Were sabres used effectively in U.S. Civil War?

Jim McDougall · 28th December 2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick

Jim, isn't the Sabre de rigeur for leading any sort of organised charge either on foot or horseback ?

Thanks so much Rick!!! Thats an excellent point....the sabre as used by officers was indeed a symbol of authority and in signaling. In this sense it was a symbolic element of tradition. I think that was what was so poignant about the Confederate officers being allowed to keep them during and after the surrender at Appomattox, a wonderfully respectful gesture.

I guess in a way my 'question' is a bit rheotorical, but I was hoping for those informative rebuttals that might prove flaws in my statements, which simply recount notes from the published material I have seen.

As distasteful as the image noted is, and outside the scope of the Civil War focus here, I did find an interesting note claiming that soldiers were actually ordered not to sharpen thier sabres during the Indian wars as they would become lodged in the victim.
It seems odd to negate the actual purpose of the weapon, and while there were some notably despicable attacks on villages, it would seem that the sabre for combat was not particularly favored. According to H.L.Peterson ("The American Sword" , p.16) the effectiveness of the sabre was virtually useless against the guerilla type tactics used by Indian warriors, and the sabre was "...frequently left behind when cavalry took to the field".

Returning to the Civil War, and with the 'order' not to sharpen sabres of the Indian wars period, I am wondering if perhaps the minute numbers of wounds throughout the Civil War recorded from sabres might have been due to injuries not of enough magnitude to require treatment. While blunt force trauma, such as one case with severe head wound caused by skull fracture (Beller. op.cit. p.30), not cutting, it does seem dull swords were a fact.
Since the soldier referred to here was a Union soldier, and reference has been made to poor training and sword maintainance of the rank and file in Union forces, it appears that this suggests the situation was comparable among Confederate rank and file.

If only minor injuries were sustained, such as bruising etc. from sword attacks, possibly this might explain the minimal instances reported.

Dmitry · 28th December 2009, 07:05 PM

Most 19th century sabers I have seen were never sharpened.

kronckew · 28th December 2009, 07:30 PM

i read recently somewhere that the southern forces cavalry favoured the pistol and were amused at the yankee cavalry's fondness for the sabre, southern use of cavalry as screening and reconnaissance as well as pursuit of running enemies was more effective than yankee sabre charges at organised masses of troops. actual battle between mounted units was rare.

maybe the yankees didn't get much chance to use the sabres if they were driven off by gunfire before they got in range. their use of repeating carbines was also laughed at as they were a difficult item to reload while on horseback, changing pre-loaded cylinders on revolvers was a tad easier, most southern horseman would carry several revolvers, and only officers might occasionally carry a sword. (also read the large D guard bowies were fairly well hated and not very useful, and were generally 'lost' pretty quickly so they didn't have to carry the ungainly things...)

unfortunately towards the end there were just too durn many yankees.

and some bright spark started supplying them with brass cartridges for their repeaters.

fernando · 28th December 2009, 07:31 PM

Maybe the following constitutes an amazing addition ... or contradiction

.
I was once investigating why the revolver, judging by the way holsters were made, was suspended by civil war troopers on the right side and in a inclined position, as to be drawn with the left hand.
The explanation was that, as the sabre was appointed to be the primary weapon, was to be held with the rigth hand; the revolver being a support item, was to be used by the left.
It appears that, at least theoreticaly, reliability laid on the edged weapon, in a period when firearms were already quite efective and, as discussed here, sabres were not even sharpened

.
Or should we assume that the symbolism of the sabre was superior to actual survival rules?

Fernando

Hotspur · 28th December 2009, 09:30 PM

Certainly, a great many more were lost to artillery (from all fired arms) and sickness than any of the other possibilities. I mention lost because most lists touted as pertinent to weapon use simply don't relate the numbers of the dead with circumstance clearly identified, rather those recorded as wounded. Jim alludes to that a bit.

Similar discussion over the years often draw information from some more related instances, such as Shelby sharpening a back edge and von Borcke (or another) relating kills via sword blows. It must simply have been a matter of luck from my own purchases over time that do show 19th century swords in general had been sharpened. Perhaps it was simply a less European outlook and armoury outlook regarding fielding sharp swords. There have certainly been enough examples presented in these threads to show the countries better versed in military operations continued to field sharps up into the 20th century.

I am not a terribly well read student of the American Civil War, aside from pursuing family genealogy and following some of those family members. Of them, I can count to some that started as cavalry and became attached more as mounted infantry. Others continuing to be numbered as cavalry (forage, melee type stuff) during the brief campaign of Price leading a surge back through Missouri. There have been noted battles in which massed cavalry charges were somewhat successful but my opinion and readings point to much more massive logistical use as troopers as mounted infantry (on both sides).

The somewhat mythological use of southern handguns probably needs to be addressed in such discussions but Hollywood (bolstererd by these myths) will too often relate the sheer number of guns some individuals are said to have carried. The truth and personal accounts will probably relate the records of some cavalry retaining swords when available, while maybe a select few were abandoning swords entirely (although shotguns and carbines were a good argument for mounted infantry use).

I hate to draw from states such as Missouri entirely in showing the lack of arms available for southern interests and masses of entirely unarmed that responded (by the time of the battle of Willow Creek) yet the use what one brought from home was only too true up through and beyond that state and the battle of Willow Creek. I do know my paternal gggrandfather (William Alfred Cleeton) went to Oregon as a school teacher instead of disagreeing with brothers and his father (James Cleeton), whom were southern campaigners/sympathizers. As well, first cousins in the Union infantry with one dying outside Atlanta and others surviving to pension. Then there are clear family evidences of pledging to the Union. Then promptly heading off back to Clark, Perkins and Price in rallying for the south once more.

Infantry use? Surely a lot less than might be numbered as used as a primary weapon and yes, a signaling device of sorts.

So where does that all lead back to sharp or not? The generally accepted truths that the 1860s offered little use of sharps is probably pretty accurate (in the big picture) while needing to understand there are still enough sharpened swords of the period and context to say it was not entirely unknown. Some of my Missouri notes keep reminding me of Lyon parading through town with a guard of well equipped cavalrymen. here is a post from me in 2004, easier than me plowing through a mess of bookmarks again.

Quote:

This is not the page I was looking for but it does show a fellow leaning on something with a similar hilt.

Germans in the Civil War: I goes to fight mit Sigel, by William Keel
http://www.ku.edu/kansas/ford/keel.html Edit for 2009 url update
http://www.skyways.org/orgs/fordco/keel.html

I'll be back. The terrible broadsword quote was something about Lyon's Hessians. OK, so it wasn't terrible broadswords (that quote was from somewhere else). Here is the page I remembered. Down a few paragraphs is the description of mounted Germans with massive swords.

Missouri In The Civil War, Chapter VI
http://www.civilwarhome.com/missouri6.htm
"He entered Springfield with a good deal of mediaeval display. His escort, which was composed of St. Louis German butchers, remarkable for their size and ferocious aspect, was mounted on powerful iron-gray horses and armed with big revolvers and massive swords, and thus accoutered dashed through the streets of the little town, which was held by…"

Also worth considering is your local history of Union recruitment and German imigrants of the time. Franz Sigel (the first link above) is an indication of what these folk were leaving behind and an insight into the politics they supported. Check out the current owners background and family history.

So, in rather convoluted theory, it is certainly possible the sword was used in the conflict. Who used it and origin of manufacture will only be answered by your research.

Good luck with this, the paths are many to the stories of that war.

Cheers

Hotspur; had ancestral first cousins fighting against each other in several battles

Almost invariably, it reads to me as the seasoned officers and troopers from other experiences (European or not) were a minority indeed when maintaining tactics and weapons other countries used into the 20th century. In another great sense, there was simply less organization in training of Union cavalry troopers for sword use vs dismounting and firing.

In other family research, the edged era of warfare does seem to have lasted in America at least up into the post 1812 period, as their militia musters show they were not meant to be carrying only powdered arms (while those firearms have been a fundamental of militia muster back to the 18th century).

A broad subject not so easily quantified.

Cheers

GC

Hotspur · 28th December 2009, 10:50 PM

I wanted to add that in contemporary use of cutting with swords in my own hands shows some blades much better cutters than others. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm afraid I can't put any of the French mle 1822 variations of "typical" civil war cavalry sword as terrific and devastating slicers. Maybe more so with the momentum of a horse behind the wielder. Edge alignment more or less critical to be effective through any type of covering on the skin. Yes, I have cut with some antiques here in hand and even with a decent sword edge, it is somewhat a chore to develop the knack of good edge alignment. Yes, sharps that have appeared to have been ground that way from the start.

My back has seriously limited my cutting of the past couple of years but did manage a feeble few cuts against a rolled and wet mat last fall, one cut pretty much through (less one layer) that day but others mere hacks compared to other playful cutting swords I have. With that reproduction infantry type (fairly straight) with a 32" blade and my edge, I know it will cut quite well if I do my part but pretty horrible otherwise. Lots of draw in that to make it slice well.

How often the perfect cuts of history might have been made seem in the minority, while still noted. Uniforms themselves seem to have lent some protection. IIRC, it was a thought from Scottish broadsword play (McBane?) that mentions wetting a cloth to place under one's hat to lessen a blow/cut.
Hydrostatic armour?

mebbe, I dunno.

I will defer to accounts of European actions and cutting remarks. It does seem that there was still use of sharps through the 19th century (my 1854 dragon has an edge and is a straight sword). Another related somewhere that the French mle 1822 cavalry trooper sabre was not exactly loved by many that carried it but it was a defacto promise of issue for quite a few decades (and still worn ceremoniously).

Cheers

GC, ad hoc hack

VANDOO · 29th December 2009, 03:27 AM

I HAVE ONLY OWNED THREE CIVIL WAR SABERS TWO WERE SHARP AND WORN AND THE OFFICERS SWORD WAS NOT. DURING THE CIVIL WAR WARRIORS MOSTLY USED THE GUN AND I AM SURE MANY IF NOT MOST CONSIDERED A LONG SWORD A NUSIENCE TO HAVE TO CARRY AROUND.
THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A HUNTING KNIFE OR BOWIE FOR ANY CLOSE FIGHTING OR SENTRY REMOVAL. THERE WERE PROBABLY A VERY FEW WHO WERE TRAINED IN THE USE OF A LONG SWORD OR LIKED USING THEM. THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE HAD OPERTUNITY TO USE THEM WHEN THEIR GUNS WERE EMPTY OR THE ENEMY WAS RUNNING AND NOT SHOOTING.
MANY UNION CALVARY TROOPS WERE ISSUED A SWORD AND REGUIRED TO CARRY THEM THOUGH THEY WERE POORLY TRAINED IN THEIR USE. THEY WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THEM A NUSIENCE BUT WOULD DO AS THEY WERE TOLD BY THE OFFICERS TO AVOID TROUBLE.
GROUND TROOPS USUALLY DIDN'T CARRY LONG SABERS ON EITHER SIDE AND MOST LIKELY WERE ISSUED BAYONETS, AT LEAST IN THE NORTH. AN OFFICER MAY HAVE CARRIED ONE BUT IT WOULD HAVE MOSTLY HAVE BEEN FOR SIGNALING A CHARGE OR AS A LAST DITCH EFFORT IF YOUR GUNS WERE EMPTY AND YOU WERE BEING OVERRUN.
IN THE SOUTH COMPARITVLY FEW WERE ISSUED AND OFTEN YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN EQUIPMENT SO YOU USED WHAT YOU HAD OR COULD BUY OR BORROW.
THE NORTH BEING THE ONE WITH LARGE INDUSTRY AND A NEVER ENDING STREAM OF IMIGRANTS TO CONSCRIPT COULD SUPPLY THEIR FORCES WELL. NO DOUBT MANY OF THE LONG SWORDS MADE FOR THE CIVIL WAR WERE NEVER ISSUED OR USED AT ALL AND BECAME WAR SURPLUS. THIS MAY ACCOUNT FOR A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF THOSE FOUND NOT SHARPENED AND IN VERY GOOD SHAPE. FRANCIS BANNERMAN MADE A FORTUNE BUYING LARGE AMOUNTS OF WAR SURPLUS FROM THE WORLD OVER FOR MANY YEARS.

ausjulius · 30th December 2009, 06:02 AM

"As distasteful as the image noted is, and outside the scope of the Civil War focus here, I did find an interesting note claiming that soldiers were actually ordered not to sharpen thier sabres during the Indian wars as they would become lodged in the victim."
hmm , weird and interesting,,, i would suspect this is just a more recent myth.. or the soliders commanders were hopped up on opium or something or had little or no understand on how a sword works.. :O

but..... this all comes back to the point of your question about the american use of the sword..

first one must look at the combatants,,
before the war the u.s. military had been very small and was not an old force with any great deal of combat expereince.. much was before the 1820s almost run as private militias... working as strongmen to preserve the interests for varous regional bigwigs..

so when the war came the mjijority of men had never been in any for of military environment and proably never seen a sword in their lives or had a very good concept of its use...the had never tained in fencing or in cavilrey tactics..
by the end of the war the cavalrey forces of both sides were greater than the whole u.s. army before the war.. so you have many many men with many swords and very little or no training,,
so these men used the techniques they were familiar with , even if issued with equiptment they may not have been,
this also shows with the reluctance of both nothen and southern soliders to close in hand to hand and byonet fighting in decicive situations where such an action would have setled the confrontation and the ranges were enought that it woudl have been effective, but the soliders stuck to shooting it out,, as to someone who may have used a gun before for hunting but had only been recently trained in military tactics of the day,, it would seem totaly mad to charge when you could still shoot,,
i think most mounted troops prefered to use their guns from a distance even if the swords would have been far more effective on a freeing enemy.
as had been show well into the modern era, in the ww1 and even later...
a quick hore charge on a surprised enemy with swords is much more effective that riding up on a horse and shooting from a distance.. .. in some situations..

but i think the whole problem with the use of swords is much older than the maerican civil war... and can be seen recorded in the time of nepoleon.... where the french commanders complained the french cavalrey didnt have sharp swords or sufficient skill to use the effectivly against the russian and cossak troops they encountered,,

this gos back to two things, one point was the decline of sword use by the general population and so the sword becomes more and more a military item, and the second thing related to this is then the decline in effective technique,,
but even bugger was the decline in sharpening technique over europen in the 18th and 19th centuary..
with mechanical devices and machines peopl began to lose their ability to understand how sharpening work and how to sharpen and what is sharpened how, the average solider in england, prussia , france or the u.s. in the 1800s didnt know these things at all,, and the average armorer knew little more......
making a dangerous combination for all those edged tools livelyhoods

ive never seen one european mass produced millitary sword that was sharpened properly,
the only swords from around this time ive seen with any sharpness are some hunting hangers, and sword from the east,, turkish , russia and such.....
i remember seeing s european saber that had been modified to the form of a shashka in a museum in dagestan ,the guard was removed and a new sheath made.. the blade had so much metal removed that it was almost another blade.... showing even the inherent flaws in the blunt poorly ground european sabers.. having an angle to think for any sword,, and not even having the blade take to an edge in the factory..........

28th December 2009, 07:05 PM	#2
Dmitry Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 607	Most 19th century sabers I have seen were never sharpened.

28th December 2009, 07:30 PM	#3
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,215	i read recently somewhere that the southern forces cavalry favoured the pistol and were amused at the yankee cavalry's fondness for the sabre, southern use of cavalry as screening and reconnaissance as well as pursuit of running enemies was more effective than yankee sabre charges at organised masses of troops. actual battle between mounted units was rare. maybe the yankees didn't get much chance to use the sabres if they were driven off by gunfire before they got in range. their use of repeating carbines was also laughed at as they were a difficult item to reload while on horseback, changing pre-loaded cylinders on revolvers was a tad easier, most southern horseman would carry several revolvers, and only officers might occasionally carry a sword. (also read the large D guard bowies were fairly well hated and not very useful, and were generally 'lost' pretty quickly so they didn't have to carry the ungainly things...) unfortunately towards the end there were just too durn many yankees. and some bright spark started supplying them with brass cartridges for their repeaters.

28th December 2009, 07:31 PM	#4
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Maybe the following constitutes an amazing addition ... or contradiction . I was once investigating why the revolver, judging by the way holsters were made, was suspended by civil war troopers on the right side and in a inclined position, as to be drawn with the left hand. The explanation was that, as the sabre was appointed to be the primary weapon, was to be held with the rigth hand; the revolver being a support item, was to be used by the left. It appears that, at least theoreticaly, reliability laid on the edged weapon, in a period when firearms were already quite efective and, as discussed here, sabres were not even sharpened . Or should we assume that the symbolism of the sabre was superior to actual survival rules? Fernando

28th December 2009, 10:50 PM	#6
Hotspur Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Nipmuc USA Posts: 508	I wanted to add that in contemporary use of cutting with swords in my own hands shows some blades much better cutters than others. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm afraid I can't put any of the French mle 1822 variations of "typical" civil war cavalry sword as terrific and devastating slicers. Maybe more so with the momentum of a horse behind the wielder. Edge alignment more or less critical to be effective through any type of covering on the skin. Yes, I have cut with some antiques here in hand and even with a decent sword edge, it is somewhat a chore to develop the knack of good edge alignment. Yes, sharps that have appeared to have been ground that way from the start. My back has seriously limited my cutting of the past couple of years but did manage a feeble few cuts against a rolled and wet mat last fall, one cut pretty much through (less one layer) that day but others mere hacks compared to other playful cutting swords I have. With that reproduction infantry type (fairly straight) with a 32" blade and my edge, I know it will cut quite well if I do my part but pretty horrible otherwise. Lots of draw in that to make it slice well. How often the perfect cuts of history might have been made seem in the minority, while still noted. Uniforms themselves seem to have lent some protection. IIRC, it was a thought from Scottish broadsword play (McBane?) that mentions wetting a cloth to place under one's hat to lessen a blow/cut. Hydrostatic armour? mebbe, I dunno. I will defer to accounts of European actions and cutting remarks. It does seem that there was still use of sharps through the 19th century (my 1854 dragon has an edge and is a straight sword). Another related somewhere that the French mle 1822 cavalry trooper sabre was not exactly loved by many that carried it but it was a defacto promise of issue for quite a few decades (and still worn ceremoniously). Cheers GC, ad hoc hack

29th December 2009, 03:27 AM	#7
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	I HAVE ONLY OWNED THREE CIVIL WAR SABERS TWO WERE SHARP AND WORN AND THE OFFICERS SWORD WAS NOT. DURING THE CIVIL WAR WARRIORS MOSTLY USED THE GUN AND I AM SURE MANY IF NOT MOST CONSIDERED A LONG SWORD A NUSIENCE TO HAVE TO CARRY AROUND. THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A HUNTING KNIFE OR BOWIE FOR ANY CLOSE FIGHTING OR SENTRY REMOVAL. THERE WERE PROBABLY A VERY FEW WHO WERE TRAINED IN THE USE OF A LONG SWORD OR LIKED USING THEM. THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE HAD OPERTUNITY TO USE THEM WHEN THEIR GUNS WERE EMPTY OR THE ENEMY WAS RUNNING AND NOT SHOOTING. MANY UNION CALVARY TROOPS WERE ISSUED A SWORD AND REGUIRED TO CARRY THEM THOUGH THEY WERE POORLY TRAINED IN THEIR USE. THEY WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THEM A NUSIENCE BUT WOULD DO AS THEY WERE TOLD BY THE OFFICERS TO AVOID TROUBLE. GROUND TROOPS USUALLY DIDN'T CARRY LONG SABERS ON EITHER SIDE AND MOST LIKELY WERE ISSUED BAYONETS, AT LEAST IN THE NORTH. AN OFFICER MAY HAVE CARRIED ONE BUT IT WOULD HAVE MOSTLY HAVE BEEN FOR SIGNALING A CHARGE OR AS A LAST DITCH EFFORT IF YOUR GUNS WERE EMPTY AND YOU WERE BEING OVERRUN. IN THE SOUTH COMPARITVLY FEW WERE ISSUED AND OFTEN YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN EQUIPMENT SO YOU USED WHAT YOU HAD OR COULD BUY OR BORROW. THE NORTH BEING THE ONE WITH LARGE INDUSTRY AND A NEVER ENDING STREAM OF IMIGRANTS TO CONSCRIPT COULD SUPPLY THEIR FORCES WELL. NO DOUBT MANY OF THE LONG SWORDS MADE FOR THE CIVIL WAR WERE NEVER ISSUED OR USED AT ALL AND BECAME WAR SURPLUS. THIS MAY ACCOUNT FOR A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF THOSE FOUND NOT SHARPENED AND IN VERY GOOD SHAPE. FRANCIS BANNERMAN MADE A FORTUNE BUYING LARGE AMOUNTS OF WAR SURPLUS FROM THE WORLD OVER FOR MANY YEARS.

30th December 2009, 06:02 AM	#8
ausjulius Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: musorian territory Posts: 439	"As distasteful as the image noted is, and outside the scope of the Civil War focus here, I did find an interesting note claiming that soldiers were actually ordered not to sharpen thier sabres during the Indian wars as they would become lodged in the victim." hmm , weird and interesting,,, i would suspect this is just a more recent myth.. or the soliders commanders were hopped up on opium or something or had little or no understand on how a sword works.. :O but..... this all comes back to the point of your question about the american use of the sword.. first one must look at the combatants,, before the war the u.s. military had been very small and was not an old force with any great deal of combat expereince.. much was before the 1820s almost run as private militias... working as strongmen to preserve the interests for varous regional bigwigs.. so when the war came the mjijority of men had never been in any for of military environment and proably never seen a sword in their lives or had a very good concept of its use...the had never tained in fencing or in cavilrey tactics.. by the end of the war the cavalrey forces of both sides were greater than the whole u.s. army before the war.. so you have many many men with many swords and very little or no training,, so these men used the techniques they were familiar with , even if issued with equiptment they may not have been, this also shows with the reluctance of both nothen and southern soliders to close in hand to hand and byonet fighting in decicive situations where such an action would have setled the confrontation and the ranges were enought that it woudl have been effective, but the soliders stuck to shooting it out,, as to someone who may have used a gun before for hunting but had only been recently trained in military tactics of the day,, it would seem totaly mad to charge when you could still shoot,, i think most mounted troops prefered to use their guns from a distance even if the swords would have been far more effective on a freeing enemy. as had been show well into the modern era, in the ww1 and even later... a quick hore charge on a surprised enemy with swords is much more effective that riding up on a horse and shooting from a distance.. .. in some situations.. but i think the whole problem with the use of swords is much older than the maerican civil war... and can be seen recorded in the time of nepoleon.... where the french commanders complained the french cavalrey didnt have sharp swords or sufficient skill to use the effectivly against the russian and cossak troops they encountered,, this gos back to two things, one point was the decline of sword use by the general population and so the sword becomes more and more a military item, and the second thing related to this is then the decline in effective technique,, but even bugger was the decline in sharpening technique over europen in the 18th and 19th centuary.. with mechanical devices and machines peopl began to lose their ability to understand how sharpening work and how to sharpen and what is sharpened how, the average solider in england, prussia , france or the u.s. in the 1800s didnt know these things at all,, and the average armorer knew little more...... making a dangerous combination for all those edged tools livelyhoods ive never seen one european mass produced millitary sword that was sharpened properly, the only swords from around this time ive seen with any sharpness are some hunting hangers, and sword from the east,, turkish , russia and such..... i remember seeing s european saber that had been modified to the form of a shashka in a museum in dagestan ,the guard was removed and a new sheath made.. the blade had so much metal removed that it was almost another blade.... showing even the inherent flaws in the blunt poorly ground european sabers.. having an angle to think for any sword,, and not even having the blade take to an edge in the factory..........