Black Fencer 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword Review 

I feel your pain (or at least my bank account does), Shaun.

Swords are now your children. Your flesh shoots must learn to fend for themselves. By getting their own swords.

By regulation the light had a 32-33" blade, whereas the heavy had a 35" blade, though many of them are a little shorter due to contemporary re-profiling. Typically the light is around 900g with an 18-19cm balance and the heavy sits around 1kg with a 15-17cm balance. This is because the heavy's hitl is heavier and and light flared much more in the foible. It all does make some sense when you look at the intended roles though. For harassing skirmishers and running down fleeing troops, scouting and similar the light is perfect, all about single big efficent cuts. Whereas the heavy is more a brawling tool for intense melee combat against infantry and cavalry. Of course in reality these intended roles got a little mirky at times.

Yes and more in many cases. They are not the kind of everyday HEMA tool that most military sabres or longsword feders are. A curiosity that gives some insight into a specific weapon type but that must be used with care and restraint, like most pole arms for example.

You'll have to order it custom, but they are happy to do them. You can see the synthetic version they have on their website below, just ask for a steel generation version of this - blackfencer.com/en/sabres-synthetic/110-like-steel-waster-saber-v2.html?search_query=heavy&results=4

I don't think he's ever gone into any more detail than the books. The 95th, like several elite infantry units, had their own regimental pattern. Whilst most British infantry sabres of the era did use what is basically a slightly smaller and lighter 1796LC blade on a stirrup or slot hilt, the 95th regimental sword used a short unfullered shamshir like blade, which you can see in the National Army Museum collection below. collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1981-05-37-1 These sorts of blades were nowhere near as robust as the cavalry sabres nor the infantry types based on them. One Captain of the 95th who sued one at Waterloo has this to say about them and his experience using one - 'The Frenchman held in his hands which was well calculated to bring all sizes upon a level - a good small sword – but as he had forgotten to put on his spectacles, his first (and last) thrust passed by the body a lodged in the highlander's left arm. Saunder's blood was now up (as well as down) and with our then small regulation half-moon sabre, better calculated to shave a ladies maid than a Frenchman's head, he made it descend on the pericranium of his unfortunate adversary with a force that snapped it at the hilt. His next dash was with his fist (and the hilt in it), smack in his adversary's face, which sent him to the earth; and though I grieve to record it, yet as the truth must be told, I fear me that the chivalrous Frenchman died an ignominious death, viz. by a kick. But where one's life is at stake, we must not be too particular.' It would actually make a lot of sense for Sharpe to have had a 1796 light cavalry sabre, whether officer or trooper, as it would still fit his uniform regulations reasonably well whilst giving the big and brutish sword he liked. I think the reason this was not done was simply because the heavy cavalry sword sounds and looks more intimidating and is easier for the average reader to understand how different it is.

I think I saw a thing where he said it fit Sharpe's personality and fighting style. Cornwell seems to like his protagonists to straddle two worlds while fitting in neither.

That is how it is written in the books yes, as Sharpe was originally a big burly Londoner, and not a skinny Northerner, though Cornwell did offer some explanation to try and make Sean Bean a better fit in kater books. I still say a light cavalry would have fit that character just the same, but its an audience perception issue. The very term "heavy cavalry" does evoke some strong emotions.

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing I mean, it does fit that Sharpe carries a trooper's sword in particular, rather than a more genteel, officer's model: coupled with the mentioned perception of the heavy cavalry sword as a rough and ugly, but utilitarian sword, I could see it serving as a metaphor for the man, I suppose.

@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing I remember a line in one of the books, I think Sharpe's Sword, where Cornwell had Sharpe hold this sword at arm length against an enemy and his men were proud he was strong enough to do it. I got the impression that Cornwell didn't really have any first hand knowledge of how much the 1796 HCS felt in the hand.

That can happen with any sword, either because the heat treatment isn't perfect, or a particularly hard thrust. Straighten it back out, if it breaks or continues to to sets very easily then get in touch with them and they will replace it.

If I'm not mistaken, a dozen countries used the double eagle.

Of all things this is the last I figured someone would say under a sword review.

@@CampeadorHUN I mean, the cavalry sword was designed to be used on horseback first and foremost