Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Jan 27, 2012 18:30:50 GMT
Hello! I am almost completely new to this period, I have only recently became interested in it and researched it a bit here on myArmoury and some other websites. I would like to buy either a 1796 heavy cavalry sword (I already made a topic about it recently here, but only about its weaponedge reproduction) or a 1814 household cavalry officers sword. Now I'm interested in which of these swords have seen more action historically. I know both patterns were used at Waterloo but I don't know how many action have 1796 seen before and after Waterloo and 1814 after Waterloo (and of course units that carried them... ) I like the 1814 looks more but I got an impression that 1796 was used longer and more units carried it... I am eager to heat your impression and comments of usage and popularity of both of these swords! And here are pictures of both swords reproduced by military heritage: www.militaryheritage.com/images/ ... rd%201.JPG www.militaryheritage.com/images/1796%2...word_1.jpg |
|
|
|
Post by somewhat on Jan 27, 2012 18:33:05 GMT
In b4 Dave Kelly :lol:
But seriously, those two links you posted 404d.
For the 1796 LIGHT Cavalry, it looks like your best bet is to buy the CS one and get Arms and Armor to regrind it down to the historical dimensions, unless of course you want only a display piece.
For the Heavy, Dave's review says it's an ungainly chopper of a blade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2012 18:57:04 GMT
Long story short: the 1796 heavy cavalry sword was developed (or just copied) after the Austrian 1769, 1775 swords. Even though considered to be a clumsy weapon, it was still more present in the battlefield then the 1814.
The 1796 was issued not just to British troopers (Lifeguards, dragoons, Scots Grey) but also to KGL (King's German Legion), Portuguese and Spanish allied units during the Peninsular War of 1808-1814 and the 100 days campaign of 1815.
The 1814 model came as a replacement of the 1796 intended for the Guard cavalry units and saw some use until I think the 1830s. By then Europe was at peace and its use was more of a dress/parade sword.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jan 27, 2012 22:19:17 GMT
Hi Luka:
The 1814 was always an officers dress weapon. It had very limited distribution to officers of the Life Guards. Whether one ever saw powder smoke is suspect.
The 1796 Heavy is as PR stated a transplant of the Austrian 1775 heavy. It was a clumsy weapon with practically no capacity for a thrust. WHen used by an expert it had all the devastating hitting power of the more nimble light. By Waterloo British horse units were ordered to grind the tips into a spearpoint to allow thrusting. Sword was replaced in 1822.
Personally I'd get the 1796 heavy if you want a warsword. The 1814 is a rare and expensive bit of horse history, but hardly a war sword.
I'm uncertain of who you can shop with for these. Historyrelics did come thru for a buyer here recently. Armae of france and Medieval Arms in Hamburg GE are possibilities, if they have in stock.
g'luck
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Jan 28, 2012 15:38:11 GMT
Well, it seems that 1814 is not my cup of tea, I want a sword used for combat as much as possible. 1796 seems widely used and its use by Charles Ewart at Waterloo is a good advertisement for that sword.  Dave, I just researched the 1796 Heavy a bit and it seems the originals are quite light, about 2.5lb. Do you think they were also unwieldy or only their overweight reproductions? |
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Jan 28, 2012 16:41:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jan 28, 2012 16:51:23 GMT
The 1814 historic blade copied the French Cuirassier Officers blade; certainly a combat tested blade in it's own right. But WE employed their own badly tapered Dragoon blade to stand in for the elegant officers one. So instead of a neutral balanced 2.2 lb sword you wind up with a 3 lb nose heavy slug. Like I said: a wallhanger... :lol:
The unweildy comment comes from Robeson as a complaint from the field. 2.5 lbs is an acceptable weight for a medium/heavy cav saber. Rather than the weight, I think the unfavorable reviews stem from a nose heavy blade mated to a rather tight handle that limited execution pretty much to a close handed practice. Ole Sgt Ewert was the poster boy for the heavy 96. He was supposedly 6 foot 5. How the heck he managed to get in the cavalry is a mystery :lol:
Picked up my WE to refresh my memory. Actually it's not a bad sword. Closer to realistic than their '96 light which is also 2.5 lbs.
If you're going to try cutting with this it will need sharpening. None of the vendors in the WE chain offer that service. WE seems to use a lot of 1045 steel. Acceptable but subject to warpage in use. ( Historic swords do this also.)
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Jan 29, 2012 13:24:29 GMT
Yes, the small grip doesn't bother me, I do have small hands. I have to think a bit and decide if I'm going to order a WE one or get one custom made. Local sword shop does order from WE so that is not a problem, neither is sharpening, but custom would be a better quality sword...
|
|
Dave, I just researched the 1796 Heavy a bit and it seems the originals are quite light, about 2.5lb. Do you think they were also unwieldy or only their overweight reproductions?
