket a spear, previously the musket was employed as a club. In this situation, I personally would prefer to be armed with a good sword, it would be easier to parry the thrust of a bayonet. The only down side is the fact that the musket becomes an incumberance ...unless you can 'sling' it over your shoulder.

Never the less, I believe any weapon....even a back-up weapon should be the best design that 'fits' the style of combat. Feedback from the battle field should have dictated the evolution of sword design but, it seems that bureaucrats had other considerations ....cost, etc. Perhaps there was even arrogance that 'we are better..irrispective of the weapons we use'

Interestingly you mentioned the LC1796 (one of my favorite 'pattern' swords.....one day I hope to have one....but I digress

) After watching a documentary it was mentioned that the French were abhored by the wounds inflicted by this sabre. Apparently though, many of the wounds were not lethal....whereas the French 'thrusting' swords, were on balance more likely to kill, rather than wound. Perhaps, this started the 'thinking' that newer British pattern swords should be designed with the 'thrust' in mind...over the 'cut' ?

My other 'concern' of Regulation pattern swords is that fundermentally they would be identical. Blade length, hilt size etc. This would mean that a sword was not necessarily suited to an individual, making it less effective. If we look at the Tulwar, for instance......it is a sword that is easily recognised (pattern ?) but, the differing weight, blade size etc varies enormously. I appreciate that from an armies point of view the cost of variations would be prohibative, especially with 'mass production' of one type of blade which by comparision would be relatively cheap. But the military regulations prohihibiting personal modification seems shortsighted as often soldiers in India (away from government officials) made un-official mods that were 'tolerated locally'.

Hi 'Nando

,
you're right the Romans were indeed very good at adopting 'weapon technology' but, this also helps my point. Millitary input would have inflenced these 'adoptions' not 'back office pen pushers' that 'plagued' later Nations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fearn

So far as I know, the pen is mightier than the sword, but only if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp. (Courtesy Sir T Pratchett).

Hi Fearn

,
great author, great line......but I still wouldn't take a fountain pen to a knife fight ....no matter how small the blades are.....think I'll follow Sean Connory's (Untouchables) advice....I'd take a gun

Kind Regards David

aiontay · 9th May 2011, 09:05 PM

If I remember correctly, the Roman short sword was primarily a thrusting/stabbing weapon and recruits spent a lot of time training with extra heavy wooden swords and shields on wooden posts to develop their technique. In addition the Romans wore body armor and frequently enjoyed tactical and technological advantages over their opponents. I don't think any of these things held true for the artillery guys issued a faux Roman short sword. No wonder it didn't work too well for them.

8th May 2011, 10:31 PM	#1
fearn Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,247	So far as I know, the pen is mightier than the sword, but only if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp. (Courtesy Sir T Pratchett).

8th May 2011, 11:34 PM	#2
Rick Vikingsword Staff Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,336	We try to leave the schoolboy humor in the cloakroom .....

9th May 2011, 03:00 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Hi David, Just to return to your original topic, which is really a great one for discussion. I know exactly what you mean with your original title but I wanted to get on board with the course you wanted to set about the disconnected development of regulation patterns. The sword you chose as an illustration (the cabbage cutter) was a great one, and really shows the 'looks good on paper' syndrome. Sort of reminds me of the old one, 'definition of a camel" a horse designed by a committee'! With regulation military swords, often there was much more concern with 'fashion' than effectiveness toward the end of the 18th century, and France by then was in its neo-classic stage. The French Revolution carried forth many allusions to the ancients in its themes and particularly Roman subjects, so the later adoption of the 'gladius' atavistically in military setting is hardly surprising. At least they did not have the troops start wearing togas! The close ties to France after the American Revolution in many respects led to following thier lead in military fashion, and many of the U.S. military swords and elements of uniform followed French military fashion. Here again, the patently decorative 'gladius' type weapon was adopted for the artillery officers in 1833, and indeed later found its way into Confederate use by the time of the Civil War. The bizarre similarity to to ancient Roman swords in at least one instance presented an interesting conundrum to a 'would be' archaeologist a number of years ago, I believe it was in the New York area. One of these was dug up inadvertantly, and in a news item declared to be evidence of Romans in America from ancient times!!!! Pretty sure his chagrin must have proven unbearable soon thereafter. Despite the colorful portrayals of sabre waving charges during the Civil War, in actuality swords were seldom really used, and commonly not even sharpened. Naturally there were exceptions in degree with certain officers in flamboyant circumstances, but with rank and file troops, these were mostly a traditionally dictated encumbrance. In medical terms in references I have seen over the years, it is noted that of the remarkably few sword related wounds seen, most were blunt force trauma, further suggesting less than sharp blades. In addition, most troops were poorly trained in sword excercise, which is one of the leading reasons why the M1840 heavy cavalry sabre was nicknamed 'the old wristbreaker'. It was actually a very effective sabre, if used properly, however if not....indeed could result in painful repercussions. Another unfortunate experiment in trying to adopt the use of anachronistic weaponry a'la European style by Union troops were the few units of cavalry assigned to become lancer units. This was largely disastrous, and the men were from most accounts far more dangerous to each other than to a potential enemy combatant. Again, Im sure there are opposing perspectives (which Id love to hear!) but what I read was as noted. As far as use of the lance in North America, its use by American Indian warriors and Spanish lanceros was tremendously effective (one of the most remarkable events of Californio lancers being at the Battle of San Pasqual during the Mexican War). With the British, one of the greatest advances in the development of effective regulation swords was with LeMarchant, a brilliant young cavalry officer who proposed what became the first officially recognized military pattern cavalry swords in 1796. Though the heavy cavalry sword was ill received, the light cavalry sabre proved to be one of the most effective sabres known, and despite being superceded by other patterns subsequently, remained in use throughout the 19th and even into the 20th century. For cavalry swords, it was always the battle of cut vs. thrust and the never ending quest for the universal sword that could effectively deliver both. By the time the issue was 'resolved' (with M1908 British and M1913 'Patton' US swords) the sword was for all intents and purposes obsolete. The M1908 British swords were actually used though, while the 'Pattons' never saw combat. As always, I hope these notes will add perspective and possibly even more discussion. Thanks for posting the topic David! All best regards, Jim

9th May 2011, 04:56 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Hi Jim, Very interesting and rather wise reasoning on the theme of swords anachronism, as opposed to the period in which 'right swords were used in right hands', a binomial in which the gladius appears to be one of the more charismatic examples. On the other hand, the climax of the gladius in the hands of Romans was itself an ascension of this sword, as having being copied from other peoples and adapted and regulated to their (Roman) tactical needs. That's why they candidly called it Gladius Hispaniensis, as having faced it in the hands of Iberians and Celts, when they fought them in the Iberian Peninsula, which they called Hispania. Actualy it appears that a common Roman practice was, like with the gladius, adopting and improving foreigner weapons. ... Not meaning at all that such practice is a demerit.

9th May 2011, 09:05 PM	#7
aiontay Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 88	If I remember correctly, the Roman short sword was primarily a thrusting/stabbing weapon and recruits spent a lot of time training with extra heavy wooden swords and shields on wooden posts to develop their technique. In addition the Romans wore body armor and frequently enjoyed tactical and technological advantages over their opponents. I don't think any of these things held true for the artillery guys issued a faux Roman short sword. No wonder it didn't work too well for them.