Straight Blade Sabers

I think they call those 'backswords' - mostly used by cavalry; having the thickened spine meant more force in the downward cut (not to mention stiffening the blade so there's no whippiness).

If the tactical use of the sabre emphasizes the thrust, a straight blade is beneficial. Although a straight bladed sabre can also be capable of making excellent cuts.

The way I understand it (and I'm no expert, so do take it with a grain of salt) is that there are two ways to use a sword in cavalry battle. There's the initial charge where a straight, rigid thrusting sword is preferable and then there's the crowded man-to-man battle after the charge which is when a curved slashing sword in more effective. The fact that you either have to pick one or compromise both lead to the whole big "cutting vs thrusting" debate.

I feel having to correct misconceptions is often probably easier taught by priming others to actually look at the historical records and use of straight vs curved. Some carried both straight and curved (along with other goodies).

Cheers

Hotspur; These things I cannot easily teach without asking the curious to take some time for their own interests. One, might be the reason for a straight sword's length important in being able to reach a trooper laying on the ground

All good points. I do recognize hearing something about the dangers of using thrusts against infantrymen, but I had forgotten it until now.

Regarding strong curves, I've been told that a curved sword can execute effective cuts in much closer range then straight ones, making it a matter of which range one prefers to fight as. There are also some peculiar thrusts one can perform to strike around the blade of the opponent. Finally, I recall hearing that a curved sword is easier to swing on horseback then a straight one.

I can't say I've ever heard anything to indicate that they are worse at deflecting then straight ones. From what little I have seen of saber fencing, the parries were quite the contrary designed to lock, control or deflect the opponent's blade while at the same time allowing for swift attacks.

Be that as it may, I personally don't believe curved swords are "better" then straight ones or vice versa. Both were used extensively on the battlefield so both should have their merits.

The straight bladed edged weapons are called Pallasch.
They were used by the heavy cavalry, the curved blade by the light.

This distinction comes from the light cavalry par excellence-the hungarian hussars. They used they curved saber-beeing better for cuts then thrusts because they were mostly fighting the lightly (or not at all) armoured opponents.

When the first hussars appeared in western europe as soldiers of fortune in france 1693 they were absoöutly de rigeur because of the fighting abilities and their fine looking uniform.
They next hussar regiments were copied after the hungarian-including the curved saber.

The heavy cavalry continued to use straight bladed weapons because the did fight armoured opponents, where a cut doesn´t make enough damage.
The pallasch was used for thrusting and cuting both against cavalry and infantry-not using the point would waste a lot of range-not a good idea when fighting an opponent whos range with a gun+bayonet is very close to yours.

Hi Anders,

You might enjoy this page and others from Björn Hellqvist

bjorn.foxtail.nu/h_svenska_armen.htm

bjorn.foxtail.nu

He had been quite active on some of the boards about a decade ago. Some of his articles will also come up on the swordfrum.com front page archives as well as over on the main pages of myArmoury.

I keep that late 19th century Swedish military page in mind when discussions about the Patton sword comes up. Patton was a participant in the 1912 Stockholm games, attending in the pentathalon competition. He wandered Europe a bit after that and trained with a continental after the games. Hi sword is often linked to replicating the British swords but one look at that page and the Patton design kind of nails the propertis of a truly double edged effort and central fuller.

There were certainly a good number of possibles of interest for period swords. I'm sure Jonathan got back to you with some leads.

Cheers

Hotspur; somewhere on my lists of wants is a shorter and straight French model with muliple fullers. Quite pretty to me

This is a good one if you haven't visited it yet.
www.lehussard.fr/english/

Gentlemen

In any discussion about why there are straight versus curved sabers, we have to look at how they were used in Battle. Most people have the idea that the Cavalry simply rode around, and when the fighting was at it's peak, charged the enemy front line for 'death or glory !' Nothing could be further from the truth. As Field Marshall Douglas Haig said,
" Infantry and Artillery can win the battles, but only Cavalry makes them worth winning!"

First, let us look at the role of the Cavalry in battle ( from the period from 1600 to 1914 )
They had a number of functions:

1. To Scout for the Army
2. To prevent enemy Cavalry from scouting their own Army
3. To harass the lines of communication and supply of the Enemy Army
4. To protect the lines of communication and supply for their own Army.
5. To serve as a screen in the event of their own Army's retreat, allowing them to retreat in good order and avoid a
rout / slaughter , and
6. To attack a retreating Enemy Army, creating a rout situation that would allow the slaughter of the Enemy Army.

As can be seen, only in one case ( # 6 ) would this require a charge against enemy cavalry. And, in the case of #5, if your cavalry was well handled, it would be enough to position yourselves at the flank of the advancing enemy cavalry, thus forcing them to abandon their pursuit, and allowing your retreating army to go on it's way unmolested.

And, in NONE of the cases is there ever ANY reason to charge enemy infantry or artillery that is in good order. For Cavalry, this is suicide. To quote a French General, " C'est magnifique, mais il n'est pas le guerre ! "

All this being true, why then a straight blade? Well, if you are in mode (6), and you are charging a disorganized mass of retreating infantry or guns, what you are trying to do is make them turn and run away in panic. The enemy PBI, already shocked by the battle and demoralized by the defeat and retreat, now finds themselves facing a moving wall of crazy men with sharp swords riding on mean horses. Now, if you were Jean Crapaud or Tommy Atkins, or Johnny Reb or Billy Yank, and were trying to keep your nerves up, while holding an empty, bayoneted musket, which would you be more frightened of? Curved Sabers, or Straight Sabers?

Actually, I think it didn't make a bit of difference. One look at those oncoming horsemen, and the only thing running faster than your feet would be your bowels.... And, in turning your back on the advancing cavalry, you have now made yourselves the perfect target. You will die. And it doesn't matter much if you take a cut on the neck or a thrust through the back.

So, why were there different types of swords? In fact, if you look at the British Army at the time of the Napoleonic Wars, they had TWO swords. The 1796 Heavy Cavalry Saber was Straight, and the 1796 Light Cavalry Saber was Curved. The French had much the same thing with their AN IX and AN XI Lights and Heavies.

I feel this was to allow the Heavy Cavalry to be sent against the retreating enemy infantry, to ride them down and skewer them like kabobs, and when the Heavies went in, they would be accompanied by Light Cavalry on their flanks, who would be able to cut and hack at any Enemy Cavalry who would try to break up the party.

However, after the Napoleon went to St. Helena, most armies began to look at their swords. The exagerated curve of the light sabers was reduced, and the overyly heavy straight bladed heavy cavalry sabers were lightened, until, but the 1840s-1850s, we had a sort of composite saber, with a slight curve, similar to the U.S. model 1860. This was supposed to give everyone the best of both worlds. In fact, it was too straight to cut well, and had enough curve that when you thrust it into someone, you ended up with a broken wrist. ( Which was why the Model 1860 was called 'The Wrist Breaker' .)

This lead to a lot of debate in the 1870s-1890s, and a lot of armies decided to standardize on one type of cavalry, but to give them a straight sword so that they could deal with more than one charge per war ! Thus, we ended up with a lot of straight sabers being put into service starting around 1900.

Now, it must be remembered that a full out thrust into a human target, whether afoot or on horseback, is a lot of impact. In fact, it tears the sword right out of your hands. This is why they had SWORDKNOTS, to keep the sword on your wrist, and one of the drills practiced by cavalry troopers was that little flipping motion to re-grab your sword while you were galloping along. In fact, as the sword leaves your hand, you simply rotate your arm, and, as you pass your opponent by, you pull the blade out of your opponent as you leave him behind, thus maintaining your speed and making you less vulnerable. ( and believe me, nothing is more vulnerable than cavalry that has come to an ass-grinding halt on the battle field. It takes a good 2 minutes to get everyone back up to full speed, and while you are standing still, you are dead meat to enemy fire or a counter charge. Just ask the Scots Greys as Waterloo.... )

Which leads to the second point, that in a stationary melee, the curved saber hacking away would be a better choice than a straight sword. So, the goal of the Heavy Cavalry is to run their opponents through and not to be slowed down, and the goal of the Light Cavalry is to slow them down and chop them up. Yah Pays Yer Money, and Yah Takes Yer Choice....

Now all this thrusting and spearing and twisting and jerking of the straight saber into and out of the body of the opponent puts a tremendous strain on the blade. This is why the final generation of sabers, like the Swedish 1893, the British 1908/1912, the Spanish Puerto Suguro 1907, and the American 1913 Patton, all were tempered into a spring steel instead of being hardened into a cutting steel. They will cut, but are not designed to chop off arms or heads. They are thrusters, and slashing is secondary. They even have their balance so far back towards the hilt that they do not have the mass to cut deeply, and this keeps them from being 'stuck' in the enemy's body if they are used for slashing.

It is also why most saber designers abandoned the rat-tail tang and went to the full tang. It is so much stronger, and you are less likely to have the hilt twist off the tang. ( I personally feel that anything but a full tang on a sword is a waste of time and money ! )


I realize that I have been rambling, but there is much that can be said on this subject. But, there is always more to be said on a subject when the moderators of a forum allow the freedom to say it.


Respectfully;

Paul R. Ward

It was the M1840.