why sabre ?

Jens Nordlunde · 26th March 2005, 04:33 PM

I think the discussion it very interesting, and it keeps coming up with different intervals.

What makes me wonder is, why the generals, or whoever decided to change the blade types did so, at the time they were in use, they knew the strength and the weakness in both types of blade. Are there not notes somewhere from the time, in which the problem is discussed, so that we, from the notes, can learn which arguments were used for the change?

I agree that a curves sword sounds more logic for the cavalry, but as the costs, changing the swords must have been rather high, there must have been a good reason for the change.

Jens

tom hyle · 26th March 2005, 05:01 PM

The documents probably do still exist somewhere. I remember seeing a reprint of the US Army memo on why they were discontinuing swords; they had an ideal weight for a soldier to carry, and it was sword or shovel; so that wasn't a directly fighting reason at all! My impression concerning the matter is that the idea of the superiority of the thrust and of what they called "scientific fencing" was a heavily dogmatized idea with the European over-culture (still is, too); I do not feel it was accurate/true, but it was a cultural level belief. One imagines lightness to be a consideration as well, but that's just a guess.
A wounded enemy can still be dangerous, but as I've said previously, primarily if he has a puncture wound; a good slash will often/usually sever muscles and actually mechanically disable someone. We've had this discussion at length before; slash vs. thrust; won't someone who can please link it?

Jens Nordlunde · 26th March 2005, 05:12 PM

I have no doubt that the documents discussing this subject excists in bothe America and in Europe - so, why does someone not go out and find them, so we have the evidence for the change, instead the guessing?

Jens

tom hyle · 26th March 2005, 05:43 PM

Go ahead. But the reasons stated by experts may not be entirely in line with the real superiorities/capabilities of the swords, of course; it is important to factor in the forces of cultural dogmatism concerning "scientific fencing"/thrusting superiority. It is important to remember that by the time in which European soldiers were criticising cutting they had evidently forgotten how to cut well (and this is quite noticeable in reading one of their famed swordsmen; Richard burton, whose understanding of the cut was, and I hope the English don't come after me, quite rudimentary.), so any experiments they did might only prove that cutting poorly doesn't equal thrusting well....they were routinely shocked by the cutting power of Tartars, Arabs, etc. (and you can read of this in period accounts) who knew how to cut; maybe they should've gotten carpenters and butchers to train the soldiers to cut; the common working folk in Europe never forgot this, much as they kept using the old style laminated/differentially hardened blades. They seem to have somewhat given up proper sword-cutting when the armour reached its best, and never readopted after guns alleged to make armour obsolete (it's back now, and it's for bullets).
I find that the circularity of the (pardon me) proper cutting motion makes a nice combination with a curved blade, too.....

Jens Nordlunde · 26th March 2005, 09:38 PM

Sorry Tom, we must have misunderstood each other, what I meant was to get the papers from when this was decided, and to see what arguments the commities/generals had for changing the blade types.
Jens

Jim McDougall · 27th March 2005, 06:14 AM

This is a very interesting thread, and I wanted to add some various material in old notes etc. as the subject of cut vs. thrust is one that has come up constantly in many studies of edged weapons. Probably the most prevalent discussions and controversies that record such discussions would be with British attention to this topic beginning in the latter 18th century in studies to find the ideal cavalry sword. Ironically these debates would continue into the 20th century.
Although detailed attention was directed to strategy, tactics etc. in most European armies, "...contemporary military manuals illustrate how little attention had been given to the actual use of the edged sidearm in combat situations for centuries" ("Secret History of the Sword" J.C.Amberger, 1996, p.31, referring to Prussian cavalry regulations c.1747).

In various observations reviewed in a number of resources, it seems that the thrust categorically won favor for its deadly effect, however it must be also noted that the slashing cut of the sabre in properly trained hands was most certainly effective. In fact, at Waterloo, Napoleon complained of the barbarous use of the huge M1796 British light cavalry sabres. Another narrative does qualify this somewhat, noting that "...it is worthy of remark that scarcely one Frenchman died of his wounds although dreadfully chopped, whereas 12 English dragoons were killed on the spot and others dangerously wounded by thrusts" ("Swords of the British Army", B.Robson, p.26, citing Capt. Bragge 3rd Dragoons, Peninsula, 1812).

In latter studies on cut vs, thrust, in 1913, then Lt. George Patton is noted in that "...his thesis was that the thrust with the point of a sword is deadlier than a blow from its edge. He cited Marshal Maurice de Saxe and Napoleon on the value of thrusting with the point". ("The Patton Mind" , Roger H.Nye, 1993, pp.33-34).

In "Sword, Lance and Bayonet" (Ffoulkes & Hopkinson, N.Y.1938, p.18) "...all authorities consider that thrusting with the sword is more effectual and that the wounds thus produced are more difficult to heal than those from a cut, and all agree that a thrusting sword is better for the cavalry". This taken from comments by Gen. Sir C. Beauchamp Walker, Journal of the Royal United Services Institution, Vo.XXXIII, 766. However, he comments further, "...though the use of the point is essential in the charge, it cannot be used in close quarters melee and that a man must cut his way out".

The next comments are key;
"...the main objection to the cutting weapon is that except in the case of the expert swordsman the tendancy in moments of excitement is to cut wildly, more often with the flat than the edge leading". (John Latham, "The Shape of Sword Blades", Ffoulkes op.cit. p.18).
Robson notes (p.34), "...very often the troopers were not well trained in the difficult art of mounted swordsmanship" (Cavalry Journal , III pp.470-4).

Therefore it would seem that the debate is actually more a question of dynamics vs. pathology and qualified use of both cut and thrust depending on situation. The thrust certainly would typically prove fatal, though not
necessarily instantaneously. In a study on this particular aspect in 1996, Frank Lurz, Military Master of Arms at San Jose State University noted that "...exsanguination is the principle mechanism of death caused by stabbing and incising wounds and death by this means is seldom instantaneous", and notes further that the combatant may continue for varying periods of time. This seems to make sense as in the stress of combat with massive adrenaline, and near frenzy , many thus wounded combatants have been known to continue fighting for even extended periods of time.

As I have noted , this controversy carried on for well over a century and as far as I know there was never really an empirically conducted 'study' that offered conclusive results. These references are but a few that occur in many resources concerning edged weapons, so to gather recorded data on this subject would be quite an undertaking. Hopefully these will illustrate the general consensus though.

Returning to the reference to the "old wristbreaker" :
This was a colloquial term for the U.S. cavalry M1840 sabre, which was not a thrusting sword, but a heavy sabre with a blade nearly 36" long. The origin for this term remains folklore, however probably came from the weight and poor balance of the sabre itself. These were patterned after the French M1822, which had been carried temporarily by the U.S. 1st Dragoons and swords based on them were ordered from a Solingen maker. During the war with Mexico in 1846, the complaints began that it was too heavy and no comparison to its French prototype. Whether the 'wristbreaker' term developed then or during its continued use in the Civil War is uncertain. The soldiers disliked these cumbersome, heavy sabres and frankly had no idea how to use them. As the Civil War developed, the sabres were dutifully carried and seldom ever used, but as John William Turner notes ("The Last Bright Blades" , 1982)..." it took time to train a good cavalryman in the use of the sabre from horseback, and there was not enough time".

On the difficulty with 'straight sabres'. I think this gets into rather generic application of a term and in the latter 18th century the officers single edge sword typically with knucklebow was termed a 'spadroon' and considered a straight sabre. The most common of these were the 'five ball hilt' examples of c.1780-1810. In most cases it seems the term sabre is often loosely applied much in the same sense as sa'if can apply to a straight broadsword or an Arabian sabre, which incidentally also often have straight single edged blades.

And that is my thrust on these matters

Best regards,
Jim

tom hyle · 27th March 2005, 01:07 PM

Note the types of this evidence; the experts all agree, or experts refer to other experts; nothing empirical. Note their own citation that bad cutting was the problem with cutting.

26th March 2005, 05:43 PM	#4
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Go ahead. But the reasons stated by experts may not be entirely in line with the real superiorities/capabilities of the swords, of course; it is important to factor in the forces of cultural dogmatism concerning "scientific fencing"/thrusting superiority. It is important to remember that by the time in which European soldiers were criticising cutting they had evidently forgotten how to cut well (and this is quite noticeable in reading one of their famed swordsmen; Richard burton, whose understanding of the cut was, and I hope the English don't come after me, quite rudimentary.), so any experiments they did might only prove that cutting poorly doesn't equal thrusting well....they were routinely shocked by the cutting power of Tartars, Arabs, etc. (and you can read of this in period accounts) who knew how to cut; maybe they should've gotten carpenters and butchers to train the soldiers to cut; the common working folk in Europe never forgot this, much as they kept using the old style laminated/differentially hardened blades. They seem to have somewhat given up proper sword-cutting when the armour reached its best, and never readopted after guns alleged to make armour obsolete (it's back now, and it's for bullets). I find that the circularity of the (pardon me) proper cutting motion makes a nice combination with a curved blade, too..... Last edited by tom hyle; 26th March 2005 at 06:17 PM.

27th March 2005, 06:14 AM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,644	This is a very interesting thread, and I wanted to add some various material in old notes etc. as the subject of cut vs. thrust is one that has come up constantly in many studies of edged weapons. Probably the most prevalent discussions and controversies that record such discussions would be with British attention to this topic beginning in the latter 18th century in studies to find the ideal cavalry sword. Ironically these debates would continue into the 20th century. Although detailed attention was directed to strategy, tactics etc. in most European armies, "...contemporary military manuals illustrate how little attention had been given to the actual use of the edged sidearm in combat situations for centuries" ("Secret History of the Sword" J.C.Amberger, 1996, p.31, referring to Prussian cavalry regulations c.1747). In various observations reviewed in a number of resources, it seems that the thrust categorically won favor for its deadly effect, however it must be also noted that the slashing cut of the sabre in properly trained hands was most certainly effective. In fact, at Waterloo, Napoleon complained of the barbarous use of the huge M1796 British light cavalry sabres. Another narrative does qualify this somewhat, noting that "...it is worthy of remark that scarcely one Frenchman died of his wounds although dreadfully chopped, whereas 12 English dragoons were killed on the spot and others dangerously wounded by thrusts" ("Swords of the British Army", B.Robson, p.26, citing Capt. Bragge 3rd Dragoons, Peninsula, 1812). In latter studies on cut vs, thrust, in 1913, then Lt. George Patton is noted in that "...his thesis was that the thrust with the point of a sword is deadlier than a blow from its edge. He cited Marshal Maurice de Saxe and Napoleon on the value of thrusting with the point". ("The Patton Mind" , Roger H.Nye, 1993, pp.33-34). In "Sword, Lance and Bayonet" (Ffoulkes & Hopkinson, N.Y.1938, p.18) "...all authorities consider that thrusting with the sword is more effectual and that the wounds thus produced are more difficult to heal than those from a cut, and all agree that a thrusting sword is better for the cavalry". This taken from comments by Gen. Sir C. Beauchamp Walker, Journal of the Royal United Services Institution, Vo.XXXIII, 766. However, he comments further, "...though the use of the point is essential in the charge, it cannot be used in close quarters melee and that a man must cut his way out". The next comments are key; "...the main objection to the cutting weapon is that except in the case of the expert swordsman the tendancy in moments of excitement is to cut wildly, more often with the flat than the edge leading". (John Latham, "The Shape of Sword Blades", Ffoulkes op.cit. p.18). Robson notes (p.34), "...very often the troopers were not well trained in the difficult art of mounted swordsmanship" (Cavalry Journal , III pp.470-4). Therefore it would seem that the debate is actually more a question of dynamics vs. pathology and qualified use of both cut and thrust depending on situation. The thrust certainly would typically prove fatal, though not necessarily instantaneously. In a study on this particular aspect in 1996, Frank Lurz, Military Master of Arms at San Jose State University noted that "...exsanguination is the principle mechanism of death caused by stabbing and incising wounds and death by this means is seldom instantaneous", and notes further that the combatant may continue for varying periods of time. This seems to make sense as in the stress of combat with massive adrenaline, and near frenzy , many thus wounded combatants have been known to continue fighting for even extended periods of time. As I have noted , this controversy carried on for well over a century and as far as I know there was never really an empirically conducted 'study' that offered conclusive results. These references are but a few that occur in many resources concerning edged weapons, so to gather recorded data on this subject would be quite an undertaking. Hopefully these will illustrate the general consensus though. Returning to the reference to the "old wristbreaker" : This was a colloquial term for the U.S. cavalry M1840 sabre, which was not a thrusting sword, but a heavy sabre with a blade nearly 36" long. The origin for this term remains folklore, however probably came from the weight and poor balance of the sabre itself. These were patterned after the French M1822, which had been carried temporarily by the U.S. 1st Dragoons and swords based on them were ordered from a Solingen maker. During the war with Mexico in 1846, the complaints began that it was too heavy and no comparison to its French prototype. Whether the 'wristbreaker' term developed then or during its continued use in the Civil War is uncertain. The soldiers disliked these cumbersome, heavy sabres and frankly had no idea how to use them. As the Civil War developed, the sabres were dutifully carried and seldom ever used, but as John William Turner notes ("The Last Bright Blades" , 1982)..." it took time to train a good cavalryman in the use of the sabre from horseback, and there was not enough time". On the difficulty with 'straight sabres'. I think this gets into rather generic application of a term and in the latter 18th century the officers single edge sword typically with knucklebow was termed a 'spadroon' and considered a straight sabre. The most common of these were the 'five ball hilt' examples of c.1780-1810. In most cases it seems the term sabre is often loosely applied much in the same sense as sa'if can apply to a straight broadsword or an Arabian sabre, which incidentally also often have straight single edged blades. And that is my thrust on these matters Best regards, Jim Last edited by Jim McDougall; 27th March 2005 at 06:36 AM.

26th March 2005, 04:33 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I think the discussion it very interesting, and it keeps coming up with different intervals. What makes me wonder is, why the generals, or whoever decided to change the blade types did so, at the time they were in use, they knew the strength and the weakness in both types of blade. Are there not notes somewhere from the time, in which the problem is discussed, so that we, from the notes, can learn which arguments were used for the change? I agree that a curves sword sounds more logic for the cavalry, but as the costs, changing the swords must have been rather high, there must have been a good reason for the change. Jens

26th March 2005, 05:01 PM	#2
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	The documents probably do still exist somewhere. I remember seeing a reprint of the US Army memo on why they were discontinuing swords; they had an ideal weight for a soldier to carry, and it was sword or shovel; so that wasn't a directly fighting reason at all! My impression concerning the matter is that the idea of the superiority of the thrust and of what they called "scientific fencing" was a heavily dogmatized idea with the European over-culture (still is, too); I do not feel it was accurate/true, but it was a cultural level belief. One imagines lightness to be a consideration as well, but that's just a guess. A wounded enemy can still be dangerous, but as I've said previously, primarily if he has a puncture wound; a good slash will often/usually sever muscles and actually mechanically disable someone. We've had this discussion at length before; slash vs. thrust; won't someone who can please link it?

26th March 2005, 05:12 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I have no doubt that the documents discussing this subject excists in bothe America and in Europe - so, why does someone not go out and find them, so we have the evidence for the change, instead the guessing? Jens

26th March 2005, 09:38 PM	#5
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Sorry Tom, we must have misunderstood each other, what I meant was to get the papers from when this was decided, and to see what arguments the commities/generals had for changing the blade types. Jens

27th March 2005, 01:07 PM	#7
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Note the types of this evidence; the experts all agree, or experts refer to other experts; nothing empirical. Note their own citation that bad cutting was the problem with cutting.