1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword - a good or bad weapon?

Подписаться 65 тыс.

Просмотров 23 тыс.

50% 1

The much loved and also loathed heavy cavalry sword, was it really a good or bad sword? Wielded famously from the likes of the Scots Grey at the battle of Waterloo to the fictional rifleman Richard Sharpe. Here we take a look at some antique examples and delve into the truth from both a modern perspective and voices from the past of the users of these famous swords.

Опубликовано:

3 фев 2021

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 108

@donnacorrell3527 3 года назад

Major Richard Sharpe, 95th Rifles, and I approve this message.

@asdfg2560 3 года назад

No you’re donna correll

@finlaymcdiarmid5832 3 года назад

"its a bloody heavy crude blade but it'll do" from the man himself

@daveroe4961 5 месяцев назад

Bastadd!

@daveroe4961 5 месяцев назад

Bastadd!

@daveroe4961 5 месяцев назад

Bastadd!

@urseliusurgel4365 2 года назад

Essentially, the conversion of British 'Regiments of Cavalry' (heavy cavalry) into 'Regiments of Dragoons' was a piece of underhanded fiscal economy. Call a cavalry regiment 'Dragoons' and the soldiers were paid less, and the regiment cost the government less to run. The most senior cavalry regiments were given a sop for their dignity by being officially named 'Dragoon Guards'. Though the original dragoons of the 17th century were mounted infantry, the dragoons of the late 18th century had almost all been heavy cavalry for all of their history, and remained heavy cavalry after their change of name (excepting those converted to 'Light Dragoons' from the 1750s onward and even these were dedicated cavalry and not mounted infantry).

@hazzardalsohazzard2624 3 года назад

I've got a book called Redcoat by Richard Holmes and he mentions a couple of interesting points which add context to the 1796 regulations. He says that Le Marchant wanted to give all British cavalry the Light Cavalry Sabre, but for some reason he was forced to make a straight sword for the heavy cavalry. It also says that the light cavalry behaved a lot like the heavy cavalry, being used almost interchangeably and were expected to take part in melees like a heavy cavalry unit.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

I've often read that Le Marchant wanted all cavalry to use the new sword and that is what I have always repeated about it, but the more I read what remains of the records of the time, I am not quite convinced. Le Marchant and Henry Osborn submitted their memorial "A Plan for Constructing and Mounting in a Different Manner the Swords of the Cavalry" in early 1796. Sadly this document has been lost. Significantly though the two things which were most important in these proposals were to shorten the blades from what was currently in use, and to use a pinned construction through the tang, both features which both the the light and heavy cavalry swords did indeed adopt. The fact that Le Marchant was a massive fan of Austrian awords and that the 1796 heavy is a near exact copy of the earlier Austrian sword does rather hint that he was involved. I am not wholy convinced he was opposed to this, but the information is vague. I suspect he might have even suggested the Austrian cavalry sword as a compromise for the heavy cavalry. There is no doubt that when it came to large set peice battles the light cavalry were often used interchangeably in the same role as heavies yes. It just wasn't the original intended purpose of them.

@branovices 3 года назад

Something tells me a similar book written by the French would show that it was their soldiers who were supermen that easily defeated 10 Englishmen at once instead.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

There are some great feats described in Kinsley's book from the French perspective. Less of them of course because the focus of the book is on British swordsmen. The point isn't so much who were the better swordsmen or even which was the better sword, it is more just a question of was this particular sword up to the task or deficient as many would have you believe. It's also worth mentioned the British get killed and even slaughtered in plenty of accounts throughout the book. I hand picked certain examples just to consider the quality of this particular sword.

@branovices 3 года назад

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Wasn't meant as a criticism, and you do mention essentially my point as a caveat in the video.

@futch2121 5 месяцев назад

In the Sharpe book where he saves Wellesley`s life & is commissioned, he uses a cavalry sabre from one of the light dragoon regiments present at Assaye..

@christopherhackett8923 2 месяца назад

Excellent video, you've been able to articulate the thoughts of anyone who has had the privilege and opportunity (and space!) to wield and put both of these swords through their paces. It’s why I purchased the 1796 Heavy Sword for my Brown Bess companion piece.

@HughMEvans 3 года назад

I have a 1796 heavy sword and I've always admired its excellent balance and nimbleness.

@finlaymcdiarmid5832 3 года назад

Sharpe would disagree...

@ralphc1405 2 года назад

Hi! Are the HC swords from Kult of Athena worth buying and dry handling?

@chroma6947 2 года назад

@@ralphc1405 If you have the tools to modify the fat foible then yes it could be worth it if you really like the design

@airnt 3 года назад

Very interesting video, yet again! As a mounted fencer, i just wanted to add that the burden of weight is helped a lot by sitting on a horse, in particular a collected horse in a melée or a horse at a gallop. Due to the engagements being VERY short (though repeated) as you pass each other by, the weights is less of an issue in practice. the reach can be very important especially if the terrain, dead bodies on the floor or quality of horse might not allows precise positioning of the animal. Hence i am a little confused that you first say 2" is a big deal for a swordsman but then note twice that the French Heavy cav sword is 6" longer (that is quite a substantial difference) :) The hand guard can be particularly be noteworthy in the committed fighting in a charge, where you might more or less just project the weapon forward hoping for the best, where a large guard actually covers a remarkable set of angles (better than naught) When i used to work for the Royal Armouries, we did cavalry displays with various 19th c swords, some actual originals, cutting cabages and doing a thrust at a rather chewy thrust target at the gallop as part of the dayly display. This meant that you really noticed the difference when hitting at speed. Each and every one of all the swords would do enough damage to do the job with the thrust (be daft if they didn't), but the recovery was drastically different, with some sowrds getting far more stuck than others, but also the impact onto the wrist of the rider was really very different indeed. The flexibility of the blade in this sense can greatly reduce the stress on the wrist and therefore mean the sword is retained in the hand, but also a wrist that cramps up can be a huge disadvantage in the fight with subsequent opponents. So having such a flexy blade might really mean that say, you hit and curassier int he curass (and let's suppose you don't go through it, for the sake of argument) and he might have his opposing thrust parried by the nice big hilt, if you'd have a very stiff sword the second opportunity to the back of his head or neck might just not materialize as your lower arm cramps to try and protect your wrist, whereas with this blade you might be able to make a second swing (in particular a nr 6) in the same pass. I must say that i have a bit of a tendency to air towards the German wrist style of sword use on horseback, as i find it much easier to employ, but also easier to do (for me, at least) with a pallash or (blade)heavier swords, but then again... i am hardly a military sabre specialist :D kind regards, love your work, Arne Koets

@HaNsWiDjAjA Год назад

The account that said that the English cavalry sword was 6 inches shorter was exaggerating. The 1796 HC sword has a blade of 35 inches, while the French cuirassiers' An IX and An XIII sabre was 38 inches long.

@haroldgodwinson832 3 года назад

If they weren't thrusting with the 1796 HC sword, why would they have issued a general order to the HC regiments, prior to Waterloo, to spear-point their swords?

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

They absolutely were thrusting, it's just a commonly held belief that they didn't which I was dispelling. Though it is worth remembering the phrase "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink”. Military doctrine might enforce improved sword tips to encourage/improve thrusting but that does not mean the end users will actually do so. The reality is they did thrust, just not nearly as often as the French.

@SuperOtter13 3 года назад

Enjoyed this presentation very much thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. Cheers!

@Riceball01 3 года назад

Great video. I feel that referencing accounts from the period that these swords were used is a very useful bit of context and, in my opinion, carries much more weight than modern opinions from hobbyists, even experienced ones. At the end of the day, no matter how experienced a HEMA practitioner might be, they've never used their swords (both replica and antique) in actual life or death combat. So, I'd place a lot of value on the opinion of someone who's used one of these swords in actual combat than one who's only sparred with replicas and maybe cut the occasional water bottle with an antique. Since you have a decent collection of historical swords and know a good deal about them, could you (in the future) do a video on the differences between a heavy cavalry saber/sword and the light cavalry equivalents and what makes for a good heavy cav sword as opposed to a good light cav sword. That's, of course, assuming, there is any real fundamental difference in design philosophies between the 2 cavalry branches.

@HypocriticYT 3 года назад

Excellent review. Subscribed!

@LandersWorkshop 2 месяца назад

28:08. Interesting account. Also Col. John Elley at Waterloo used one of these I believe, or at least going off the death-blows he was inflicting on the cuirassers surrounding him as he made his escape from a charge. He was a big (some say giant) trooper though, and could handle it like a rapier.

@joshua7233 3 года назад

Thank you very much! Great video with lots of insight.

@josephparks9323 3 года назад

Excellent video! Thanks for the knowledge.

@steveborgresistance8310 3 года назад

Nice work!👍⚔ I have a 1904 Austria by cold steel that I like , I wish there was a good copy of the heavy cavalry sword.

@slainegwalchmai 3 года назад

Very interesting, shared to the Bernard Cornwell Fan Club FB group.

@finlaymcdiarmid5832 3 года назад

Brilliant author, just finished sharpes Sword today funnily enough!

@akashahuja2346 3 года назад

In my experience the 1796 LCS troopers is not nimble, however the 1796 LCS officer's version is lighter and much more nimble.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

I talked about this in the video. The troopers are indeed quite a handful. The officers ones often are lighter and more nimble, but not always. The officers example of the LC I showed in the video handles exactly like the troopers swords. The troopers examples are usually 900-950g, whereas I have seen officers versions ranging anything from 700-1000g. The Heavy cavalry officers swords show a similar pattern, usually lighter and more nimble, but not always as there is a lot of variety.

@akashahuja2346 3 года назад

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing I have so far not seen another example like yours of a heavy bladed 1796 LCS officer's. They have all been lighter (the ones I own are from Gill, Runkel and Woolley & Deakins).

@HypocriticYT 3 года назад

Fantastic HHC sword. The 1848p is also a beast!

@hector_2999 3 года назад

Which one was The Trooper wielding in the Iron Maiden song? 😁

@VideoMask93 3 года назад

Probably the Light Cavalry sword, along with lances, like most light cavalry troopers of the era.

@hector_2999 3 года назад

@@VideoMask93 My guess too, but I want a video.

@HughMEvans 3 года назад

At about the 12:00 mark, some errors. There were in fact - not two - but THREE different types of swords in use at that time. The curved light cavalry sabre, the dragoon sword (which could either cut or thrust and was straight and wide) and the cuirassier sword which was very long and narrow and shaped like a needle - all point and no width. This was useless for cutting and did not have an edge. These reflected the intended use. Cuirassiers charged in a dense formation only giving point and not skirmishing or fighting in open order. Dragoons both charged in formation giving point and skirmished in open order, hacking. The French, Russian and Prussian armies all made this distinction in sword types. The British had no cuirassier units and only issued dragoon type swords to their heavies. So it's perfectly normal that the French cuirassier sword was longer than the British 1796 heavy sword. ALL cuirassier pattern swords were longer than ALL dragoon pattern swords, regardless of the army.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

When you say dragoon sword are you referring to the carabinier and 1784 swords? The British never distinquished between the two in period, though they are understandably a little different. As for the cuirassier swords, they definitely could and did cut. I've seen many service sharpened examples and there are first hand accounts of soldiers seeing them being used for cutting, they just aren't so well suited to it and thrusting was by far preferred.

@HughMEvans 3 года назад

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing I have a hybrid cuirassier sword with a standard French blade and scabbard and a Russian hilt. I assume it was a "war emergency" issue for either the Russian or Prussian army. It's very long and narrow and tip-heavy. You could point with it, although balance would be an issue. It cannot effectively cut, due to shape, balance and weight issues.

@HughMEvans 3 года назад

My Brit 1796 heavy sword would be FAR more effective in a skirmish.

@HughMEvans 3 года назад

The early 1800's Continental armies issued different swords to their dragoon and their cuirassier regts. I am assuming that the dragoon variants are shorter and wider to allow for better cutting and melee use. But I must admit that this is the first time anyone has called me out on this and I have not obtained measurements and weights to prove my point.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

As I understand it the earlier blades remained in use for the carabiniers until they had their swords repalced with sabres. Various long bladed dragoon swords remained in use with the French for their heavu cavalry regiments, using the AN IX, XI and XIII mostly, but some of the older 1784 and IV models. All of them are quite a handful no doubt. Plenty of tip heavy swords were used with point, even the British 1796 light cavalry sabre which is famously point heavy and rather curved. The cuirassier swords are definitely recorded as cutting. They are the best for it no doubt, though of course examples differ from one to another like most swords, but a weighty iron bar with a sharpened edge will do damage no matter how poor it is for cutting compared to contemporary swords. There are accounts at Waterloo of cuirassier swords delivering cuts that cleft open faces and heads.

@EPYHDA1 3 года назад

There is a question I wanted to ask for while: when evaluating cutting or thrusting performance of a cavalry weapon, how accurate are the measurements if done without a moving horse? Physics is quite different...

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

Almost all the test cutting done in HEMA is on foot, however many of the sword fighting done on horseback was not done at speed. People imagine cavalrymen striking at the gallop, and sometimes that happened, such as in cutting down fleeing infantry for example, but the majority of first hand accounts of cavalry swordsmanship are when cavalrymen have come to a stop or near stop and battle it out. I also included an account of the heavy cavalry sword being used on foot where it decapitated two enemies, showing the horse absolutely wasn't needed for massive cutting power.

@EPYHDA1 3 года назад

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Thanks. I did use the difference in my class discussing the conservation of momentum and energy transfer, did not even go into the beats between a pace of a horse and a natural frequency of the physical pendulum of a sword arm with the sword, as the maths get too complex

@jamico7 11 месяцев назад

Very interesting knowledge, l now know the difference between the two,

@onewhowaits7674 3 года назад

We all know the more tiny fencing illustrations you have in the background of any video, adds tremendous and undeniable credence to the historical accuracy of sword reviews presented by millennials. I jest, I enjoyed your speculative discourse, for at least more people are trying to understand the world they have found themselves to be alive in. Good luck to you Sir.

@A14b19 3 года назад

I'm likeing this .. and it's informative thanks 👍🤗🤗🤗

@HypocriticYT 3 года назад

Best meat slicers of the day. How many troopers had horses with their ears intact after battles? The 1788p LC sword has the same curvature to the blade as the 1796 LC sword for much of its length. This would suggest similar cutting ability. The 1788 blade was longer and may have made it less maneuverable in comparison to the 1796p. Overlap the two blades to see the similarity.

@LuxTheSlav 3 года назад

The blade profile, edge profile and mass distribution are quite different. There's much more to cutting capacity than curvature.

@HypocriticYT 3 года назад

@@LuxTheSlav I'm just wondering if the 1788 gave sufficient cuts. You don't need to lop off arms and heads to kill your opponent. An inch or so deep cut in the neck should suffice.

@LuxTheSlav 3 года назад

@@HypocriticYT It depends...an inch-deep cut on the neck will most likely kill, but you have to hit the neck, which is far more difficult than hitting a wrist, which anyone who has done any sparring will tell you. And a superficial cut to the extremities might prove disabling or even fatal in the medium-to-long term, but might not end the fight then and there. So in that sense, pumping all of a sword's potential into seemingly "overkill" cutting capacity is effective, as it might turn a fleshwound into a dismemberment. The same can be argued for specialised thrusting swords. History repeatedly shows that some instances favour one, the other, or a particular balance of the two. Once you pick a niche, you have to adhere to it for optimum results. It was observed that British troops really did favour the cut, so exponentiating that tendency was a good decision.

@HypocriticYT 3 года назад

@@LuxTheSlav Yes I've read that combatants were found both dead though the first cut or thrust was fatal. "Cut men from head to waist belt" always liked that reference since I have an 1848p HHC sword, a heavy and long beast. Sword design can either help or hinder the user depending on how long he is in the fight.

@jakeandrews9158 3 года назад

I have also noticed the similar curve on a German made 1788 lc that i have. I must say for a 36 inch cavalry sword its relatively nimble and I'm surprised at the reputation the 1788 has. I think it has been over shadowed by the 1796 lc and that some of the 1788 deserve more credit than they recieve.

@raphlvlogs271 3 года назад

why didn't the heavy cavalry sword had index finger or thumb loops in order to make it easier to handle?

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

Thumb rings were very short lived, they vanished in the early 18th century long before these swords were made. There is no evidence as to why, but I suspect more agile blades and concerns over breaking fingers were the two primary reasons. Finger rings were never really used on British swords, though they were used on contemporary Portuguese sabres for example. I think once again the concerns of damage to the hand would be the primary breason. Extra purchase and stopping the sword being lost was managed by the use of sturdy leather sword knots in the British army, the hand being passed through the loop and then several twists made before gripping the sword.

@anarchyandempires5452 2 года назад

As an American I can tell you, according to our history books it is incomprehensively shit against a dude with a loaded rifle, but it's fucking fantastic against the dude that just ran out of ammo!!!!

@marchhare7366 19 дней назад

Intriguing!

@thatchannel195 3 года назад

My favorite sword

@kaoskronostyche9939 8 месяцев назад

Thank you.

@ianknight2053 3 года назад

Regarding the French AN XIII Heavy Cavalry Sword, I’ve owned half a dozen, none of them had an edge, and, because the blade is narrow and thick, it would be almost impossible to hone an edge on the blade. I have in my collection 2 P1796 2D Ds (Scots Greys) swords and would much rather carry this weapon in a close fight against other cavalry. However, in pursuit or against infantry the AN XIII would be far more effective because the point would be easier to use.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

I've known a few people with AN XI and XIII that do have edges. They aren't a good cutter as I said in the video, but ultimately a large iron bar with even a modest edge can still do damage, and there are first hand accounts of them cutting at Waterloo and doing significant face/head damage. Absolutely I would much rather have the 1796 heavy, though it is much more versatile in a range of scenarios, especially where the tip is improved as it's actually a decent thrusting sword then as well.

@ianknight2053 3 года назад

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Of my two Scots Greys swords, one has been spear pointed and one has its original hatchet blade. It’s strange but the one with the hatchet blade feels better for cutting than the spear pointed one, even though it only has the back ground down. Maybe it’s psychological! Regarding the AN XIII’s ability to be used to cut, I suppose it is possible that the French military gave their troopers swords that weren’t good for cutting to prevent them from doing so. It is recorded that soldiers who were stabbed, rather than cut, were more likely to die.

@sixgunsymphony7408 Месяц назад

@@ianknight2053 Swords of the 18th, 19th centuries would only be sharpened when taken on campaign. Swords in garrison duty were usually not sharpened, likeky to reduce training injuries.

@ianknight2053 Месяц назад

@@sixgunsymphony7408 Have you ever held or owned a French ANXIII sword and examined its blade? Perhaps sword blades weren’t sharpened for action when on garrison duty or in barracks but they would still have been given a cutting edge. I can’t see how a good cutting edge could be given to this sword because of its thick narrow blade. All of my other Napoleonic era French and British swords and sabres have sharpened edges but not one of the AN XIIIs has an edge that was likely to cause severe wounds. The earlier Cuirassier swords had flat blades, without a fuller, which could be given an edge, albeit not a very good one. As I mentioned, French heavy cavalry troopers were trained to give the point, not the edge.

@sixgunsymphony7408 Месяц назад

@@ianknight2053 I have handled several US swords and all were dull. My personal research lead to discovery that most swords were only sharpened on campaign. I also read of notable battles on the frontier, aka Fetterman masacre, that swords were most often left at the forts. Cavalry most often would only take their carbines to battle. Many cavalry units never trained with their swords and they really should have been called dragoons as they fought as mounted infantry. As for your swords thickness, a cutler can get a serviceable edge. The problem is that most European armies issued long lasting metal scabbard that would dull the edge of swords encased. That this practice lasted two centuries, it displays a garrison mindset of career officers.

@nothim7321 Год назад

Controversiallly, the US never had a true cavalry formation or tradition...

@magsdixon4528 3 года назад

Bravo

@raphlvlogs271 3 года назад

were soldiers required to keep their fingernails short in order to hold swords with the thumb up grip?

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

I've never seen anything written about it, but one would hope so, as long thumb nails with thumbs up grips can be quite painful.

@aggroalex5470 3 года назад

General rule for military appearance is you shouldn't be able to see the white of the fingernails when looking at the palm side of the hand with fingers fully straightened in a salute-like form. At least that is what we used when a dress code manual was not accessible. However we used firearms not swords which is a shame.

@raphlvlogs271 3 года назад

the Katana also had a hatchet tip.

@emigdiochapa707 3 года назад

Silence weeb you have no place here

@henninghesse9910 3 года назад

I just listened to a Oliver Janseps, who´s teaching Christmann at Mispeldorn in Aachen, talking on a german podcast saying that everytime he gives a noob an original Blücher in the hand people are somehow lightening up and there is this Blücher face showing up. I guess there is the same effect with an 1796 LCS. Is it the same when you use the HCS or would it be the broad curved blade that people like so much about the LCS?

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

Haha yes indeed, there is very much a similar effect with both the light cavalry and heavy British swords. I think it is just the sense of raw power one feels with either of them. That these are not swords for fine fencing but devastating cutting.

@althesmith 3 года назад

Which makers? Mine is Woolley and Deakin.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

Nice. My heavy cav with reduced inner guard is by Josh H Reddell & Co' and my Horse Guards sword by Bate. The third heavy cav has no visible markings, likely worn/cleaned away.

@althesmith 3 года назад

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing My Woolley has the point modification and the inner guard cut away but very neatly done, looks like done in an armoury, but the langets have been left in place.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

Nice. Yes the modifications usually are very neat indeed. Even when done in the field they likely would have been done by armourers.

@althesmith 3 года назад

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Has the quality of the replicas gotten any better over the last few years? A cuirrasier replica I handled recently felt like it was built to hold up sides of meat at a Texas BBQ.

@migtrewornan8085 3 года назад

"2 to 2 and a half inches is actually quite a lot" - you'll never convince the girls of that no matter how many times you say it.

@danielwalker8142 3 года назад

girth

@alifr4088 Год назад

Sharpe brings me here

@wayfaringmrwolf366 3 года назад

So Sharpe pick a good sword. Also intressting to not that he in the books dislikt the light cavelry saber

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

A good sword to fight with yes, though an absolute pain to have to carry/wear when you spend most of your time on foot.

@fenriraldrek1022 3 года назад

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing well Sharpe is described as a strong man so I guess he can live with it. also in terms or actually carrying it with that disc guard on top in Sharpes sword Patrick Harper actually files off part of the guard so he can carry it while walking and not have it bang against his side like that.

@AcademyofHistoricalFencing 3 года назад

I didn't mean in terms of strength. Being tall will help, but ultimately carrying a 35" bladed straight sword with a steel scabbard on a two ring suspension sword belt is a massive pain, particularly for a rifleman who is intended to work as a skirmisher, it's just always going to be in the way. If you see paintings of heavy cavalrymen on foot, who would be about the size of Sharpe, the tip of their scabbard often rests on the floor, so they had to lift and carry it when merely just walking. Then try moving over mixed terrain and kneeling, loading a rifle etc, it would be a massive pain in the arse. It does work great for the character though.