Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2007 15:09:56 GMT
Hey y'all,
Have any of y'all ever wondered why the sabers of old were not designed with better hand protection? We have all seen a myriad of sabres, some with just the bar (tulwars and Shamshirs), and military sabres with the single guard hand or knuckle protection like some of the German, English types, and even early American types. The Napoleonic French sabres and the 1860s era U.S. sabres have the three bar or spreading brass guard protection, which was better. But with any of these your fingers and even whole hand are still almost as exposed and open to hits, cuts, and jabs. Even with the brass three bar types seen on those French Napoleonic and U.S. Civil War cavalry sabres you can still get at the fingers, and even jab a point in between the bars straight in-between the knuckles of the hand (Eew! I bet that would smart!). Have any of y'all ever wondered why these sabers were not designed with better hand protection?
Well, I too have wondered: The only one I have seen with complete hand protection is that metal "bell" type hand guard seen on the "Patton Sabre", although it has a straight blade. The official cavalry sabre in India is, or at least was at one time, the "Patton" type but with the handle a little more offset to give you a better thrusting hold. I would love to the see the blade of the French Napoleonic sabre or the U.S. 1860 Lt cavalry sabre with the handle of the Indian "Patton" sabre, with the metal "bell" type guard of brass, or maybe the brass guard of the Ames 1861 Naval Cutlass (I love brass on a sword handle. To me it makes it look more elegant and pretty, yet deadly!). That to me would be the perfect sabre. Perfect blade for thrusting and cutting and perfect handle for complete hand protection!
What do y'all think? Or better yet, what is your favorite type sabre guard?
Thanks,
Freebooter
|
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on May 23, 2007 15:42:01 GMT
I have often wondered the same thing. Why weren't any of the early saber users more concerned with protecting the sword hand? There were fairly early examples of hilts that offered much better protection, such as the scottish baskethilt and the schiavona. Why weren't these types of hilts used on sabers from the beginning, or at least starting in the early 1700s?
I too have been fascinated with marrying a baskethilt or schiavona basket guard to a good saber blade. Seems like it would be the "perfect" saber, if there could be such a thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 23, 2007 19:20:17 GMT
real men don't use hand protection  |
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on May 23, 2007 23:27:43 GMT
The gaurds were evolving while much of the world continued using early 19th century designs. One will see on European swords that the bowl guards were hardly new by the time Lt Patton submitted his design to the ordnance department. Particularly, look at Spanish cavalry trooper swords from the 1850s on. You will also see pierced sheet guards on several other nations cavalry swords. The Patton and similar gaurds are all about deflection in a lance like charge.
Read the Patton and Spanish pages. Let me know if you have a problem Googling them up. SFI moderator Juan Perez has a quite consise set of pages up for Spanish cavalry swords from the 18th century on up.
Patton was a fencer and participated in the Stockholm Olympic Games. Some say his design is a direct copy of the British 1908 but folk aren't paying real attention. He was more likely directly impressed by the Swedish version, which shares a full false edge and central fuller. These, in turn, were an evolution of other European (Notably Prussia and Spain) straight cavalry swords from the 19th century.
These swords were not meant for melee use but Patton did do some writing up of appropriate drills for foot and other guards from the saddle. All his stuff can be found on the Patton HQ site.
The Poles were using 18th century designs as late as the start of WWII.
Also worth noting is that before Patton's sword was another more thrusting design *with quite a bowl of it's own) that was supplanted by the reintroduction of the French 1822 design as the M1906. Exactly the same as the American Civil War swords but with steel, instead of brass furniture.
Look to other cavalry swords from the 17th century and earlier that had more of a basket. Schiavona, Walloons and a dozen other variants. Surely if they were the cats meow, nobody would have discontinued their use.
Cheers
Hotspur; history is always worth a second look
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 23, 2007 23:56:15 GMT
1.) Sinclair hilts, especially on a dussak
2.) Hussar styled hilts
3.) Schiavone hilts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2007 0:34:50 GMT
I'd like to second Hotspur's post, if I may--well said, sir!
The Italian M1860 Cavalry Sword has (pretty much) a half basket sheet metal guard:
British cavalry swords offered decent hand protection as well. The 1821 Heavy Cavalry Trooper's Sword and the 1821 Heavy Cavalry Officer's Sword had larger guards, as did later troopers' swords beginning with the Pattern 1864 (and continuing to include the Patterns for 1882, 1885, 1890, and 1899).
The only (cavalry) replicas I can think of that would meet the needs of someone looking for a British saber with better hand protection would be the Discriminating General 1796 Heavy Cavalry Trooper's Sword, the 1821 Life Guards Sword, the 1908 Trooper's Sword, or the 1912 Officer's Sword.
The Germans had a hilt configuration that is strikingly similar to the British P'08. It is the Model 1886 cavalry saber. (Sorry, can't find an image at the moment--I'll keep looking.)
Also, depending on what you consider to be a saber, cutlasses such as the French M1833 cutlass and it's descendent, the US M1860 Cutlass used sheet metal for a substantial half basket hilt that have been said to resemble soup ladles.
French M1833:
US M1860:
BTW, Windlass have a replica that looks like a hybrid of the 1833 and 1860. The hilt more closely resembles the 1833, but the guard is brass like on the 1860.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2007 0:39:33 GMT
There were fairly early examples of hilts that offered much better protection, such as the scottish baskethilt and the schiavona. Why weren't these types of hilts used on sabers from the beginning, or at least starting in the early 1700s? I too have been fascinated with marrying a baskethilt or schiavona basket guard to a good saber blade. Seems like it would be the "perfect" saber, if there could be such a thing. It was done! Alastair Mhor, Champion of Clan Grant, c. 1714, Richard Waitt:  Here is a thread from myArmoury in which someone made his own (inspired by real examples): www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=6924&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2007 6:20:55 GMT
i figure if you are moving slowly enough that a sword can be stuck between the bars you are in trouble already, i think it would be very hard to get a blade between the bars of a savvy user or really any user. Easier to just take the whole hand in my opinion, if you are good enough to stick your sword in between the bars you may as well do something else to actually kill your opponent. A design i am working on is marrying a basket of my own design, inspired by a schiavona to a good sabre blade and then when i have the money getting it custom made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2007 7:45:51 GMT
It's odd that naval cutlasses almost always had fuller guards than cavalry or infantry sabers. I don't know why that was the case, but it appears that somebody thought sailors needed more hand protection or something.  Considering that the main purpose of the guard on a saber (or any sword, really) is to stop your opponent's blade from riding down your blade and onto your hand/fingers, I think pretty much all saber guards are more than adequate, even the simple knucklebow types like the 1796 LC. I admit that I've messed around with some sketches of a 1796 type blade with a "bowl" type guard, but more from aesthetic curiosity than anything else. As wraith noted, if given the opening, a skilled/smart opponent would more likely go for your wrist/forearm and take the whole hand (or, at least disable the arm/hand). BTW, Happy birthday, Freebooter (Hoss)! May you enjoy many more to come.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2007 10:57:25 GMT
anything that stops the fingers getting cut off will work, clamshell guards, half guards, basket hilts they all have the same effect. Even the most skilled fighter wont get his sword point into your guard. He wont even try it because it would be quite silly to attempt such a thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2007 15:42:23 GMT
Thanks for the input y'all,
Hey Hotspur, as the man said, great, informative post, as always. I had forgotten about the Spanish sabres and their guards. And I must admit I am relatively ignorant of other European countries' sabres other than the Napoleonic French sabre, a couple of English types (1796, etc.), and our own U.S. cavalry sabres over the years. The U.S. one that was mentioned being in use before Patton's, with the same almost as the 1860 but with iron guard; wasn't the blade a even a bit more scaled down?
Spadroon, neat sabres, that Scattish one and the Italion one. I think I am going to hunt down and make me a collection of say 1860s cavalry sabres from each country. I have gotten curious about what each used. Speaking of the Scottish dude, one line of my family, the Stenhouse line, was a "Sept" of Clan Bruce. I have always wondered what my direct Stenhouse ancestor was wearing and what weapons he was toting say at the big battles depicted in "Braveheart (I know that movie was not entirely historically correct). I also wonder if they all toted similar weapons as the other members of Clan Bruce or did each man arm himself to suit his own tastes?
I also have one of Atlanta Cutlery's Ames 1861 Naval Cutlass made by windless. It is a very beautiful and well made extremely well balanced Cutlass. One of MRL's Prirate cutlasses is almost identicle, same guard and all but rather than a leather covered, wire-wrapped handle it is a wooden grip and the blade is wider. A neat cutlass to say the least. I will add it to my collection one day.
And y'all, seems tome as far as a man being quick enough not to need good hand protection, that is well and good if you are fast enough. It is a simple thing to just do a quick twist of the wrist or hand in order to deflect a hand strike. If you move your whole arm out of the way you might be playing into his feint and open yourself up for a strike or thrust to body or limb. But many are not as fast as others. And as far as it being silly to try a hand strike, I think it is a feasable move if the opportunity arises. Remember, if fighting for one's life, then any opportunity to maim, wound, or disable you opponent, to stop his onslaught, would be feasable sems like. On Cold Steel's DVD "Fighting with the Sabre and Cutlass" they show just how easy it is to get at that hand or its fingers, thumg, and between the guard with some slick moves when certain opportunities arise. I recomment to anyone interested in Combat Sabre fighting, not sport fencing or sabres, to get that DVD set. I think it is neat. I have learned a lot of little things that I might not have have thought of before from it.
Kriegschwert, thanks for the birthday wishes. I am 52 today. Speaking of my birthday. I put in to take the day off for it a week or so ago but naturally, all during my off days, Tuesday and Wednesday, and today, I am suffering from a bout of Bell's Palsy and one side of my face is paralized. Heck, I have to tilt my head to one side to eat or drink or even to talk much to keep my food or drink from spilling from the paralized corner of my mouth or to keep from drooling when I talk. A buddy told me all I need now is a hump on my back to play the Hunchback role!
Well, I reckon I have rambled on long enough.
Later,
Freebooter
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2007 19:08:02 GMT
Hoss, sorry to hear of your trouble. Life has a way of throwing us the occassional curveball, that's for sure.  I hope you were still able to get some enjoyment out of your days off. Take a look at these cutlasses at Loyalist Arms up in Canada: loyalistarms.freeservers.com/pirateswordscutlasses%20.html. They're the same things that Windlass/MRL sells, but with peened hilts, rather than threaded, and they sell at quite a discount. Shipping is roughly $35 to USA, but the prices are so low that it more than makes up for it. I love the top three on that page.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 2:37:39 GMT
Hey Kreigschwert,
Neat cutlasses. That one I bought from Atlanta Cutlery was $145.00. Not too bad I don't reckon.
I am also a U.S. Civil War buff, and very interested in the CS Navy. And my pet ships were the C.S.S. Alabama and the C.S.S. Tennessee. The Tennessee was an Ironclad which fought in the Battle of Mobile Bay in 1864. Anyway, I saw a pic of a French Naval Cutlass, just like the repro in the pics you just linked me to, that was among the ship's weapons aboard the CSS Tennessee. It is a well known fact that many of the weapons the Confederacy used were bought and imported from England, France, Austria, and Germany. I suppose there were some from other countries but I am unsure of that. Anyway, I have always wondered if that French Cutlass was just one among other cutlasses of other makes or was the entire ship's compliment of cutlasses aboard the Tennessee imported from France. We will probably never know. Just thought youi would find that interesting.
Take care,
FB
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 25, 2007 4:14:37 GMT
boot: never said it was silly to try a hand strike i said it was impractical to try and stick your point between the bars of a handguard, better to remove the hand if you are that good.
|
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on May 25, 2007 13:11:22 GMT
Hi Freebooter, The four main builds that the U.S. did with using the French m1822 as a basis are the 1840, 1860, 1872 and 1906. The 1872 has the lightest hilt and blade build. The 1906 is identical to the 1860 except for iron instead of brass. There is the continued m1902 sword for all officers that is more of the 1872 blade with a different hilt. Quite like a French 1882 but with a sabre blade and a finger-grooved grip. These are quite economical antique buys and many sell for less than you'd think. It is not uncommon to find good clean examples in the $200-$300 range with others selling for even less. Cheers Hotspur; I'll post back with the sabre that leads on my listcommunity-2.webtv.net/craok/AToughLookingBird/ |
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on May 25, 2007 17:56:11 GMT
Hotspur,
I have noticed the U.S. M1902 sabers on ebay by the dozen. They look kind of cheaply made, but I thought that might just be the way the pictures look. I've considered buying one as a cutter, but have been hesitant because I haven't heard anyone discussing them. What do you think of them? Are they more pleasing in person, as many swords are? Do they handle well as a cutting saber?
|
|
|
|
Post by hotspur on May 25, 2007 20:08:49 GMT
I have never handled one and am not particularly drawn to the design. One thing to be looking for are the earlier swords, as opposed to post WWII productions that are often plastic grips and generally stainless blades. Stainless is not a sin, in of itself but if you are looking to sharpen one and cut with it, this is one time I would suggest the older swords. The oldest ones will have grips of wood or horn, a few even in iron. Bakelite, or a comparitive composite will be seen on these right up into the 1960s. There is a fellow (Bill Goodwin) that posts to the A&M room at SFI and over at My Armoury that likes these swords very much, so I have to assume they handle ok. Cutting is as often a factor of the operator that is more important than the sword. I don't know if Bill has cut things with them. I have seen no actual war records for these and they were very much a sword of rank, more than anything else. Finding one without an etched name plate may well be nigh on impossible, aside from buying a new WKC or lesser reproduction. I believe www.legendaryarms.com sells the current India production. It is also a sword that could be ordered through www.amessword.comAs some have said, the blade seems to have been scaled down (length) from the 1872 cavalry swords. The 1872 was not well liked as a cavalry sword but the 1902 is a foot officer's sword all the way. I have an India produced foot officer length sabre reproduction/interpretation of the College Hill Arsenal sword. After some thinning of the front half and doing my edge thing, I have had no problems with cutting suitable targets. The blade may be even less wide than the 1902 and it is almost certainly thicker, even after my modification. None of these swords mentioned in this thread were meant to chop down trees or cut anything heavier than leather and cloth. If you go to sharpen an original, keep in mind not to alter crossection terribly and please take care of the original finish. What you want to do is simply complete the grind to a sword edge. If you can only accomplish that through a secondary bevel. Spend the time to blend that angle into the original grind. Also keep in mind that it need not be cutting sharp much more than half the blade. Look to reducing the bevels below the fuller until they meet in an edge and visualize continuing that up through the forward grind, without a shouldered bevel and likely reducing the angle as you go. Actually easier to do than describe. Coarse emery paper and rubber sanding blocks might be easier for most than using files and stones. I don't have a rubber sanding block Cheers Hotspur; I just don't like the finger groove aspect of the 1902link of the moment www.gundersonmilitaria.com |
|
|
|
Post by ShooterMike on May 26, 2007 0:56:40 GMT
Hotspur,
You have just clearly stated my initial feelings about this design. I was not aware they were made much after WWI. This is sounding like a saber I won't particularly care for. Thanks for the info. The finger grooves were particularly off-putting to me as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by rammstein on May 26, 2007 1:08:37 GMT
I can safly say that, in my opinion, I really don't care for 20th c. sabres. It just seems to deaden the style and flair of these awesome weapons. Give me a 1796 heavy cavalry sword over any of patton saber or 1908 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2007 1:24:21 GMT
Hotspur, You have just clearly stated my initial feelings about this design. I was not aware they were made much after WWI. This is sounding like a saber I won't particularly care for. Thanks for the info. The finger grooves were particularly off-putting to me as well. Not my cup of tea, either, but there are some interesting ones out there. The presentation versions with eagle head pommels can be nice. I found a nice one on a dealer site that had an Italian style thumb rest on the backstrap. If they would have stayed true to the French pattern they were copying, the army would have had a nice-looking sword. I might pick one up someday, although I'd want it to be WWI or earlier. And no plastic grips...EVER! Between 1872-1902, the US did not put it's best effort into sword designs, IMO. Added: In addition to the internet, I have seen 1902s at local antique malls, flea markets, and garage sales. Unless the seller thinks he or she has a civil war era sword, they are usually not much more than $150-$200. As Hotspur said, just be wary of later 1902s with stainless steel blades. |
|
Considering that the main purpose of the guard on a saber (or any sword, really) is to stop your opponent's blade from riding down your blade and onto your hand/fingers, I think pretty much all saber guards are more than adequate, even the simple knucklebow types like the 1796 LC. I admit that I've messed around with some sketches of a 1796 type blade with a "bowl" type guard, but more from aesthetic curiosity than anything else. As wraith noted, if given the opening, a skilled/smart opponent would more likely go for your wrist/forearm and take the whole hand (or, at least disable the arm/hand).
I hope you were still able to get some enjoyment out of your days off.
