British pipeback parabolic blade saber c. 1801

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
I would have designated this a Flank Officers sword of the Napoleonic era rather than a cavalry sword. The curvature of the blade and the canted hilt would suggest to me that this is the more probable attribution.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Jim,
I would have designated this a Flank Officers sword of the Napoleonic era rather than a cavalry sword. The curvature of the blade and the canted hilt would suggest to me that this is the more probable attribution.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Norman,
Thank you, and that has always been a consideration given the dramatic curve of several, I think of one 1803 lionhead with such a blade. I wonder what the purpose ? might be? The Napoleonic era was such a fashion parade, especially with the 'hussar' phenomenon, and any dramatic effect seems to have been almost a contest.
'Mines curvier' ! etc.
The huge drags on the scabbard chape were for the low slung sabers to make noise as the hussar swaggered, the tall shako's for addition of height to look more formidable etc.

I cannot imagine a pragmatic reason for such curve unless perhaps more cutting surface in closer quarters?

Best
Jim

[kronckew]

I suspect flank officers were more likely to get into hand-to-hand combat with no time for fancy duelling, so lots of slashing at close range.

Pipe backed blades are notoriously bad cutters as the spine tends to stop any further downward progress of the cut. Surprising to see one in flank officers form. This one would also be rather useless for giving point.

Impressive tho.

[Will M]

I've read that pipe backed blades that cuts were hampered by the pipe back but I have not seen any real testing to confirm this. The pipe back possibly 1/4" wide and rounded may not slow the cut as much as some perceive. The blades are quite thin and can be razor sharp and you are cutting in about 1" before the pipe back would contact the target. There may be Youtube videos using such swords to evaluate cuts? Being thin blades they would be more likely to break during use.

[kronckew]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK34V1P07bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VAHQ6advQ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK34V1P07bs

Matt does like to talk....

Info on flank officers swords: https://collections.royalarmouries.o...ative-469.html

[Hotspur]

A side note in nomenclature. British models were prefixed with a p. p1796, etc. I'll let the gods debate the scope of flank officer swords but my understanding is that the term accommodates both the less curved and more curved blades, p1796 type hilts and the later 1803 hilts. I am now curious how the term "flank officer" was coined and used by the British army, or indeed if it is a more modern affectation.

That is a really early looking pipe back. I thought that those blades in England arose in the 1820s.

Cheers
GC

[Will M]

I did see Matts video on these after posting here. I could not find any cutting videos with this blade type.
The Royal Armouries have some good swords but I find many listed have no photos, typically described as the ones I would like to see.

[Will M]

Pipe backed swords can cut a good inch or so before contacting the pipe back. Choice targets would be the neck, head, under the arm, inner thigh etc.
I would believe that an inch deep slash in the neck would be sudfficient to kill.
I have an officers 1821p cavalry sword with original sharpening and I would not wish to be cut with it. I think only bone would slow the blade on contacting the pipe back. I don't think you need to cut deeper to disable your opponent.
Cutting off an head, arm or torso sounds fantastic but is beyond what is required.
I'd like to see period accounts that measure cut depth and who survived and what level of cut and in which locations. There are few accounts of being wounded with a bayonet so many believe there were few bayonet injuries, not the case. Bayonet wounds were mostly fatal and doctors did not waste time observing the dead, only the living.

[kronckew]

A disabling Wound is far more strategically important. A dead man stops using precious resources. A wounded man keeps using them without depriving the enemy of anything. It ties up about 5 men to look after, move, feed one wounded man, and they need food, equipment and housing as well.

(Historically, a badly wounded man was most likely going to die of complications and/or infection later anyway.)

[M ELEY]

Excellent point, Wayne, and exactly the type of thought process involved with naval fighting/boarding parties. Why kill if you can just take the fight out of them. Just as a surrendered ship was worth more whole than shot to pieces, wounded men can be ransomed or prisoner exchange, might die later of wounds, etc. I'm in the medical field (15 years as a paramedic and 16 as a nurse) and I've seen lots of wounds. Just because a pipeback might only slash an inch or so deep, that is easily enough to lacerate a liver, sever an artery, crack a skull, etc. Just sayin'-

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

...I'm in the medical field (15 years as a paramedic and 16 as a nurse) and I've seen lots of wounds. Just because a pipeback might only slash an inch or so deep, that is easily enough to lacerate a liver, sever an artery, crack a skull, etc. Just sayin'-

I've always wondered how many people in the US cavalry vs. Native American wars of the 19c would have been saved if they'd been issued mail shirts, which DO stop arrows, especially from horse bows, swords & knives, tomahawks such as used by their opponents. they'd do a good job for pipeback sabres too! Especially if they used nice modern steel alloys and all-welded rings.