# Communities > Antique Arms & Armour Community > Antique & Military Sword Forum >  The 1845 Wilkinson type blade

## Matt Easton

An article I have put together on the 1845 Wilkinson type blade: 

http://www.fioredeiliberi.org/antiqu...les/1845blade/



Matt

----------


## james.elstob

A good summary, thanks

----------


## L. Braden

I swore never to get involved in any more controversies, but this old and never-ending one I couldn't resist.

Wilkinson, having no combat experience, was ignorant regarding cut vs. thrust, because he relied on faulty reasoning and the testimony of a few officers who were lucky enough not to have miss-thrust or not to have had their swords get stuck fast in an opponent's body, or who were lucky enough to survive if they did, or whose opponent was instantly disabled. As ample evidence proves, numerous others weren't so lucky.

That the thrust was more effective in immediately disabling or killing an opponent, at least in so-called "savage warfare", is a myth, as even some proponents of the thrust as Dr. J. J. Cole had to admit; and as most Asians and Africans and many others elsewhere discovered, it was far less risky to cut than to thrust. Besides, to their way of thinking, there was no need to kill your opponent if you could disable him and thereby save yourself from possible injury or death; and when you could lop off heads and limbs with little effort, as Asians and Africans could, you didn't concern yourself with risky thrusting.

Even if it could be proved conclusively (which it cannot) that the thrust was more effective than the cut, how many swordsmen would have been willing to risk having a failed thrust or a stuck blade? And how many European instructors in swordsmanship ever cautioned their students, that if they used the point, to beware of being injured or killed themselves if they didn't immediately disable or kill their opponent? Most of them, having no practical experience in warfare, taught in theoristic unreality or wishful thinking.

Finally, why couldn't the official control freaks in the military and others involved in teaching swordsmanship and designing swords allow swordsmen to choose and use whatever swords and techniques they pleased, instead of dictating theoristic and impractical weapons and methods? Simply because that's the nature of dictators! Officers, of course, could choose and use at will; but they were nonetheless intellectually bullied by the so-called authorities and experts; and the poor troopers were stuck with weapons that they frequently found to be virtually useless and with methods that thwarted their natural instinct to cut rather than thrust.

P.S. Much of the evidence for the above argument can be found in a book that is listed in the Book Reviews section.

----------


## L. Braden

"A thrust, however slight, produces an immediate effect and paralyzes future exertion." Incredible bunk! Even Burton, a fierce proponent of the point, as well as many eyewitness accounts, debunked this self-serving generalization.

----------


## gordon byrne

Would be very interesting to know the identity  Henry Wilkinson's correspondent on the NWF.

----------


## L. Braden

And what about a full quotation of the Campaigner's argument in favour of the cut, instead of just a single-sentence dismissal and subsequent b.s.?
HW's much-touted blade testing was so "extreme" (his word), which may be why the Ordnance Dept. (otherwise clueless) didn't adopt it, that it weakened many blades to the extent (euphemistically known as "metal fatigue") that they bent or broke when used in action. (There is plenty of officer evidence for this.)
(To be cont'd)

----------


## L. Braden

The Ordnance Dept. didn't use an ultra-severe monstrosity like the HW "eprouvette" (why a French word?) to test swords, and yet: "Lord Wolseley thought that many of the swords of the pattern now in use have been over-strained by tests" (quoted in newspapers of 1889). Also: "The authorities had often wondered how it came to pass that swords which had passed the test made by the 'sword-smiter', without showing any flaw, would afterwards, in the hands of troopers, sometimes prove faulty, and break or turn in a most unexpected manner." (The Windsor Magazine, 1900.) Did it take a genius to figure that one out?
(To be contd)

----------


## L. Braden

Lt. Col. W. N. Lockyer, R.A., Chief Inspector of Small-Arms (in JRUSI, Oct. 1898): "I had for some time been certain that our swords were being over-tested, and many of them much injured before being issued into the Service, as they were subjected to a very severe bending test. Now, though a sword may stand this very severe test once, it runs a chance of being so over-strained thereby and so injured as not to be able to stand anything afterwards. ... I found our tests infinitely more severe than those of any other nation. ... I wrote a strong report on the unwise severity of our tests to Colonel King-Harman, then the Superintendent at Enfield, who forwarded it, fully endorsing my views. Shortly after this the testing of our swords and bayonets was revised, and the tests all modified." For which troopers had cause to be grateful! 
To be contd.

----------


## L. Braden

There are many more 19th-century quotes similar to the above, but they will suffice as representative examples.
Finally, note the words "may be relied on for correctness and quality" in the Wilkinson weapons ad. Well, here's just one of many examples of that "correctness and quality", from Capt. B. A. Combe, Brigade-Major of Cavalry, writing from Afghanistan in 1879: "All the pistols have arrived, and I sent Wilkinson a cheque yesterday for the amount of his bill, telling him at the same time that the finish and general turn-out of the weapons was not at all creditable, considering the very high price charged. They were evidently made in a hurry, and not nearly so well finished as one bought last year by one of our youngsters."
To be contd.

----------


## L. Braden

P.S. Add inefficient and insufficient record-keeping to the mix, as those attempting to identify sword owners have discovered to their dismay, with exorbitant prices for potentially worthless weapons.

----------


## L. Braden

P.S.S. All edits to the above posts were intended to let the evidence speak for itself; so if anyone is offended, blame the evidence. Anyway, enough is enough!

----------


## Will Mathieson

I have Wilkinson swords dating from the 1840's to WW1 and I find none wanting in finish or quality. Blades are proved find internal flaws. 
When regiments took it upon themselves to reprove trooper blades they bent them too far, too often or both. Because blades failed by multiple proofs is no indication of quality, they are not truck springs designed to constantly flex past a certain limit.
I think taking one or two period complaints by an individual officers does not prove that Wilkinsons made a lesser product. On the contrary we find many Wilkinson swords that have seen battle and over 100 years later are still in fighting order.
Complaints of price seems odd, what do they compare a Wilkinson sword price to?  Many 1000's of officers purchased Wilkinson swords and were satisfied. When you depend on a sword to save your life what should one pay? Not all blades were made equal.

----------


## L. Braden

I don't dispute that W. made good swords; but based on evidence, I do dispute that their ultra-extreme testing method was beneficial. 
What is your evidence for "one or two period complaints"? Mine indicates that there were more than that! Besides, not every complaint about anything ever survives even if it was ever recorded; but you can bet that if there are at least three complaints about anything, there are probably more if they involve the same defect or whatever. 
I don't know if W. swords were overpriced as compared to others, but there seems to be general agreement that they were above average in price because they were generally touted as better made and more reliable than others.

----------


## Will Mathieson

I wouldn't go as far as saying Wilkinsons method of testing as ultra extreme. They tested the spring steel of the blade to set limits and gave a baseline for testing. 
Beneficial yes, this bending test would find any weakness in the steel or imperfection in critical areas and tested the tempering. If the blade stayed bent it did not pass. 
An early form of quality control since steels in their day could not be guaranteed as we take for granted today. X marked on the blades ricasso the side tested. 
Wilkinsons knew that further bend testing can and did create weakness in the blades steel (metal fatigue) and this was well illustrated when some regiments decided to do their own unofficial testing. Some "unofficially" tested trooper swords in combat would fail, but was no fault of the sword but the previous unofficial testing that weakened them. 
Above average price for an above average sword!
Complaints? When you have officers you will have complaints. Always some who do not know the physical limitations of a sword, or themselves.

----------


## L. Braden

I respectfully suggest that you read what the Wilkinson "eprouvette" did to blades - a far more severe test than that used by the Ordnance Dept., which was manual, and even that was considered excessive by Lockyer et al. So, if the Wilkinson test was "beneficial", why wasn't it or a similar method adopted by the Govt.? The answer is obvious! However, I see that this discussion will lead nowhere but agreeing to disagree. Cheers!

----------


## L. Braden

P.S. In support of my use of the objectionable "ultra-severe", I herewith quote from the Scientific American of May 17, 1884, which, after describing the British manual method, adds the following: "A method of testing swords much more severely, and in a way certain to be uniform, is afforded by a machine now in use by private manufacturers of the best goods, but it has not been adopted by the Government." Indeed, I've never read any description of the W. method that considered it merely equally as severe as the manual method, but always as more severe.

----------


## Will Mathieson

Wilkinsons tested privately purchased officers swords as part of its sales advertising while attempting standardized testing. 
Ordnance dept. purchased swords for troopers of cavalry and bought from several makers.  Why they didn't use Wilkinsons eprouvette?  Trooper sword blades are heavier and therefore stronger than officer sword blades on average.  The test may have been pointless in this case? Of course the "manual test" was never identical from one to the next so it never gave a precise indicator of proof.
What's that about "hero"in missing post?  Wilkinsons appears to be a good as maker as Reeves, Mole etc. 
I really don't know what the disagreement is. Testing, severe or not? Any answer will be opinionated, I don't view Wilkinsons test excessive, and you may think it is, really doesn't matter. The test did not destroy such a high percentage of blades to be considered too harsh. I know if I relied on a sword blade I'd want the toughest balanced by its weight.
This post was about the 1845 p Wilkinson blade, though previous makers did design the blade profile. It was adopted by the British army and all makers used this pattern

----------


## Will Mathieson

I was hoping we're not stuck on a descriptive word such as "severe"  The word was used to impress prospective purchasers of swords in the past. 
Today testing stress limits of steels is just a necessity of manufacturing.

----------


## J.G. Hopkins

From "Testing Bayonets and Cavalry Swords", _Scientific American_ Vol. 54, No. 12 (20 March 1886):

----------


## Matt Easton

I don't really understand what the assertion/contention is above regarding Wilkinson's testing.

Yes Wilkinson tested swords and threw away blades that did not pass the test - this was one reason for their high end product cost.
So-called tailors' swords are often junk in terms of blade quality and were often not tested - period sources note this. Clearly someone who expects to use a sword does not want one that has not been tested!

I have personally straightened many bent antique blades and I can say with commitment that Wilkinsons are among the hardest to straighten, because they are made of higher carbon (1%) steel and often hardened to a higher degree than other blades. I have had so-called Tailors' swords that came to me slightly bent and which I straightened in a matter of seconds by hand... They were soft. 

Cavalry trooper swords vary HUGELY in blade quality because 1) they were mass-produced by varied makers and 2) they were often abused for years by privates. 

In regard to the cut vs thrust debate: 

This debate is as old as swordsmanship. It doesn't matter whether you look at 16th and 17th century soldiers and fencing masters (see George Silver or Joseph Swetnam), or 19th century soldiers and fencing masters. 

We are certainly not going to conclude whether cutting or thrusting is better here, after hundreds of years of expert disagreement!!!

The fact is that most swords throughout history are cut and thrust blades. Most swordsmanship systems, from any part of the world (Europe, India, Japan etc) use BOTH cuts and thrusts. The Japanese sword is famous for cutting but is also used to thrust. The Indians have swords designed for both cutting and thrusting. 

Thrusts are more fatal in general (whether today or then) and much harder to medically treat - they also have longer reach and penetrate clothing and armour more easily. Cuts can be safer to give and may sometimes have more stopping effect, but they require a sharp edge applied skilfully and cannot get through most types of armour or even thick clothing.

Regarding 19th century evidence of the effects of thrusts - in fact there are dozens and dozens of examples in period sources of people getting stabbed by a sword, spear, lance or bayonet and going straight down, without further resistance. Just as there are examples of people fighting on after being wounded (whether from cut or thrust). We can't really take an overall conclusion from the available evidence - there are lots of examples of both thrusts and cuts finishing fights, just as there are examples of both not finishing fights. 

Lastly, let's not forget that experienced swordsmen who actually used swords in combat, did not all agree with each other. Hodson certainly used his sword lots in combat and various sources explicitly state that he used the thrust to finish off opponents. John Jacob equally had lots of exposure to sword combat and was of the opinion that cutting was best on horse, but thrusting was best on foot. Colonel Fox himself beheaded an Egyptian at Tel-el-Kebir with a cut, but was an exponent of the thrust in general. Fred Roberts was clearly a fan of the cut, at least when mounted, because his sword was a specially made curved sabre. In conclusion, we cannot make a sweeping conclusion - different soldiers with experience of actual combat all had varying opinions. Some preferred more thrusting blades, others preferred choppers.

What we can absolutely say, and bringing it back to my article, is that MOST experienced fighting officers of the second half of the 19th century used the standard 1845 type blade, for a mixture of cutting and thrusting. Hodson stayed with the 1845 type blade and so did Jacob. Their positive recommendation should not be taken lightly.

----------


## L. Braden

Pardon my asking, since I'd like to end this, but what regiments or troopers did "unofficial" testing, and when? According to Queen's Regulations, "Testing weapons of any kind in charge of troops is strictly forbidden" and "All tampering with arms is strictly forbidden. Any damage to arms so caused will be charged against the troops." The duty of regimental armourers was strictly limited to inspecting, cleaning, and repairing (not testing) arms. If weapons were found or thought to be defective, they were either returned to the factory for testing or (if the factory had no room for them) destroyed. Even sharpening of swords was strictly regulated and administered by the armourers and/or their trained assistants. In other words, govt. property was not to be tampered with without official authorization, under penalty of fines, disciplining, and court-martials.

----------


## L. Braden

Another question: Regarding reputed general satisfaction with Wilkinson swords, how many officers ever had occasion or even inclination to use a sword in combat? After c. 1860, when the metallic-cartridge revolver became the average officer's weapon of choice, the answer (according to 19th-century sources) is: Very few. Even before then, it was mostly the cavalry officers who used their swords; but they were far outnumbered by infantry officers, many if not most of whom (according to sources) didn't care about swords or swordsmanship. Would that logically mean that there was a small minority of officers who actually used Wilkinson swords in combat, and that those who were dissatisfied with them were offset by those who weren't? I have a list of 7 officers who are on record as dissatisfied customers. I wonder how many more there are, if any, on or off record?

----------


## L. Braden

Finally (I hope), there was a natural reluctance on the part of dissatisfied customers to make public their dissatisfaction, given Wilkinson's reputation and influence. Example: When it was leaked to the Press (by Lt. Churchill) that Lt. Wormald's Wilkinson "bent double" in combat at Omdurman, it caused quite a stir, resulting in Churchill deleting the incident from the 2nd and subsequent editions of his The River War. A Wilkinson rep responded honestly: "The sword that will neither bend nor break under any pressure has yet to be made." (Incidentally, Wormald gave W. a second chance when the company provided him with a free replacement; whereupon that very sword "buckled" in WW1!)

----------


## L. Braden

Incidentally, in the article referenced by Mr Hopkins, the machine test for British cavalry swords is characterized as "extremely severe", as the description indicates.

----------


## MikeShowers

> Pardon my asking, since I'd like to end this, but what regiments or troopers did "unofficial" testing, and when? According to Queen's Regulations, "Testing weapons of any kind in charge of troops is strictly forbidden" and "All tampering with arms is strictly forbidden. Any damage to arms so caused will be charged against the troops." The duty of regimental armourers was strictly limited to inspecting, cleaning, and repairing (not testing) arms. If weapons were found or thought to be defective, they were either returned to the factory for testing or (if the factory had no room for them) destroyed. Even sharpening of swords was strictly regulated and administered by the armourers and/or their trained assistants. In other words, govt. property was not to be tampered with without official authorization, under penalty of fines, disciplining, and court-martials.


Quickly glancing through Robson's "Swords of the British Army" there is reference to the commanding officers of the 11th Hussars and Scot's Greys, in 1854, complaining that the new pattern swords were inferior and 'bent like hoops.' Enfield apparently concluded that the swords were subject to unauthorised and improper tests after issue.  There is no mention if the officers were court martialed or fined.
Cheers,
Mike

----------


## L. Braden

If such tests occurred, I would like to know how they were conducted and who conducted them. There was no testing equipment in depots or in the field - only in the small-arms factory. Also, as outraged as the officers and men may have been, I can't imagine them being that foolish enough to think that they could get away with such insubordination - although, in warfare, many things were overlooked and gotten away with, even in the stiff-necked Victorian army. As said, "Desperate times call for desperate measures" and "Hang the consequences!" Then again, maybe that was Enfield's convenient excuse to cover their own culpability, which would be why there would be no investigation; or if there was a trumped-up investigation, pro forma, no one would be found to blame. Who knows? Only someone who wants to research the matter, if indeed there is anything to find. Thanks for the info, and Cheers!

----------


## Matt Easton

Here is an amusing anecdote comparing a Japanese sword to a Wilkinson blade:




> Great efforts were made to get swords [from the Japanese], which have the reputation of being most excellently tempered; all were unsuccessful; neither money nor English swords would be taken in exchange for them, and five months later, when I quitted Japan, I did not hear of a single sword being in any officer's possession, though some of the ships were for a large part of the summer in Japanese ports.
> 
> Some doubts of the temper of these swords arose in consequence of a playful encounter which happened on board one of the ships, in which a Japanese sword suffered some injury from the cuts of an English one, which had received several cuts from the Japanese sword without receiving any dents; this superiority may have arisen from the more dexterous handling of the officer. and from the English sword having been bought at a good establishment,  at Wilkinson's, I believe.


From: Notes on the late expedition against the Russian settlements, by Bernard Whittingham, 1856.

----------


## L. Braden

Horrors! What must the thousands of so-called "katana-worshippers" think of that revelation?
Anyway, I should have consulted Robson (thanks again to Mike!) before I spouted off yesterday. Evidently, the investigations involving cavalry swords, like those later involving swords and bayonets and the Martini-Henry rifle, were buried in the War Office files and never published (not that I can find); but the result of the investigations seems to be that they were an official whitewash of the Ordnance Dept. and their contractors; and the fact (yet to be determined) that no action was taken against the commanding officers or any others of the Hussars and Greys is proof positive that it was a trumped-up charge against them. As I previously stated, I find it hard to believe that any unauthorized tests were sanctioned and conducted in depots where there was no testing equipment, unless hammers or other objects were involved, as well as bending blades underfoot, etc. The only reasonable conclusion is that the swords were found to be defective during practice drills, when the troopers cut and thrust at straw dummies, etc., and that the so-called "improper tests" were actually the reaction of some frustrated or fearful troopers who tried to bend their blades back into shape, just as infantrymen had to do with their defective bayonets during the Sudan War, which might also explain why (perhaps) no charges were filed against them, since it was a natural reaction. But who knows?

----------


## L. Braden

P.S. There's nothing in the official histories of the two regiments about this matter. Typical bureaucratic coverup?

----------


## David R

> Here is an amusing anecdote comparing a Japanese sword to a Wilkinson blade:
> 
> 
> From: Notes on the late expedition against the Russian settlements, by Bernard Whittingham, 1856.


 From what I have been able to gather the turning point for Western v Eastern blades of all types was industrial production of steel v traditional. 16th and 17th century commentators seem to have had little or no doubt about the superior quality of Wootz and/or Japanese blades. Then you had the advances in the West with puddled steel and Bessemer steel and the game changed. 
 Of course once Japan industrialised they produced their own modern steels for swords. As an aside, I collect Nihonto and Showato as well as Western swords. (Which possibly explains why I am always broke).

----------


## L. Braden

Continued from my last post:
If "improper tests" and "tested the swords too severely" referred to test cutting and thrusting in the drill field, was there was a deviation from standard procedure (unlikely) and/or over-practising (also unlikely)?  Those appointed by Govt., who tested another batch of swords, claimed that they were "excellent weapons, made of the best possible materials". Was this a false or misleading comparison of two different batches?
Since the c.o. of the Hussars complained of only several swords bending, and since the c.o. of the Greys was unspecific, were they overreacting or exaggerating? Considering that of the 316 swords of another batch tested by Govt. appointees, only 5 broke (no indication of bending), this would seem to be within normal range.

----------


## L. Braden

P.S. Robson: "Of 76 swords made at Birmingham, 1 broke under test; and of 240 swords made at Enfield, 4 broke." Does that mean that bending and twisting were considered acceptable, as they were in medieval times? The complaint was that they "bent like hoops", not that they broke!

----------


## Will Mathieson

I think it's safe to say regardless what kind of unofficial testing was done to sword blades, that it created metal fatigue which allowed the blades of some swords to fail. 
What I recall the "bent like hoops" referred to the mid 1880's when German blades were mounted in England. The German made blades corroded in storage and were ground in Britain to look pristine again. However this removed some if not all of the case hardening the Germans used on their blades where as British blades were hardened and tempered throughout. Germans got sword contracts because of price, case hardening was a less expensive method and worked as well unless it was ground off. Once this hardened layer was removed the steel underneath was soft and bent easily.
Of course any period comment or criticism should have context with it so dating and details are not lost. These comments can become seemingly universal when they actually apply to a very particular occurrence and not at all encompassing.

----------


## Matt Easton

Testing of a sword blade does not actually require special equipment. Swords had been tested right back into the medieval period and beyond. The standard tests in the 18th century were to flex the sword to whatever degree you thought appropriate and check that it returned to true (this is detailed in smallsword fencing manuals), as well as checking the hardness through various means. The ways I have seen recorded for testing hardness were to strike an iron plate or nail (giving rise to the German Isenhauer marked blades), or to run a steel file across the edge. In fact you can easily note the hardness of a blade when you sharpen or polish it. The other way is to do exactly what is described above with the katana - get a sword of known quality and bash it against the new sword!

But 'testing' happens whenever people handle swords, in my experience. Watch any group of fencers and they will often flex their blades... it's just something people naturally do with springy blades.

Were mid-19th century cavalry swords of variable quality? Yes absolutely. As mentioned, I have had a fair number of antique swords come to me bent. I have straightened quite a few and even within one pattern/model you can note the variation in quality. I remember one 1853 that was so soft that upon going to straighten it, it bent in the opposite direction straight away! However I have had other 1853 patterns which retained excellent spring. 

It's also worth noting that MANY Asian swords will bend and stay bent, because they are not spring tempered. Tulwars can be found with both types of blade - many tulwars are however soft in the body, with only a hard edge. Like most katana. Indeed also like many other Asian swords. A sword blade 'bending like a hoop' happens only if a cut is delivered with poor edge alignment, or in a thrust. If you take most tulwars or a katana and hit something with the blade poorly aligned then it will also bend and stay bent. At Japanese sword cutting competitions they even have designated sword straighteners... It happens a lot.

----------


## Juan J. Perez

Hello to all, gentlemen. Let me jump in here to comment on the test carried out in the Toledo Factory, up to the end of 19th century, to the sword blades made there.

First of all, all blades were put under test, both troopers' and officers', including special orders. As Matt said, no special equipment was required, but well-seasoned workers. There were four typical proofs:

1. The test of the "muletilla" (small crutch), which consisted of forcing the blade over a fixed pad on an upright support, bending it by sections, from tang to point.

2. The "C" test, which was done by holding the blade by the tang with the right hand while resting the point on a lead sheet fixed to the ground, and forcing the blade to form a curve so close to the semicircle as the different thicknesses of the blade sections allowed.

3. The "S" test, which was accomplished having the blade resting by its point on a lead sheet fixed to the wall, pressing with the left forearm on the first third of the blade and forcing it to form two arcs of opposing curvature, from which the name of the proof comes, showing essentially the evenness of temper along the blade. Only straight blades were tormented this way.

4. The test of the helmet: the most violent of the four, according to many sources, consisted of giving three strong slashes on a iron helmet, fixed on a padded support resting on a table, the set arranged in such manner  that the blade was in horizontal position in the moment of impact. The factory edge (somewhat blunt, for sure) was supposed to survive this test.

If the blade survived all the proofs, remained straight and with no chips, it was officially accepted. Depending on the faults found, was sent back to the shops, or completely discarded. As you may seen, at least proofs number 1 and 4 were completely subjective, being 2 and 3 more independent of the tester.

Best,
JJ

PS: My deepest condolences to Manchester victims' families. Maybe not the best place to speak of it, but I had to.

----------


## L. Braden

"Most of us remember the excitement in military circles when the sword used by Lieutenant Wormald during the cavalry charge at Omdurman was reported to have buckled up like a strip of tin-plate. In this connection it is interesting to observe the nice gradation of strength that the Commander-in-Chief expects the swords used by his officers to have. Thus an infantry officer or a Royal Engineer must provide himself with a strong blade, able, when held upright, to bear a weight of 32lb without breaking. Cavalry officers, however, are supposed to do more delicate work, and the breaking strain of their swords need only be 28lb, while general officers are not supposed to go into the thick of the fight, and the weight with which their scimitars are tested is only 10lb." - Daily Telegraph, Oct. 17, 1901.

----------


## Matt Easton

General's 1831 pattern scimitars are essentially dress swords, though sometimes you see examples that appear to have been made more seriously.

I find the infantry/cavalry specification for 32 and 28lbs interesting. I presume that this was because the cavalry blade was 2-3 inches longer and it would be over-flexed if the same weight was applied.

----------


## Will Mathieson

Officers cavalry swords being lighter blades than troopers the less weight may make sense. On the other hand charging at speed thrusting into a target not knowing exactly what the tip will encounter (metal, belts etc.) may exceed those limits. Cavalry has dress and undress swords including scimitars as Matt points out. The fact they even had a 10 pound test is quite odd. You do see serious made scimitars, I'm sure these high rankers wanted to get their blades wet too if the opportunity arose. Some would have risen through officer ranks and have previous battle experience, the thrill is still there in battle.

----------

