why sabre ?

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.

Jens Nordlunde · 27th March 2005, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom hyle

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.

If this is so, it would be interesting to see which documentation/arguments the cavalry generals used to convince the different Ministries of War, that the blade types they were using should be changed.

Jim McDougall · 27th March 2005, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tom hyle

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.

Tom,
Please note that the material I have presented here is not intended to be considered 'evidence'. The cited data consists of narratives of either participants or observers reflecting actual situations or events and their observations on the effectiveness of the swords in combat. I do not think that these are necessarily 'experts' especially not in 'empirical' study, but professionals stating opinions. As I noted, the data presented was anything but empirical as the results would have been seriously flawed by the qualification or lack of, with the participants using the weapons studied. This was the reason I mentioned the lack of training data.

We have been discussing the advantages of the cut vs. the thrust in either fatality or serious wounding of combatants. I think it would be extremely difficult to conduct traditional 'empirical' study on this particular topic as it would require human victims. I think the only instance I can think of with this type of rather horrific result would have been early Samurai who actually tested blades on human flesh.

The closest thing we have to empirical study on this subject would have been the evaluatory observations of various military or fencing proponents of developing more effective use of the different weapons. These consist of assorted papers and essays discussing mostly sword or blade dynamics and again, remain a matter of opinion and most certainly not empirical tests.

One of the best known instances of this may be seen with Maj Gen. Gaspard Le Marchant, a British cavalry officer who is credited with promoting and finally designing the famed pattern 1796 light cavalry sabre and installing it as one of the first official regulation patterns. He was considered a brilliant professional soldier, and died in a charge at Salamanca, Spain on 22 July, 1812. While a gallant and proficient cavalryman, he was considered a "Scientific Soldier" (title of his biography by R.H.Thoumaine, 1968).
He was clearly a proponent of the cutting sabre and based his theories and design on observations in actual combat, especially those of Austrian cavalry in Flanders 1793. The bulk of notes and memoirs are unpublished (most are in the National Army Museum in London).

Sir Richard Burton, an accomplished swordsman and professional soldier who is of course well known for his "Book of the Sword" (1884) among may other achievements, notes "...there is no question of superiority between the thrust and the cut". He uses fencing technique and diagrams to illustrate that the delivery of point has distinct advantage in time and distance over and opponent using the edge, which requires the distance of an arc rather than straight line (op.cit. p.127). He notes however that human nature instinctively will tend toward the cut or strike than the trained thrust. I think this was also mentioned in one of the items mentioned in my previous post which noted inclination to 'wild' cutting in excited situations.
Sir Richard also placed his thoughts and ideas in writing, matters of opinion and observation, clearly not 'empirical' study. It is interesting to note how by this time in the 19th century, various 'design' issues on cavalry swords and complaints had led the general opinion toward the thrust and away from the cut. The deadly results seen in the Napoleonic wars of the thrusting swords of the cuirassiers remained strongly considered, and in the Crimea, British cavalry attempts at slashing at the heavily bundled and greatcoated Russian troopers were useless. Again, hardly empirical study but extremely clear results brought to discussion by professionals considering practical application for weapons in critical situations.

It must be remembered also that the debate of cut vs. thrust had a great deal to do as well with a degree of social status. The officers were from families of rank and nobility and of course highly trained in the dexterity of fencing. This of course taught the thrust, considered artistic and proper, not to mention its mortality.
Conversely, Asiatic and Eastern European horsemen had quite a different perspective, "...the kindjhal was used slashingly. The 'cut' was 'de riguer'. To kill with the point lacked artistry. Weapons were a cult as dear as honour itself". ("The Sabres of Paradise" , Leslie Blanch, N.Y.1960, p.6, discussing the use of edged weapons in the Caucusus).
It would seem that even artistic or chivalrous merit must have had a degree of consideration in the many heated discussions concerning the design and style of the swords of the 19th century, and the stubborn adherence to such tradition would have made any serious empirical study impossible.

Thus, the merits of cut vs. thrust must be considered primarily subjective and a matter of professional opinions rather than empirically proven conclusion. The last official regulation cavalry swords were the British M1908, followed by the U.S. Patton M1913, both thrusting swords and considered the final and ultimate cavalry swords. While the British swords did see combat, the Patton swords never did, and production on them ceased in 1919 . I was once able to handle a British M1912 officers version of the 1908, in visiting a British Brigadier who had carried it in a cavalry charge in the Northwest Frontier in 1932. It was a beautifully balanced weapon, but seems not to have actually seen use as the charge was a bit of a rout. In retrospect I wish I could have asked more on 'how' it was to have been used.

As I have noted, as far as I know there have been no specifically designed studies or empirical tests to measure cut vs. thrust as applied to sword design. While uncertain of Eastern European or other countries attention to this topic, there are probably literally tons of papers concerning the never ending complaints on swords and other weapons in British records. Brian Robson in "Swords of the British Army" presents well referenced notes that cite many of these resources in discussions on the development of many of the official patterns. Most of these records are held in the National Army Museum in London and several other official offices, and Mr. Robson deserves high praise for his tenacity in the research he accomplished in these very intimidating archives.

Best regards,
Jim

Rivkin · 27th March 2005, 08:58 PM

Concerning the use of kindjals for cuts rather than thrusts:

Unfortunately I do not know of any english translation of any of the numerous georgian books and articles on caucasian ethics, so I'll have to use my words.

In theory (in real life more often than not people were not able or not willing to fully adher to the Code of Honor) the proper behavior during a duel included:

a. One should offer his opponent to strike first.
b. After parrying his attack (hopefully), one's own attack should be delievered with a hilt or a non-sharp side of one's sword (back side). The reason was to demonstrate one's courage, exceptional skill and mercy over the opponent.
c. If the attack was successful and there is a clear understand that the use of the sharp edge would result in the opponent's death, it was his duty to admit the defeat. Otherwise the duel continues, until he is knocked out or severely wounded.

In war the same custom prevailed - opponent should be disarmed or wounded, but delievering a known to be letal blow was considered to display one's cowardice or pathological brutality.

Exceptions were allowed - in case of revenge (this included all prolonged military conflicts, since over time incidents of cruelty on both sides would lead to the accumualtion of "blood debts") only lethal strikes should be delivered.
Another exception was a conflict where the military defeat would result in the destruction of the whole tribe.

It's interesting that the violators of the Code of Honor in the time of war would be referred to as "Mongols", no association with blood mongols, and not exactly a derogative term, but it was the mark that defined that this person does not abide by traditions.

The same custom applied to ring-fighting and kindjal duels.

Since a kindjal was considered to be a thrust only weapon, it's sides were considered to be similar to a sabre's "back side" and therefore they could've been used in duels and wars, as far as there is no vengeance among the fighting. Traditional way to display one's intention to kill was to put some blood over kindjal's scabbard.

Afaik that's the explanation behind using kindjals for cuts.

26th March 2005, 05:43 PM	#2
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	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,627	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, 05:12 PM	#1
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	#3
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	#5
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.

27th March 2005, 08:58 PM	#8
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Concerning the use of kindjals for cuts rather than thrusts: Unfortunately I do not know of any english translation of any of the numerous georgian books and articles on caucasian ethics, so I'll have to use my words. In theory (in real life more often than not people were not able or not willing to fully adher to the Code of Honor) the proper behavior during a duel included: a. One should offer his opponent to strike first. b. After parrying his attack (hopefully), one's own attack should be delievered with a hilt or a non-sharp side of one's sword (back side). The reason was to demonstrate one's courage, exceptional skill and mercy over the opponent. c. If the attack was successful and there is a clear understand that the use of the sharp edge would result in the opponent's death, it was his duty to admit the defeat. Otherwise the duel continues, until he is knocked out or severely wounded. In war the same custom prevailed - opponent should be disarmed or wounded, but delievering a known to be letal blow was considered to display one's cowardice or pathological brutality. Exceptions were allowed - in case of revenge (this included all prolonged military conflicts, since over time incidents of cruelty on both sides would lead to the accumualtion of "blood debts") only lethal strikes should be delivered. Another exception was a conflict where the military defeat would result in the destruction of the whole tribe. It's interesting that the violators of the Code of Honor in the time of war would be referred to as "Mongols", no association with blood mongols, and not exactly a derogative term, but it was the mark that defined that this person does not abide by traditions. The same custom applied to ring-fighting and kindjal duels. Since a kindjal was considered to be a thrust only weapon, it's sides were considered to be similar to a sabre's "back side" and therefore they could've been used in duels and wars, as far as there is no vengeance among the fighting. Traditional way to display one's intention to kill was to put some blood over kindjal's scabbard. Afaik that's the explanation behind using kindjals for cuts.