A bit of trivia regarding Sharpes sword - A character in the Starbuck Chronicles, a series of books by Bernard Cornwell set during the American Civil War, is a French cavalry colonel acting as an observer in McClellan's army named Patrick Lassan. Lassan is in fact Richard Sharpes son and carries his fathers 1796 pattern heavy cavalry sword.
The reason that Richard Sharpe uses a common trooper's sword is that he was promoted from the ranks to be an officer. That's why he doesn't particularly care about how fancy it looks. just that it is very sturdy and gets the job done. It also might be worth mentioning that Sharpe is written as a very big, burly man, and he prefers a heavy sword to batter down his opponents lighter swords.
WeaselordsLair It was given to him though by a superior officer though so we'd have to know why he chose it. People were saying in the other thread that this was actually in a later book, although chronologically earlier, so Cornwell just stuck with it. Nonetheless, upon becoming an officer, Sharpe could choose (and presumably afford) whatever sword he wanted and, as Matt said, the officers' swords were generally better quality.
Robert R My recollection from the books (it's been awhile since I read them) is that as a friendship gift, his sergeant and good friend Harper had worked over the sword for Sharpe to make it better (put a spear point on it at a time when the cavalry still carried it with the hatchet point, polished the blade and honed it to a better edge and so forth). In fact, in one of the books (called Sharpe's Sword), Sharpe kills an enemy officer and obtains his sword, which was a custom masterpiece of a foot officer's sword made in Klingenthal. Sharpe compares it to his own sword and it is in every way superior - except in the all-important "intangibles": Sharpe's "clumsy butcher's blade" was bequeathed to him by his first Rifle combat commander as a sign to the men that the dying commander truly trusted Sharpe to lead that mission in his stead and had then been worked over by Harper, and it had then kept him alive through a few encounters. Thus the common trooper's blade represented comradeship and luck to Sharpe. Meanwhile, the French officer had been a vicious, honourless, murderous asshole who had butchered a few innocent people with HIS blade -- so Sharpe felt the sword was irrevocably stained. So he threw the expensive, custom-made French officer's sword in a river and kept the cavalry trooper's blade ...
Remember, Sharpe had been with the Highlanders as an Ensign and had used a basket-hilt claymore while in India. So he would be used to this style of sword.
I actually started listening to the Richard Sharpe books on tape. It's stated that Captain Murray, the officer who relinquished command to Sharpe when all the other officers were slaughtered during a route, carried the sword as an eccentricity. So it's explained away. If you have a chance to do a video using the sword, it would be very nice to see it.
I think this is the ONLY video on youtube that talks about the 1796 heavy cav sword so thank you! In Bernard Cornwell's defense (I'm reading through the books now), he does say that the heavy cav is a weird choice for Sharpe to carry and considered "a brutal, ill-balanced weapon not ideal for delicate sword work" (not a direct quote but close). I think he chose a second hand heavy cav sword to underline Sharpe's scrappy lack of privilege and also maybe to just make his hero a little less typical. Maybe you can correct me on this, but I thought both the heavy and light 1796 cavalry sabre/sword were developed by the same man, John Le Marchant. That seems really strange given the stark difference between the two. There's so much information out there about the 1796 light cavalry sabre but almost nothing about the heavy. Any additional info - or better yet, a demonstration - on this sword's use and history would be greatly appreciated. I can't be the only Sharpe novel reader out here who is curious. Thanks again!
The books consistently remark on the sword being "heavy", "Massive", etc.- but I've handled a few in a military museum collection and found no real impediment to my blacksmith's arm at all- in fact it's a tad lighter than the French sword iirc. The HC comes in at under 2 1/2 lbs I believe, about the same as the LC sabre.
Cornwell's other point about Sharpe having that sword was that he was strong enough to wield it. It was what he preferred by habit from his friend and he didn't care or even try to be like the gentlemen officers who constantly out him down. And he had Wellington saying.he had never seen a man fight with such ferocity. Officers didn't even carry rifles in light infantry. But Sharpe did and led by example when it came to fast re-loading. And always, in the books he says ,"the point beats the edge". Realistic or not, that's that story
While Sharpe did originally use a saber given to him by a superior officer (who was, I think, a captain?), Harper winds up getting him a new one towards the end of the Peninsular Campaign. Harper spends a fair bit of time honing and prettying it up, but it's (probably) still just a trooper's saber. Sharpe winds up keeping that one (even though he gets his hands on a much better one later) for the same reason he kept his original trooper's saber: sentimental attachment.
Thanks for the videos. I'm curious in general of your opinion of Cornwell's books. I'm a big fan of the Saxon books, and have thus enjoyed your Early Medieval topics.
Smallswords... Why? ...Not because I am any good at it, but I really want to be able to walk down stairs, do sharp turns in the crowd and get in trains that sort of things. I would not recommend Katana or any swords that hangs horizontally when worn (Of course unless you decides to hang it the untraditional way) for obvious reasons. Other swords are fine too but smallswords tends to be quite light and compact so it would fit modern life quite well.
You've got a good point there. Something like a gladius in the city and a bigger sword for the countryside/woods. And that along with a puukko knife for utility and a pocketknife for slicing food and the like.
Prarp Vadanathorn Look at you all sensible and considering reason. I'd just carry a big ass sword for the sake of having a big ass sword, walking through malls be damned! lol
Sharpe prefers bigger heavier weapons because he's written as a large strong man with no formal swordsmanship training. So he prefers to use heavier weapons to beat opponents blades/muskets out of his way, he also finds the curved sabres difficult to use because the point is never where he expects it to be. And, as someone has surely mentioned, it was a gift from a dying superior officer who admitted to wearing it as an eccentricity
Question for you- I just got an original 1796 HC trooper's sword with iron scabbard and I've been thinking of putting a couple of wooden slats to "line" it as per what I think was the original practice if I'm not mistaken. Any particular wood appropriate or did they generally use what was cheap? Thinking of birch or poplar myself.
I believe that this is specifically referenced in 'Sharpe's Revenge', the one mostly set in England, just prior to waterloo, In this the central conflict is between strikers/luddites and a factory owner supported by a corrupt local miltia/yeomnary. At one point he ends up having an informal duel with an aristocratic yeomanry officer armed with a much lighter sabre. The upshot is that beats the fencing expertise of his opponent with his innate toughness and real world fighting experience and his sword is referenced as a 'butcher's cleaver' favoring cutting power over finesse. Obviously this is largely a literary device but it's the basis for Sharpe's character flavoring this particular weapon. There are quiet a few other passing references on the same general themes throughout the books. I'm sure that at one point he amputates somebody's arm with it,
Question for you- did most of the 1796 HC pattern have a wood insert or slat in the scabbard and if so what type? I'm assuming it would've been fairly soft, like birch or similar.
Hi, Matt! How much instruction and training did cavalrymen of Eighteenth and Nineteenth centuries receive in fencing? Did they fence at all, or does fencing while mounted negate the advantages of the horse?
bjmccann1 They received basic training with the sword first on foot and then mounted. It varied from regiment to regiment - some were much better trained that others.
In particular the individual British cavalrymen during the Napoleonic War seemed to be particularly well practiced in swordmanship and horsemanship compared to his continental counterparts, as well as being mounted on bigger and stronger horses. Hence they tended to dominate the French cavalry in small scale engagements, even when outnumbered. The problem was that their officers were quite ignorant of large unit tactics, which cost them dearly in a number of engagements, superior men and mounts notwithstanding. 'I consider our cavalry so inferior to the French for want of order, that although I am happy to match one of our squadrons to two of theirs, I did not like to see three of our squadrons against three of theirs, and as the scale of the engagement grows I am more and more unwilling to commit our men without a superiority in numbers.' The Duke of Wellington
As to whether they were trained to fence on horseback, yes they certainly were. Their type of fencing on horseback was quite a bit different thought than fencing on foot - the British cavalry sword manual written by John Le Marchant for the 1796 HCS and LCS was largely devoid of thrusting moves, which Le Marchant believed was disadvantageous for a horseback fighter. This in an era of almost entirely thrust centric foot fencing. About the only time the manual allowed the use of the thrusts was when attacking a fleeing enemy who was largely incapable of fighting back. Quite a lot the principles taught there made sense though, like never cocking your arm at the elbow to deliver a blow, and always being sure that your arm and hand was always behind the blade as you deliver it - obviously to prevent your opponent from counter cutting into your sword arm.
Do you think there was much of a difference in actual blade quality- excluding extras like engraving, bluing, etc- between the officers and troopers models? I know they all had to pass the same tests iirc.
What are your views on the French heavy cavalry sword of the same period? How did it compare to the British one in cut and thrust? I notice they changed the blade quite a bit post Napoleon to a sabre in 1822
Hello. I've been thinking of getting into saber training. What saber pattern do you recommend that was efficient and commonly used on land (as opposed to cavalry since to my understanding those sabers are very blade heavy and slow).
231cruzer Any infantry officer's sabre really - if you're interested in British swords then the 1854 pattern is a god model if made by a good maker like Wilkinson or Mole.
hey Matt, I received my 1796 heavy cavalry sword today, and I'm inclined to agree with you on it. It is by no means a bad weapon, but it is not an adaptable weapon, I wouldn't want to duel with it.
Looking at the prices I'm more and more inclined to hang on to my 1796 HC for awhile. I don't think the prices are going to be dropping much in the future and it's a heck of an addition to my collection, and frankly I've gotten fond of the old trooper. If you've got a strong arm it's not a bad sword at all.
It's odd that the guard is designed so well for protecting the hand while giving point, but the blade originally had a hatchet tip better for cutting. Regarding the 1796 light sabre, you think this guard would have been better or a 3 or 4 bar hilt?
A couple questions: 1. Where does the title "I.33" come from, and why are there disagreements about whether it's the letter "i" or the number one? 2. Are some Albion Next Generation swords perhaps a little too gracile and balanced too close to the hand?
+Noah Weisbrod I.33 comes from it's modern library index number. The actual document itself didn't have a title originally, so I.33 stuck. (While this isn't always the case, HEMA has a similar dynamic going on with quite a few other untitled anonymous works as well. The others are just really obscure.) As for the pronunciation, the "I" is supposed to be treated as a Roman numeral. So "One thirty-three" it is. :)
Hi I will join to the question which Jakub asked. Can you talk about the polish hussar saber and karabela? Maybe some comparison of Polish saber fight style vs. western urope? And one more comment, You talk about Austria, Hungary and Poland as of Eastern European countries. They have never been in east. These are Central Europe.
Quite interesting video, but I have just one nitpick. Neither Hungary, Austria, or indeed, Poland are in Eastern Europe. All those countries are in Central Europe. And we're very particular about that, god damn it!
Robert Tauzer I know, and it pisses me off to no end. So what, if couple of countries were behind Iron Curtain? Half of Germany was too, and nobody says its 'eastern'. Well, nobody except western Germans, but that's to be expected. The point is that historically, culturally, and geographically all those countries are Central Europe. Calling them 'eastern' is like saying everything north of London is "Oop North". Aaand that's my monthly quota of ranting gone in a single day. Thank you, Matt! :-)
People might be bothered by video quality, or sound quality, but what really bugs me is why does your facial hair reach your chin on the left but not on the right?
I quickly searched for a picture of the sword while he was talking and thought "Hey, I recognise that, that's..." Just as Matt said Sharpe used it. Okay, so here's a quick question: Why did the heavy cavalry use a sword and the light cavalry use a sabre? And also for clarification, what distinguishes heavy and light cavalry of that period? Thanks.
Ser Garlan Tyrell This is a complicated question, because by this period the two types of cavalry were getting closer in function and often starting to do jobs that were traditional for the other type. However, generally, light cavalry were for skirmishing, scouting and opportunistic attacks on flanks, fleeing enemy and artillert etc, heavy cavalry were for charging into the enemy at a crucial moment in battle or guarding crucial positions and flanks. It was considered that the straight sword was better for the charge, as it could thrust better and reach further. However, fashion played a part, as the light cavalry were more and more modelled on 'hussars' who traditionally used curved sabres anyway.
Ser Garlan Tyrell In France, it's not the shape of the blade that makes a weapon a saber or a sword, but the fashion of the hilt: swords have a pommel, sabers have a "calotte". We even have a very specific word to call long straight cavalry saber: "latte" (not to pronounce like the italian type of coffee, but rather like "lahtt"). I had the chance, two days ago, to handle two real 1854 cuirassier's sabers: they are very impressive weapons, with a thick, double fullered, almost one meter long blade. Yet, because of the tapers and fullers, they are surprisingly nimble for their size and overall massive look. The thing is they don't even try to pretend cutting, they are pure heavy duty thrusting weapons. It's true by the beginning of the 19th century, heavy and light cavalry missions and roles on the battlefield tended to merge, but you can still get a hint of who did what by the type of units in each (being french, my experience is with the napoleonic army, but I guess there were pretty similar kind of units in the british cavalry). Light cavalry: hussars, chasseurs à cheval, dragoons Heavy cavalry: cuirassiers, grenadiers à cheval, uhlans/lancers, carabiniers à cheval Light cavalry tended to be more mobile and manoeuvering, thus used for anything that required speed and contourning. Heavy cavalry is well known for charging in lines, thus having a great "hitting" effect either to stop an ennemy charge or disband infantry units. Then there's the case of dragoons, which are mounted infantry (they move around on horses, but fight mostly on foot). In France, it was a tradition for heavy infantry to have straigh bladed sabers or swords. After all, they are the direct descendants of knigths (as units). This was such a strong tradition that when the 1822 regulation (France) gave them a slightly curved saber, they immediatly joked about it and called it "bancal" (lopsided). The 1854 regulation gave them back a straight saber (but by the time heavy cavalry was fading out of fashion, and only the cuirassiers were really left). Light cavalry, on the other hand, was very strongly influenced by eastern Europe hussars, which had a very curved saber. In fact, before the 1720's, and the introduction of hussars in european armies (at least that's the period hungarian nobles arrived in France: Bercheny, Esterhazy, etc), you almost never see a curved blade in the hands of any type of cavalry. Curved blades were reserved to grenadier's hangers, disregarded by the cavalry (in France they were pejoratively called "briquets" (the piece of metal you hit with a flint to produce a spark to light a fire), "coupe-chou" (cabbage cutter), etc).
scholagladiatoria I had meant about maybe an idea for a short video, but thanks for the quick reply. I suppose I see the heavy cavalry lineage in terms of its name/roll, but I always thought in this period that lancer cavalry would have fulfilled the roll of charging into ranks of infantry. If as MadNumForce said, and with the latte (beautiful swords btw, though I have only ever seen them behind glass in museums, never had the opportunity to handle one), they traded almost all of the sword's cutting potential for the thrust, why not go all out and use a spear for the much greater reach? So in effect have heavy cavalry armed with a spear and sword and light cavalry armed with a carbine and sabre.
Ser Garlan Tyrell Well... Tradition played a role, I guess. But also, a saber or sword being much shorter, I suppose it has a very different handling. In particular, it probably makes withdrawing from the ennemy's body way easier. A saber/sword having nothing to protrude behind/under your hand, it won't hit you in the back when you pass the ennemy with the point still in him. I guess it's also easier to recover a dropped saber still attached with the lanyard (it just hangs from your wrist), while a lance, even with a lanyard, probably bounces around like crazy. It's also very unlikely your saber/sword blade will break on impact, while a wooden shaft may (eventually after being damaged). And even a one meter long blade can still be easily carried around in a sheath, while a lance is really quite bulky and unconvenient to transport. Yet lance was still apparently a viable option, as there still were lancers in most armies, even in the second half of the 19th century. Maybe I mislead you a bit when I wrote that "latte" don't even try to pretend cutting. They do have an edge, but the whole blade shape makes it quite unefficient for the size and weight. In a melee, you could still do quite a lot of damage with it, even just using it as a blunt weapon (it's still a very stiff steel bar, even completly unsharpened you could easily crack skulls and break arms with strong blows, and sharpened it would make damages even worst). So though it has a shorter maximum reach than a lance, it has a much higher "covering area"-to-length ratio than a spear. By the way, it's not sure your really need reach: the speed of your horse makes it a matter of tenths of second to be in reach. And you mostly aim for what's in front of you, not sideways (as far as I know, I never practiced horse riding nor tried to simulate a charge). Even though the musket + bayonet was quite long, it's nothing like the 16th century spike as an anti-cavalry weapon, and that shortening of infantry weapon might have played a role in the general adoption of swords (instead of the lance, which was the knight's primary weapon) as main heavy cavalry weapon. Just my two cents...
KinkyPinkFemboiAlex Well a lot of the antique examples have that modification and a few writers have suggested that it was done just prior to Waterloo - probably Robson (Swords of the British Army) covers it, but obviously I'm not near my books right now.
While the 1796 pattern LIGHT cavalry sword would clearly be very useful for slashing; it must have been next to useless for stabbing. Interestingly, by the time the 1908 pattern cavalry sword came along, 'slashing' appears to have been abandoned altogether.
Hey Matt. Why were officers and enlisted men issued/ expected to use different swords? Was it just for reasons of manufacturing costs (higher for officer's swords) or was there some other reason?
Dewi Bevan Officers paid for their own swords. There were guidelines about what they should be, but for reasons of status and practicality they customised and improved them if they could afford it.
This is the sword that was some what of copy of some what earlier models of Austrian heavy cavalry (ie. cuirassier) sword, yes ? In similar sense as it was with 1796 light cavalry sabre which was copied from austro-HUNGARIANS light cavalry units, like model of hair style was also... at least by the French...
the heavy 1796 was copied from the austro-hungarian m1769 pallasch. this was used from 1769 to maybe the 1830ies or 40ies. so it probably wasnt that bad. (although i cant tell, if the austro-hungarian version had hatchet or spear-point)
scholagladiatoria so what sword would you have picked for a officer in the a rifle Company, during the Napoleonic times or are you more of a line infantery or cav man :)
Exploatores I would have actually chosen what a lot of fighting officers were themselves choosing - the flank company officer's sabre. It's like the 1796 light cavalry sabre, but lighter and not balanced so far from the hand. Personally, rather than the 1803 pattern, I would choose a steel-hilted version; you do find examples with the Rifle Regiment bugle decoration on them.
Captain Murray carries the Heavy Sword apparently because it can crush a man's skull by weight alone. He gives the sword to Sharpe in the first book "Sharpe's Rifles". He actually says of it that it is not much of a sword however if Sharpe carries it then the men might think that a proper officer like Captain Murray liked him. Sharpe to my knowledge never chooses a sword. He gets given this one by Murray and made one by Harper in Sharpe's Sword.
In the books set before the first film, he goes through a few different swords, but he consistently favoured bigger, heavier blades that he could use to bat musket barrels out of the way. Im certain he uses a Scottish Claymore and a heavy naval cutlass at different points. But yeah, he mentioned at lne point that if the hc sword isn't honed in a specific way, then you're better off just trying to beat someone to death with it
Justin Cook A sword, no. But a large knife, yes. Modern carbines are too short for bayonets to be of much use, I think, but a large knife could be useful in lots of situations - for helping confidence if nothing else. A sword would be too inconvenient to wear I think, and is also perhaps harder to use effectively than a large knife.
Justin Cook No, as a modern Soldier. you can have 60 Pounds of gear or more. try to have a sword and step in to a car. What shall you do with the carbine, when you are using your sword. Giving your enemy a mouth full of butstock works beter then a sword. as a confidence builder a dager works fine at a fraction of the size and weight of a sword.
Justin Cook somthing like fairbairn-Sykes style maybe not as long. if your enemy has a kevlar west, its no Point of having a slashing blade. the gaps in the west is the only places a blade might work.
sky4eyes That's a good question, which we could probably go into a long discussion about, but I think that the main answer is that the authorities thought the cavalry needed swords more capable of thrusting, so they came out with a compromise type of blade and married it to more protective hand guard types for both light and heavy cavalry.
Was that MeowNya? As in spelling the sound a cat makes in English and Japanese? If so, "nya" is pronounced like a child taunting someone. "Nyah, nyah! You can't catch me!" Except the "a" is soft, like in "saw".
It really irritates me that the 1796 heavy cavalry *sword* is so often referred to as a ''heavy cavalry sabre'' around the internet, for a while i tought it must have some minimalistic curve that would still make it one because of all the people thinking it's a sabre but no.
MyNameIsMud: As I understand it, according to conventional wisdom, any sword used by the Cavalry post, say 1800, is a saber, even those adopted in the late 1800's that were almost always straight.
