1796 Light Cavalry Saber: NOT based on the tulwar!
Nov 2, 2007 1:46:27 GMT
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2007 1:46:27 GMT
After perusing youtube and other venues that discuss the Cold Steel 1796 light cavalry sword, I found repeated references to the tulwar. Cold Steel's videos state that the 1796 is based on Indian tulwars. They also say that "when a blade is wider at the tip than it is at the hilt, it is called a hatchet point." Both of these statements are incorrect.
I am not sure what source Cold Steel used as a reference for the history of the 1796, but it was not based on the tulwar. The 1796 light cavalry sword was developed by a British cavalry general names John Gaspard LeMarchant. He was an experienced soldier, and served in the Flanders campaign and was impressed by the Austrian cavalry. LeMarchant found that the British cavalry could benefit from better training (and therefore developed a manual for sword drill) and a better swords. What eventually arose from this is the 1796 light cavalry sword. Here is an excellent article on the 1796 light cavalry trooper's sword that discusses its origins in a more in-depth manner than what I have written: www.swordsandpistols.co.uk/research/uploads/85d16a8cf39268395d72dea24a1853f2.pdf
Below I will illustrate the difference between a hatchet point and a spear point, and hopefully the difference will be self-evident. The swelling of the blade has nothing to do with this designation. A blade can not swell and can be said to have a hatchet point (e.g., the 1796 heavy cavalry troopers' sword).
Here is an illustration from Brian Robson's Swords of the British Army:
And here is a hatchet point from an antique 1796 light cavalry sword:
And a spear point from a British officer's hanger c.1790:
I hope that this was helpful. It just bothered me that there are some misconceptions that are being unknowingly (I hope) perpetuated and I wanted to try to set the record straight.
I am not sure what source Cold Steel used as a reference for the history of the 1796, but it was not based on the tulwar. The 1796 light cavalry sword was developed by a British cavalry general names John Gaspard LeMarchant. He was an experienced soldier, and served in the Flanders campaign and was impressed by the Austrian cavalry. LeMarchant found that the British cavalry could benefit from better training (and therefore developed a manual for sword drill) and a better swords. What eventually arose from this is the 1796 light cavalry sword. Here is an excellent article on the 1796 light cavalry trooper's sword that discusses its origins in a more in-depth manner than what I have written: www.swordsandpistols.co.uk/research/uploads/85d16a8cf39268395d72dea24a1853f2.pdf
Below I will illustrate the difference between a hatchet point and a spear point, and hopefully the difference will be self-evident. The swelling of the blade has nothing to do with this designation. A blade can not swell and can be said to have a hatchet point (e.g., the 1796 heavy cavalry troopers' sword).
Here is an illustration from Brian Robson's Swords of the British Army:
And here is a hatchet point from an antique 1796 light cavalry sword:
And a spear point from a British officer's hanger c.1790:
I hope that this was helpful. It just bothered me that there are some misconceptions that are being unknowingly (I hope) perpetuated and I wanted to try to set the record straight.
