Documentation of effectiveness of ACW Sabres?
Oct 31, 2010 11:51:50 GMT
Post by Freebooter on Oct 31, 2010 11:51:50 GMT
Hello all,
I have a quick question about American Civil War sabres. I just dropped over to Sword Forum International and was reading a couple of threads about the Napoleonic Wars, the British 1796 sabre and its effectiveness and deadliness, and how the French Officers actually complained about the horrible wounds the Br. 1796 sabre inflicted. I tried to post a reply but was not allowed for some reason. Logged in ok but was not allowed to post so I came back home to good ol' SBG!
So my question is this: Given the reputation of that British 1796, is there any similar documentation on the effectiveness of and wounds caused by our 1840 Hvy Cav Sabre and the U.S. 1860 Lt. Cav Sabres? I have held a lot of original swords from different countries, at gun shows, relic shows, etc. and have owned 4 original 1860 Lt. Cav. Sabres. And to me the U.S. 1860 lt. Cav. Sabres was abt the best balanced and quick, fast and good feeling in my hand sabre I ever held. And I have owned six or seven repros. A friend has an original 1840 Hvy Cav. Sabre and it too is very well balanced and not all that much heavier than the 1860 to me. I read that Confederate Cavalry leader Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest even preferred the 1840 over the 1860.I liked it too.
But back to my question: So, has anyone ever found any actual written evidence, records, written accounts, opinions in diaries, etc, etc, commenting on the deadliness or wound causing capabilities of these two U.S. sabres like you find in historical refrerences pertaining to that British 1796 Lt. Cav. Sabre?
(Attached is a pic of an 1840 Hvy Cav Sabre and one of an 1860 Lt. Cav. Sabre)
Thanks,
Freebooter
I have a quick question about American Civil War sabres. I just dropped over to Sword Forum International and was reading a couple of threads about the Napoleonic Wars, the British 1796 sabre and its effectiveness and deadliness, and how the French Officers actually complained about the horrible wounds the Br. 1796 sabre inflicted. I tried to post a reply but was not allowed for some reason. Logged in ok but was not allowed to post so I came back home to good ol' SBG!
So my question is this: Given the reputation of that British 1796, is there any similar documentation on the effectiveness of and wounds caused by our 1840 Hvy Cav Sabre and the U.S. 1860 Lt. Cav Sabres? I have held a lot of original swords from different countries, at gun shows, relic shows, etc. and have owned 4 original 1860 Lt. Cav. Sabres. And to me the U.S. 1860 lt. Cav. Sabres was abt the best balanced and quick, fast and good feeling in my hand sabre I ever held. And I have owned six or seven repros. A friend has an original 1840 Hvy Cav. Sabre and it too is very well balanced and not all that much heavier than the 1860 to me. I read that Confederate Cavalry leader Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest even preferred the 1840 over the 1860.I liked it too.
But back to my question: So, has anyone ever found any actual written evidence, records, written accounts, opinions in diaries, etc, etc, commenting on the deadliness or wound causing capabilities of these two U.S. sabres like you find in historical refrerences pertaining to that British 1796 Lt. Cav. Sabre?
(Attached is a pic of an 1840 Hvy Cav Sabre and one of an 1860 Lt. Cav. Sabre)
Thanks,
Freebooter
Attachments:
