Things I’d like Matt Easton to make videos about: A walk-through of his collection. Protecting antique blades with oil and/or Renaissance Wax. To polish blades or not to polish? Brass hilts and verdigris. Dealing with the corrosion left by old finger marks. And, of course, favourite blade!
I've always preferred the idea of cut and thrust for a simple reason. If you are simply thrusting, than you are rather limited in your approach to combat. If however you also have an edge and it is designed where cutting is an option, and an option where it can make a mess of me, I now need to worry about two methods of ending my life. An increase in options for the attacker is always good in my book.
i have often thought that in the hypothetical situation of myself being a 19th century officer I would prefer the 1845 pattern blade mounted on a '95 hilt, so it is lovely to see an actual sword set up that way. They seem to be unusual enough that I doubt I'll ever get to own one. I do have a Wilkinson where the blade was made in January 1892, which was re-hilted in 1895 or 96, so presumably the owner was one of those poor officers that had to keep upgrading his sword. He must have gotten sick of it by the time 1897 rolled around and refused to change it again :p An interesting side note is that the Navy appears to have avoided the checkering on the grip, opting instead to texture it by continuing the mane pattern from the lion's head pommel all the way along the backstrap. To me it seems like a bit of a mixed result - it is much more comfortable than the 1895 grip, which feels a little like holding a rasp, but is still a bit slippery. It is quite pretty though.
I find it quite amusing that there was so much development going on in swords just as swords were ceasing to be important weapons. Between 1850 and 1900 they went from cap and ball revolvers to cartridge revolvers to semi autos. Given that they had been using swords for the previous 1000 odd years that by 1900 they would have figured out what one should looked like and how it should be used.
@@TigerDude333 As were every other army involved. The Russians and Germans both used cavalry in WWII and the last American cavalry unit in battle was in the Philippines against the Japanese.
I have a Wilkinson with a gold gilt 1854 handle (straight checkered backstrap), an 1892 blade and it left Wilkinson in 1906 per the blade serial number and the cypher of Edward VII on the handle. :)
Just got to watching this video. Just a note, my great-grandfather purchased his infantry sword on 28 February 1868 and it still has a folding guard. I note that this is a purely ceremonial sword, it never had an edge put on it, it is very light (1 1/2 lbs) and I would not want to even try and fence with it. As far as I can tell, he was never in combat or near combat at any time in his career.
I found your channel and started watching on sabers. Tons of great information combined with practical knowledge. I just have to ask in your opinion who were the best trained Cavalry Swordsman? And in your opinion what saber or sabers are the finest of its class slashing the 1796, thrusting 1908 or is it combination like the 1897. What I'm asking all the different countries all the different style of sabers Which countries system embodies the ideal cavalry and Sabre. With all the different countries with countless improvements through the centuries essentially what was the final finished product. The last step of evolutionary journey.
I prefer the Cut and Thrust design better as well. I mean it just means you have more options. Its like comparing a Boxer to a Kickboxer. Kickboxer has more avenues of attack and has the advantage. It just makes sense to me.
Hello, I'd like to know more on the role of twohanders in the battle, also on those sword, in particular about the flamberga (I only know the Italian name since it is my nation). Could you make a video about that?
I have recently acquired a sword which I feel is very similar in design to 1827 pattern for rifles (infantry) officer's sword. It has a similar basket and has a pipe-backed blade. The issue is that the full length of the sword is about 20" and the blade is about 13 5/8". This is similar dimensions to a Royal Naval Dirk of that general period. It does not look to have been "cut down", there appears to be no marking (the surface condition is poor) and I can not find anything similar. Do you have a suggestion of where I can find further information of this sword? Thank-you, I enjoy your programs.
Matt, what ate your thoughts on Patton's 1908 Cavalry sword? As a purely thrusting weapon, how did it perform kn its role? Was it used in combat? Did Patton also fence with that blade? In other words, would he have given the role of self protection on foot, using the sword, any serious consideration in its design?
French infantry sabers followed a similar evolution. The 1845 pattern is very versatile, both quite stiff for thrusting and still having a decent heft for cutting, and having quite a protective hilt. But in 1882 came a new patern, with a poor 4 bar hilt made of German Silver, and a minimalistic thrusting blade that doesn't even try to pretend. The 1882 screams saber decadence when they went out of actual battlefield use, at least in the infantry, cause the 1882 light and heavy cavalry saber was a straight single edged blade with fuller mounted on a tried and proven 1822 hilt.
scholagladiatoria It seems the 1845 (the 1855 being only the switch from leather to steel scabbard for superior officers) come from a very rare saber, which never was a regulation model, only made on private order, the so-called 1837 sabre des Chasseurs de Vincennes, which still bear traits from the 1821 infantry saber (especially on the hilt). Also, just to be precise, there are two versions of the 1845 saber: one for subaltern officiers and NCOs, the one we're talking about, which is quite similar to the english 1845, and one for superior officiers, with a straight, double edged, double fullered blade, and meant to somewhat ressemble the épée/smallsword officiers used to carry as a tradition, but beefed up. Maybe the British army wasn't as fussy with traditions, as the sligthly curved, cut-and-thrust saber, both french and british, is at least as good on the battlefield as the pure thrusting saber given to french superior officiers.
Hi, your comment about 'tailor made' blades intrigued me, as I'm trying to find out about an 1897 sword by 'W H Hall' of Sheffield, but I can't find see anything about them on the web. I was wondering if they were a true maker. The blade is marked 'proved, so your remark about the proved mark suggests they were?
My soon to be ex has a similar weapon in her possession. Hers has a BP in the guard and it was made by Harmon & Sons(?) or Company(?) Calcutta India and it has this cute little brass colored 6 pointed star inserted into the blade. There are some nicks on it as well but it's not sharp. I always imagined a couple of guys got bored in garrison and started horsing around in the barracks. Thanks for the video!
Hullo Matt, I’m trying to restore a couple of 1895 pattern swords but lack the hilt and guards. Do you know of anyone/anywhere that might help? Great video, thanks.
you're a bad influence mr easton. i've just bought a 45/95 hybrid similar to the one shown (albeit by pillin) from chiswick auctions. but the question we really need answered is, which sword for the post modern apocalypse? :-) lol.
If an officer was left-handed, could he have a sword made with a left-handed hilt, or did he have to practice the right handed sword exercise, and learn to fence right-handed?
Lefties were severely discriminated against in the 19th century. A left handed child, particularly one raised by a more well-off and "proper" family would have been forced to use their right hand for everything. Tying the child's left hand up was a common "therapy" for the "disease" of left-handedness.
came across a 1854 sword with GVR cypher online, instead of a proof disc it has "proved" stamped in a circle are there post VR "gothic" swords? sorry for asking a noob question
It is also more likely that a thrust will miss a vital organ and have minimal effect. A large cut anywhere on the body is more likely to be debilitating (if not immediately fatal) and thus more likely to end the fight.
During the American Civil War my x8 Grandfather became a Lieutenant in the Texas Cavalry more specifically Terry's Rangers. He used the M1840 Cavalry Saber based on the 1822 French hussar's sabre. By 1863 he had captured an M1860 Cavalry Saber from an enemy he had killed although by this time he was carrying more pistols and ammo then worrying about his saber. We have a written letter saying he carried in as many as 7 preloaded cylinders for his revolver.
Fantastic :-) Yes, swords were not favoured in the US civil war, thanks to the great availability of revolvers. Outide the US this was less the case - in the Crimean War and Indian Mutiny many British and French officers do not seem to have had pistols at first and many could only get single or double-barrelled pistols. Revolvers do not seem to have become widespread with British officers until the later 1860's and even then swords were still important because of the nature of the enemies - revolvers cannot parry and when being attacked by a bunch of Afghans or Zulus there was sometimes no chance to reload after the first 6 shots.
Pre-loaded cylinders aren't too far off from a modern speed loader/moon clip, or a magazine in the case of a semi-auto. Sounds like your grandfather was a smart man, which--combined with a little luck--is probably why he lived to tell the tale. Even today, someone that can shoot would be pretty dangerous with a revolver from that era and some extra ammo/cylinders.
wcropp1 He fought from 1861 to 1864 and was at every major engagment including The Battle of Antietam (was one of the Texans who led the Charge which saved a the Confederate Army they say with 80% losses for the Texans) and was at Gettysburg. He was captured in 1864 at the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse. He was released in 1866 and returned home (his father had fought in the Texas Revolution and had been a Texas Ranger) he became a Texas Ranger during the indian fighting and settled down to raise a family.
Fascinating. Sounds like your grandfather lead quite the interesting life. I live in Northern Virginia, so I'm lucky to be surrounded by quite a bit of history from that era. Unfortunately it was also a very destructive period in American history. Matt--revolvers certainly aren't ideal for parrying, particularly on their own, but I can't help but imagine that they would have been used for such purposes in a supplemental role to a saber not altogether unlike a parrying dagger. That is, assuming you're out of ammo to shoot the poor bastard with.
wcropp1 Yup my family can trace its heritage back to the American Revolution when we came to the USA from Scotland in the early 1700s and fought in the French and Indian War and then later the Revolution. Moving to Tennessee then eventually to 1826 and my family has been in every war except for Korea/Vietnam/Gulf War. Myself my brother and 5 cousins where in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Texas you dont get to see a lot of history because the state is so new. One reason I think the British didnt come to accept modern firearms so quickly is maybe looking at revolvers as not honorable or not an officers weapon.
I have in my collection a 1897 British Officer sword, George V, and I must say that it is the least favorite sword I have. It is a VERY,VERY heavy blade that will wear your arm out in no time. This sword is nothing more than a pointed piece of HEAVY steel stock. My preference for a sword of this period is the German M1891. Both the M1891 and the 1897 are thrusting blades. The M1891 is light and nimble and can be used for an extensive time without tiring the arm and wrist.
What should we expect to pay if we were to buy a structurally sound sword along those lines? I'd like to own one an original cut and thrust saber and actually play with it a bit. To be honest, I don't have any strong connection to a particular nationality, so any of the better swords of the type and era would do.
Why is there holes in the cup guard? Is it important for the hand to breathe? Also, bit weird that medieval swords cut so well compared to industrial age swords.
Is there any difference in blade length between the '45 and the '92? It's difficult to see when you're holding them, but the 1892 issue seems a bit longer.
Joshua Thomas All British officers, all British cavalry and mounted artillery, have swords for parade purposes. They are functional swords, but they are not carried on active duty of course.
why did they bother "updating" their swords. To sell more swords? Was Wilkinsons lobbying the ministry of war? They have a perfectly adequate cut and thrust sword that is rarely used as it is, and then they get a new one. Those military guys are so prissy; always changing their fashion arbitrarily.
How often where these swords used? It is not the time was of loose powder and ball, rain vulnerable firing systems,and inaccurate pistols, rifles. Seems like a sword debate in the mid to late 19th century is akin in debating which piece of military jewelry is better.
StealthKab I'd have to disagree. If anything, melee weapons became more important in the late 19th century, as trench warfare started to take the place of open field battles. Until the sub-machine gun got invented, such encounters largely hinged on melee weapons. There's a reason why there are so many anecdotes of bayonets being used in the Crimean War; most of the fighting took place in the trenches dug around Sevastopol. Also, anyone who thinks the American Civil War changed anything about warfare has a deep pro-US bias. Pretty much everything that's supposedly 'revolutionary' about the American Civil War was developed by the British and/or French ten years earlier...
Swords and bayonets were still quite frequently used until quite late in the 19th century and especially so in colonial warfare. Less so in European and North American warfare. The rise of magazine rifles, revolvers and faster loading artillery saw a reduction in the use of hand weapons, though as mentioned, they were still used in urban, siege and trench warfare. This video may help: Sword and bayonet fighting in the age of gunpowder
The rate of fire for most Victorian weapons was much faster than Napoleonic or US Civil War days, but still much slower than modern standards. Having an enemy close to melee range, especially in the irregular warfare of the colonial wars, was quite feasible. That said, an officer's best weapon was the infantrymen whose fire he directed; if an officer had to use his sword, something had gone very, very wrong.
dajolaw I sort-of agree, though there are plenty of examples from history where the officers led by example. This particularly happened in the cavalry, where the officer was as well or better equipped than the regular soldiers and in many cases the officers were much better horsemen.
I'm sure there were some idiots and bigots like today but I imagine the intelligent debate at least wasn't so much "is cutting or thrusting better?" but "is a cutting blade or thrusting blade or compromise best suited to our context?" Also "hyber-bowl"
I don't think Scottish officers were any different to English, Welsh or Irish officers by this time. Lowland Scots had been like the English for centuries... Highland regiment Scottish officers retained the basket-hilted broadsword. One of the most famous British smallsword masters was Sir William Hope.. who was Scottish!
***** The later versions of the 1828 pattern do have narrow blades and I dislike them quite a lot for that reason - also because as well as being narrow they are not stiff either, so pretty horrible really. However, if you look at examples which date to the earlier decades, up until the 1860s, they often had quite broad blades still then. This more or less corresponds to the period that officer's swords were still used with some frequency (until the 1860s). You do also find unusual later examples with broad blades. Most officers just had swords as dress regulations and didn't care much about them (and some officers came to regret that when they were forced to use them!).
