I genuinely think it's a really good sword, and better than most of the models that followed it! With a flatter grip, deeper checkering and maybe a couple more bars to the guard, I think it would be just about perfect.
Nice. I’ve got a saber that looks a lot like that,other than the guard. It has a full guard rather than a pierced or barred one. Maker is Alex Koppel of Solingen and the guard is stamped with EUB( Estats Unitas Brasilia). The pommel has the number 48 stamped on it.
This was the first antique sword I ever owned, my parents took me to Islington to spend my birthday and saved up money, it cost me £18, ( 1980 ) , it was in pretty poor condition, no scabbard, no washer, but it was pretty sharp.
The date of Reeves' patent is significant. The first modern UK patents act was passed in 1852; because the Great Exhibition of 1851 had highlighted problems with the cumbersome and expensive earlier system. Reeves very probably took advantage of the change.
As much as I'm biased towards the 15th and 16th centuries, I find these videos Matt does on 19th century military swords to be his best ones, since it seems to be what he's most passionate about.
Best at making light brigade charges unsuccessful? ;) In all seriousness though, looks like a very durable design. The grip however would have me worried if I were a cavalryman. Losing your saber during a fight would be both dangerous and embarrassing.
The charge itself was actually successful... they took the Russian guns. What was unsuccessful was that they lost a lot of men doing it, and then got counter-charged by the Russian light cavalry. But the Battle of Balaclava as a whole was a resounding victory for the British and French allies.
@@scholagladiatoria Well I was just joking but approaching it a bit more seriously... while the initial objective was achieved it resulted in what basically could be described as the destruction of a military unit. At the time, it would probably be described as a costly win but speaking from the perspective of modern military theory such an attack would be classified as a failure. But, yes you are right it was technically a successful charge.
@@kamilszadkowski8864 the overall losses may have been reduced if the following Heavy Brigade under Lucan hadn't turned around half way up the valley, abandoning the Light Brigade to their fate. Elements of the LB penetrated deep into the Russian rear area causing havoc and if adequately supported by the HB could have inflicted a decisive defeat on the Russians.
This is bizarre. For years I was was led to believe that the 1853 pattern sabre wasn't very good. The grip was slippery and the sword would turn in your hand during use. I guess opinions change 😉😊 OK I jumped in with this comment a tad too soon...oops! 😳😳
You may have already done the US Army pattern 1913 cavalry saber but I was quite interested into the why Patton decided to move away from the British style sabres such as the one in the video?
Patton wanted a French style thrusting focused sword, he loved to tell the story that Napoleon would always tell his cavalry to “Attack with the point!”, not observing that Napoleon was an artillery officer not a cavalryman
Patton didn't move away from British type sabres as the US was influenced by French designs. US Cav sabres prior to the 1913 were based on the French 1822. The French had already introduced the 1896 which is a heavy thrust only sword. The British.. the 1908 and other nations had already issued thrustcentric swords. George (an Olympic fencer) contributed to a sword that was suited to swordsmen, but not your basic trooper. Consequently the 1913 had a weak blade that was sometimes broken and often bent in training. His instructions insisted that after impaling the target the wrist must be rotated in order for the blade to exit via the edge and not the flat. Failure to do this would result in a bent or broken blade. This required some presence of mind, especially on a galloping horse.
Honestly, they're not great about the first two of those things. The edge did tend to get dulled from rubbing on the scabbard unless you drew it carefully, while retention is purely gravity-based and the sword will simply spill out if you invert it or even bend over too far. However, that makes it pretty quick to draw. Edit- also, on a sword usually fixed to a horse saddle rather than a belt, concerns like it falling out when bending over cease to be an issue.
I love it. I don't think I would personally ever choose one in period, as it's just too specialised for my taste, but I own one and they are lovely things.
@@scholagladiatoria I have read that French officers serving in North africa used them very effectively against native cavalry who wore "Burnous" a heavy wollen coat Can you please do a video about it since you go one ?
I realize that many would consider this anathema and heresy, but in looking at that long, relatively wide blade, it crossed my mind that it would make a spectacular 2 handed style sword with a long, katana like grip. If I had just the blade, I'd consider it. It would be more nimble than a katana and a better in the thrust. Sorry if that offends anyone, but that blade design just looks fantastic.
Can't see that it would offend anyone, however 2 handed swords are not necessarily the first choice for horse mounted combat. Abd you would loose the hand protection with removal of the guard.
HEAVY Cavalry guys were not the Typical AVERAGE guys . To join HEAVY cavalry , minimum height requirements was 5 feet 10 inch tall or 5 feet 11 inch tall and good muscular physique . Many Heavy Cavalry Troopers were easily above 6 feet and quite big and muscular . Even during 19 th century.
The three bar guard reminds me of the first sword I ever owned. It was a horrible Indian knockoff, and I think it had a rat tail tang. I wonder if it was made as a replica of any particular sword pattern.
There's something about a 3 bar hilt that, to my eye, is just about flawless. It's protective, yet minimalist. Elegant, yet understated. I dunno, it just seems like everything that a "working" sword should be. Anywho, another great video, Matt! Thank you for sharing your passion with us 🙏
From an earlier video you'd said the 1821/45 Heavy Cavalry Officers was the best blade/guard, do you still stand by that or was that more a comment on Officers swords only with the troopers not being included? I'm a tad more partial to the Household pattern of guard just for total symmetry but I do love the Honeysuckle hilt, more so the earlier more rounded ones though i do have an 1896 pattern patent for the 6th dragoons out for delivery right now. (Source: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FzJAvVH-HeY.html )
What sword was carried by Captain Nolan? He is the guy that wrote "the book" on cavalry for all British cavalry. Got a cannon ball after he pointed out that: " There M'Lord are the guns".
Hello Matthew. I have a question for you. What would be your choice between a 1885 trooper sword or a 1840 heavy cavalry saber? Thanks for the input. I think 1885. Blade a bit shorter yet strong and I like the spear point. What do you think?
Checked out your website and in the future when I am ahead with finances I'm getting myself an antique sword. would love some historical firearms but due too epilepsy don't think I can get a license and join a club. But yeah love this channel Matt, thanks so much for making my RU-vid premium subscription worth every penny.
@@scholagladiatoria cheers! I think there are a lot of books out there getting it wrong. I definitely read one on the Crimean War that said the Light Brigade were armed with the 1822 pattern Light Cavalry Sabre.
There was a huge debate during the 19thC about cut vs thrust which was mostly won by thrust on the basis of doctors reports from field hospitals that they could save most men who arrived with cuts but very few who had stab wounds so the thrust was "obviously" more deadly. Of course the fact that the data set is only of those who lived long enough to reach medical aid means there is a huge case of survivor bias in it.
@@robertprovan9374 like viewing gun shot patterns only on planes that return for examination. It's interesting that more deadly was highly valued then though. In current military thinking, is often better to wound than kill. A dead soldier is one enemy out of the fight, while someone with a wound that could be survived takes out that enemy, another enemy, or possibly two, to carry them to safety, and a significant expenditure of resources to patch them up. So wounding just severely enough to take someone out of the fight is often, from a logistic standpoint, preferable to killing then.
@@RockModeNick The better to wound than kill appears to be an after the fact rationalization of the lower lethality of 5.56mm ammo. The Victorian era search was for the most effective weapon rather than the most deadly. They used kill rates because that was the only data point they had.
@@robertprovan9374 I wonder to what extent it wouldn't have been as good a strategy historically, too - in many militaries during a lot of history, sparing resources to take care of survivors was done after the engagement ended, not during.
@@RockModeNick It hasn't been a good strategy for the last 20 years either, the western militaries have been fighting fanatics with very little concern for their cannon fodder. Combat data from Afghanistan also suggests that the main reason for going to the smaller calibre, volume of fire for suppression, hasn't worked either. The taliban ignored 5.56 because they weren't loud enough, they ducked for 7.62 and shat themselves and started burrowing for 50cal.
The day you could go to angel market and get antiques. Mine was a German butcher bayonet immaculate and a 1856 ish Enfield Tower of London rifle converted to a carbine hunter good to ok but pitted . Still have . Oh both for £12 in 1980s😊
Hey matt I had a question about central asian cavalry. They are often described as using a bow and lance together as their main armaments, with perhaps a small shield, mace, dagger, and sabre. My question is how do you carry two two-handed weapons at once? I know about bow scabbards, but how would you carry a spear while firing a bow? I've also seen Cataphracts being describing with this configuration of weaponry.
I saw one kinda like that (full width tang), minty but a 1901 model ? I missed it by that > < much and haven’t seen one since :(. I’m just a casual though so I’m not savvy on what rocks to kick over.
I feel like the pertinent question is whether imperfection X was caused by the tool or process used to create the original sword (keep that imperfection) or was it caused by an overworked apprentice churning out hundreds of this thing (consider not keeping that imperfection)
Found one of these 'in the wild' over here in Canada. I'm presuming it was used by a Canadian militia cavalry unit, but unfortunately it's not unit marked.
A note on the grip. I had the occasion to replace a grip that was missing from a broken, relic condition one and the grip actually has a center core of wood with the leather wrapped around it.
matt, have you ever done test cutting using model 1853 side y side with model 1821? i am curious on how much the grip shape and construction effect the cut
This is an odd request but can u do a video on if u used a 2 handed sword 1 handed but instead of holding it at the top hold it in the middle.... How would this effect stuff.... I got this idea from im im left handed for 2 handed swords but right for a one hand, so i to alow me to dual with a two handed sword i use my right and can then put my left hand on top in a second to two hand it
I just got one of these a few days ago! I thought a previous owner had ground away the stamps on the forte, but it's great to hear that the stamps weren't on the forte!
The 1853 pattern is such a handsome pattern. The 3-bar hand guard, the shape and curve of the blade and the way it curves into the handle, the way fuller is placed and shaped, even the length is pleasing. The only thing that leaves something to be desired, to me, is the look of the grip.
I have a rather different1853 pattern made for native Indian cavalry regiments (made in England, and shipped to India for the native troops). Because the Indians were deemed "smaller", the swords were scaled down and the cavalry blade is only 32 inches long. I'm not sure if the grip is scaled down a bit as well, but it is a marvelously dexterous blade, despite being undersized for a cavalry weapon. In fact, it is my favourite sabre for both cutting and practicing forms. It would make for a great infantry sword as well.
Full-width tang?! It's a cavalry messer! Which raises a question, in the era of german messers were there cavalry messers? Or, was there a distinction between cavalry versus infantry swords back then?
There are messers with handle and blade shape that seems apt for cavalry use (curved blade and rather short handle, not apt to be used with two hands).
Scabbard with 2 suspension rings hanging in the typical Hussar fasion. The later pattern swords had a duel ring next to each other. Was this because the sword was now attached to the saddle rather than the rider?
Various things, including: sold off to other governments, sold for private purchase, passed down to yeomanry volunteers/cadets, blunted and used as drill/training weapons, stockpiled in arsenals just in case of war requirements (like modern planes), scrapped, etc
The 1845 is an infantry officers' sword. The 1853 is for cavalry troopers (privates). Very different swords, for different use, and the 1845 is a private purchase item.
@@scholagladiatoria I’m sure I’m confusing things. You have a video where you discuss the 1845 Wilkinson evolving to replace the 1821 pipe back? The knight shop also seems to have the 1845 listened as the light cavalry sabre ??
IMO the U.S. Model 1860 Light Cavalry Saber was better overall. A little more curved, while slightly lighter and shorter. But the U.S.A. and C.S.A had no heavy cavalry.
I noticed a RU-vid video (linked below) about one of the ceremonial swords for King Charles' coronation ceremony. Would anyone know what pattern that sword would be? (For our American friends who watch the video a Warrant Officer in the British military is a senior NCO equivalent to a sergeant major not a technical expert or helicopter pilot.) ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4HFamS6wQcs.html
Not to discourage too much, because we like what we like, but the US M1860 is a relatively poor imitation of the French M1822. The French sword is better made, with a more finely tuned blade. Compared to the British 1853, the British sword is better for thrusting and has a much stronger hilt construction and stronger guard. I do like the French 1822, but for cavalry campaigning, I'd choose the Brit 1853.
@@scholagladiatoria Good to know ! Thus my Town from 500 BC is just as "antique" as that 1863 sword ? wow ! In my language Antique is: "from ancient times" mostly BC and up to the fall of Rome, thus some AD 500. For all others periods different words are used to make it as clear as possible. Ex: Late-Medieval, pre-industrial, post-WWI, etc. Antique being reserved for everything pre-Medieval. Also the use of Centuries is quite common. ... The marvel of modern English language. One words meaning so many things ...
