|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 7, 2013 14:53:37 GMT
It probably won't actually be fifty posts---but I anticipate putting up a lot of short posts as I have the time and inclination. Plus I wanted to make a feeble jab at 50 shades of grey.
I am a saber nut, when it comes to swords. I like mostly all swords--all fighting implements, to go further, and to go further still, mostly all fighting styles, but my greatest interest is in the saber. And, over the last five or six years, I've learned an awful lot about sabers. If I was at 5 when I started, I'm at 90 or 100 now. (Of course, it's probably a thousand point scale, so I still don't know nothing, like they say, but I know a good bit more now than then.)
I've always got a two track approach when I get into a field of research like, in this case, sabers: I want to find out what was historically used, and I want to figure out, "disirrespective" of historicity, how I'd have done it, to suit my particular tastes.
Through a lot of reading and a fair amount of handling sabers (once more, on that thousand point scale), I've been able to increase my understanding, and begin to refine my preferences, and can, I hope, explain them persuasively.
I am not a horseman. I have ridden, but it was a long time ago, and a rare event even then. Cavalry tends to have an extra six inches or so of blade, compared with foot troops, part o that whole "sitting on top of a horse" thing. Before I jump into detailed specifications, I wanted to think about "general principles."
Looking over a few thousand years and many thousand miles of weaponry, you run into an awful lot of swords that are from two feet to three feet long (more or less) and weigh between a pound and a half and three pounds. This would cover a gladius or a kukri, a Oakeshott XII riding sword, a tachi, dao . . . and the dimensions would let in a Zulu stabbing spear, too, probably.
I am consciously imitating Jeff Cooper's approach when he set out to design the "scout rifle," essentially starting with a clean sheet of paper. (A right pioneer, I am.) "What is my beau ideal saber going to feel like?" To a degree, I cribbed from Heinlein's Glory Road:
I've never seen one quite like it, so I don't know what to call it. A saber, I suppose, as the blade was faintly curved and razor sharp on the edge and sharp rather far on the back. But it had a point as deadly as a rapier and the curve was not enough to keep it from being used for thrust and counter quite as well as chopping away meat-axe style. The guard was a bell curved back around the knuckles into a semi-basket but cut away enough to permit full moulinet from any guard. It balanced in the forte less than two inches from the guard, yet the blade was heavy enough to chop bone. It was the sort of sword that feels like an extension of your body. The grip was honest sharkskin, molded to my hand. There was a motto chased on to the blade but it was so buried in curlicues that I did not take time to study it out. This girl was mine, we fitted! I returned it and buckled belt and scabbard to my bare waist, wanting the touch of it and feeling like Captain John Carter, and the Gascon and his three friends all in one."
Umm, except for the part about a 2" POB. Nah. Pretty much "Nah at all." Let's call it four or five inches, but other than that, the description sounds good to me.
More to come later.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Sept 7, 2013 15:33:49 GMT
Nice description of a univesal allround saber. But yeah, the pob needs to be a couple of inches more down there...
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 7, 2013 17:27:38 GMT
Luka:
Yeah, it's a good description . . . but what do the words mean? Albion and Jody Samson read those words and came up with a 1 1/4 kilo (plus!) cleaver, and even they moved the POB out to 3 3/4". I've read---somewhere---that Heinlein modeled Lady Viv on the 1852 Navy sword he had at the US Naval Academy. There's quite a gap between those two interpretations.
For my purposes, I'm looking at that description and seeing a sword that handles like one of my two favorite handling swords: the H/T EMSHS and the H/T fullered bastard.
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Sept 7, 2013 18:04:11 GMT
I'd say it sounds a lot like a shashka (the Russian cavalry ones) with a CS Napoleon saber type hilt. Faintly curved, sharp down the back, deadly point.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Sept 7, 2013 18:22:48 GMT
Depending on size it might be very similar to Austrian M1861 too.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 7, 2013 20:04:20 GMT
Ah, there are plenty of equivalents out there, I'll (very modestly!) admit that other people have thought about the saber in the past as well. But back to first principles. Gotta have the swerve of the curve. I have to have a curved blade. On this point, I will admit that it is probably not rationally defensible. So what! On this one, I'll pull the history and tradition flag, I'll talk about curvy sabers from modern European history back to early modern Polish and Hungarian and Ukrainian sabers, I'll talk about the curved saber as the very essence of not only the saber, but of light cavalry in general. I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll stamp my foot, by gum. You could set up, for the exact same "mission" I'm describing, a straight bladed sword: a spadroon, a shearing sword, a Degen. Over the thousands of years that men fought each other with cold weapons, there have been a lot of cut and thrust blades, and a bunch of them have been straight. You could set up a sword that way----but not this one, not this time. I gotta have the swerve of the curve.
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Sept 7, 2013 21:57:27 GMT
I think a windlass shasqua blade with a saber hilt would fit the bill nicely. The blade is curved, but not so much as to take away any thrusting ability. It's of decent length, but not so long as to be unweildy on foot. Are you wanting to commission a custom?
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 8, 2013 3:10:16 GMT
Looking to commission a custom? Probably, down the road, unless I find exactly what I'm looking for. It might end up purely as an intellectual exercise. First principles: cut, or thrust? There has been a centuries long debate, carried on by various countries, as to whether the cavalry sword, or the sword in general, should be oriented towards the cut, or to the thrust. Some fans of the cut say it's humanity's default instinct to whack at something, and whacking at something with a sword is a pretty good default. Fans of the point counter that three inches of point will kill you in a whole goodly portion of your anatomy. My reaction is, "Well, yeah." My strong, strong preference in a sword is to have the ability to both cut and thrust. I don't think they're opposed, like chalk and cheese, to use a Britishism, I think they're like ham and eggs, like rice and beans; they work together to create a harmonious whole. I can no more imagine a proper sword lacking the ability to cut than I can imagine a sword you can't poke with. Some folks at SFI say the two best British swords were the 1908 and the 1796 light cavalry, and that each epitomized thrust or cut at the expense of the other. I would rather harmonize the two, trying to balance good cutting with good thrusting. There are two areas that come into play here: the curve of the blade in the hand (actual curve modified by grip angle), and the point of balance. I'll be honest: I'd like more curve than the later sabers possessed. Frequently they were only nominally curved, in practical effect being straight of blade. I would like at least as much curve as on the French 1822 light, or the American 1840 or 1860 cavalry swords. On this family of swords, the versions I've handled have grips that are slightly canted, or recurved, to bring the point more or less in line with the forearm. Pictures of bare blades I've seen uniformly show a fair amount of recurve to the tang. This both enhances the "curved blade cutting" effect AND facilitates work with the point (grip length allowing a shift to the "saber grip"). In the event, I am confident that even greater 'sori' can be achieved while maintaining point control. Less sori, to be sure, than on the US artillery sword of 1840. Now it's time for numbers not pictures. Earlier I had mentioned the H/T fullered bastard sword, and the H/T EMSHS, as examples of good handling swords. The fullered bastard has a POB of 3 1/2" (per KOA) and the EMSHS a POB of 4 3/4". The weight is two pounds six for the bastard, two pounds seven for the EMSHS. For me, in my hands, the fullered bastard, when wielded one handed, is really a thruster. It is "cut capable" but it feels like it wants to thrust. The EMSHS feels really balanced to me. It feels authoritative in the cut, while retaining an agile point. While I'm comparing swords, let me throw the Hanwei Renaissance side sword into the mix. It's two pounds eight (i.e., 2.5) but with a 3" POB, it feels ridiculous as a cutter. It's a snap cutter, a tip cutter, but that rearward POB robs it of any blade authority. I'm not entirely sure where to draw the line for POB. 3" is too close---Heinlein's referenced 2" fails my test----and I can only guess right now that 5-6" would probably be the sweet spot for me. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by Onimusha on Sept 8, 2013 3:52:06 GMT
I'm assuming you've looked at KOA already and didn't find what you were looking for. Most production sabers have straight grips. At this point, your options seem to be as follows: find a saber with a blade you like, and modify the grip, or commission a custom.
|
|
|
Post by Beowulf on Sept 8, 2013 5:01:05 GMT
I agree about the need for cut and thrust. I've got my reasons (a stabby has to hit a specific target to kill, I have to just hit).
To me besides the blade which your already wrestling with (because that's the sexy in "sexy sword") the real sticky thing is this line of thought: "The guard was a bell curved back around the knuckles into a semi-basket but cut away enough to permit full moulinet from any guard." There is a lot of leeway-of-design in that sentiment, but it is also pretty specific.
I'm not a saber guy. Some day I'd like to get one (though my fantasy saber is a two-handed one with thumb ring). I haven't handled one since I was a kid and knew no better. I would take "moulinet" and turn that into "any technique I want to do" since you're not limiting yourself to a rigid HEMA system from a specific period with this. Just a guard that allows helicopter beats/cuts horizontally at head level to edge-up JSA style stabs. Anything.
I can't picture the guard, sorry too tired right now. Maybe some of the super early one-piece globular/shell designs. Seems to me the earliest designs you can find might be the ones doing more techniques in use.
This sounds cool!
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 8, 2013 13:19:09 GMT
I've spent, uhh, a few minutes going over KOA's sabers, checking off stats and trying to balance them in my mind. I could end up going with a production saber, or a modded production saber, or a custom. There are bits and pieces that I like. Heck, I like the 1850 Staff and Officer's sword, "mostly." If the grip was a little longer, if the blade had a little more curve, if it had a little more blade presence . . . .
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 8, 2013 14:03:31 GMT
When I cribbed from Heinlein, I regarded his design stats as, to quote Barbossa, "And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." The guard IS a sticking point. I know I'll want something that manages to balance good hand protection with relative freedom of movement, oh and it's got to be reasonably comfortable bumping along at the hip. A full basket hilt is probably right out. I could end up with something like the three bar hilts used on (again) the 1822, 1840 and 1860 cavalry swords/sabers (French, US, US). Then again, there's this (off my 1897-ish Swiss saber, not that kind of Swiss saber though):
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 8, 2013 14:26:41 GMT
Not first principles, but details, details. As for the grip and tang, I'm interested in a grip that curves against the arc of the blade, and a sufficiently long grip to extend the thumb along the backstrap (if there is one) or back part of the grip. Also, there's a British design that is worth consideration: the Patent Tang, where the tang is full width and grip scales are used. It seems that they sure liked to show off the patent tang, when they had it---I'd have wrapped the whole thing in shark, fish, or ray-skin, but that's quibbling. I suppose in the best of all possible worlds, I'd want a full width tang, but I won't make it a sticking point (since it would pretty much demand a custom commission). Grip length: I like enough grip to squirm my hand around, with the freedom to go from hammer to handshake to saber grip (thumb forward along the backstrap). From the guard to the pommel nut is right at 6" on the 1822 French legere, with 4 1/2" inside room (from the bottom of the guard to the spot where the bars join with the grip). That's a grip with room in which to play. The Swiss saber is closer to 5" at the rear and the same to the front. Perfectly serviceable, but the 1822 feels better in a variety of hand positions. The thumb rest is great when working the point and fencing, but otherwise interferes slightly with a hammer or handshake grip. More to come.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 8, 2013 16:32:20 GMT
Details, details: hilt assembly. My French sabers, and the Swiss saber, and the Alex Coppel piquet weight artillery saber, are all peened. I am agnostic on hilt assembly, with a slight inclination towards threaded tangs. I'm used to breaking down weapons for cleaning and inspection! With a patent tang, a threaded nut would basically just be to secure the lower part of the guard, and even with a regular tang, I don't object to a compression fit, particularly when the threads mean you can tighten up as necessary. A lot of sabers utilize pommel caps and/or backstraps of metal. I like them, I have no objection to them, I think . . . . . . but I'm not sure they're actually,you know, necessary. A rayskin wrap over cord should provide the same excellent service it traditionally did. Here's a clip of Matt Easton discussing the Easton gymnasium saber, and that's a look I could live with, in my beau ideal saber. (Of course, in a sharpie!). As a side note: in the video, Matt mentions foot saber dimensions, and cavalry dimensions: 33 inches and two pounds, 35 inches and two and a half pounds. It's also bruited about that "fighting officers" would contract with Wilkinson's, Mole, etc. for heavier fighting swords. I'm still thinking of a foot sword, but I'm leaning towards the heavier weight: still around two and a half pounds.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 9, 2013 23:40:38 GMT
I think first principles are more or less covered: blade length, "sori", weight, balance, style of play (mixed cut and thrust) . . . is that it? Am I overlooking a first principle somehow? If not, we're left with the details, and the devil is, as they say, right there. One of the details is the blade profile, and I confess myself to being agnostic as of yet. There are plenty of different blade profiles; as an American, I probably "expect" to see a Montmorency blade profile: two fullers, one wide and long, the other, against the back of the blade, narrower and deeper, used on (once more) the French 1822, and the US 1840 and 1860 cavalry swords. Indian tulwars apparently had a wedge shaped, unfullered profile. The British adopted a variety of blade profiles in the 19th century, and Wilkinson's had a selection of "non regulation" blade profiles. www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?101383-Wilkinson-Blade-TypesI don't particularly care what kind of blade profile I end up with; as the fellow said, there's a lot of ways to skin that chicken. I would like the blade sharpened halfway down. I would like the back edge sharpened for 8-10", depending. I would like a hatchet point, or at least not a spear point. So here's where we're at. A curved cut and thrust sword, roughly a meter in length (39"), weighing a kilogram or slightly more, with a POB of 5-6", a grip that allows for work from the wrist, and a fairly protective bowl guard.
|
|
|
Post by Beowulf on Sept 10, 2013 9:16:13 GMT
"Also, there's a British design that is worth consideration: the Patent Tang, where the tang is full width and grip scales are used."
Seems the best, which I suppose is actually moot since sooo many other designs work just fine without it. I would think a possibility if you've got exposed tang-sides contacting your hand would be "shock" or "bite" if you were to do something incredibly stupid with the weapon. We all probably know this sensation... hit a tree with a baseball bat for a bit. You're not going to do that, cuz, well, your no longer an 11 year old with firecrackers, orange soda and too much time after school to kill.
I know, I'm not helping you here.
" I am agnostic on hilt assembly, with a slight inclination towards threaded tangs. I'm used to breaking down weapons for cleaning and inspection!"
Seeing saber tangs, especially on counter-curved handled ones has always freaked me out. But think about what no one ever says but I would guess some people realize: A tang (unless it's a full sized slab/patent tang) is supported by the handle and everything else, creating something strong enough, but wrapped in subtle-yet-important "shock absorber/negater"- the handle or hilt. So a traditional tang is great if nothing is defective IOWs if you don't use it with a loose and wobbling hilt where the tang is exposed to potential bad stress.
"A lot of sabers utilize pommel caps and/or backstraps of metal. I like them, I have no objection to them, I think . . . "
On every sword we all geek out about there are examples of this stuff. It's all about keeping the handle ends from splitting, keeping stuff rigid and once together tightly acting as one piece. You can see this with katana fuchi- something that seems decorative if fitted wrong can really mess up a handle after a while sometimes when used. This stuff to me (ferrules/bands/caps) is always thought of as "extra protection learned from making and using a lot of weapons in life and death situations". Yeah, the rayskin is also great. Nothing can work too, if done well.
Blade profile is where I always get lost, and I can quote you Oakeshott typologies on all the medieval types of blades. I understand what fullers are for, and all the profile stuff. But with a curved blade I would have to literally cut with 40 different weapons with differing fuller set ups to really see what's going on.
What about the unsharpened part of the spine? Is that just design if they do differ? I know nothing probably had a 'T' cross sectional spine since these are all slicing/hacking streamlined blades. Would anything have a raised central ridge on the spine like some katana have for deflecting/parrying beats? Something to sacrifice, something to nick instead of into blade-spine structure?
Also some baskets/guards seem to (in my saber-noob eyes) have projections, that I can only think of as "parrying hooks" like on medieval Messers. I'm talking about this quillon-like curly-cue projecting upwards spine-side of the baskets of some of your pictures. Earlier stuff, like Scotch baskethilts and Schiavona sometimes have multiple "parrying hooks". Also some sabers have no quillon projection, sometimes replacing it with a shaped portion from the shell or nothing at all.
A ricasso might or might not be something to establish. Then again you've got a basket/shell, so it isn't going to do much except keep everything sturdy in really bad/messy combat conditions on foot.
What about blade flexibility? I've seen slow-motion footage of cavalry sabers flexing like some medieval sword blade designs could during a horseback cut on a ground target. I also think (for some reason) some sabers are quite stiff and dead feeling in the blade for just as valid of a reason.
I hope my input is not bothersome. I am enjoying the "I don't know a damned thing about this" brain-storming.
|
|
|
Post by Ulrich on Sept 10, 2013 10:55:03 GMT
----------------------- I like these "parrying hooks" very much. I use to grab it with my thumb to have more blade control when wielding my CS Prussian M1852. I've no clue if these hooks where invented for that, but it works very well.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 10, 2013 14:24:35 GMT
Absolutely! I would imagine that having your sword grip crack in an affray is the kind of thing that would wonderfully concentrate the mind, and the various strategies employed to maintain a sound hilt are pretty widespread. Modern thinking seems to run to the patent tang---I'd hazard the suggestion that a full width tang is one of the defining characteristics of the tactical blade.
If I go with a more traditional tang, I'll probably go for a tightly fitted wooden grip, cord wrapped, and covered with rayskin--which I think is a killer look. (Panache!)Remember, depending on how wide we cast our net, we're talking about swords that cover a geographic region of twelve or thirteen time zones, and over a thousand years of history, so there are all types of blade, umm, types. Since you mentioned the T-cross sectional spine, I'll offer the pipe back saber for your consideration---Dave Kelly wrote a good introduction, over at the Renaissance and Military hooch. Not a true t-section, but definitely a raised central ridge on the spine! I'm not sure if it was used for parry reinforcement, my understanding (which could be wrong) is that it was mostly to give a stout point for the thrust. Intuition would predict that a pipe-back would interfere with cutting, but Dave Kelly reported the Cold Steel 1904 Austrian to be a ferocious cutter, and the Prosser he shows in his article looks a true brute.Ah, the "loopity loo!" (we use such technical terms here.) I'm not sure if its a vestigal remnant, maintained to honor history and tradition, or if it's still a working part of the system. I know that a number of American style hangers had shell guards that projected along the blade (not away from it).
So far as I can tell, these sabers aren't set up to take advantage of a ricasso, in terms of fingering the blade. I think this is why the grips run longer than on medieval swords.I would suspect that a typical saber would display a good bit of blade flexibility. I remember a Royal Armories clip of a 1796 making a cut at a melon, and there was a significant amount of flex. That doesn't disturb me, I think I've seen a goodly amount of flex in the cut from a H/T EMSHS, and its certainly stiff enough for government work. I'd imagine that some of the later, much more thrust oriented blades, some of which were pipebacks, would display significantly less flex.
Dude, your input is in NO WAY bothersome. I'm trying to thresh out my thoughts, and input helps me to refine them.
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Sept 10, 2013 17:17:40 GMT
Ulrich: How do you like the grip on the 1852? Plenty of room for hammer, handshake and saber holds?
|
|
|
Post by Ulrich on Sept 11, 2013 21:37:05 GMT
-------------- I like it very much. It’s a tip heavy sword and when wielding it I found out very fast why these blades often called ‘whrist breakers’. The hilt is handy, there is enough space not to touch the basket and this leather sling for the index finger helps a lot controlling the blade. And from my layman prospect it seems that the basket protects the hand very well. Last not least I’d like to mention that I really like the pipeback blade – along it’s formidable thrusting power it looks badass to my eyes ------------------- I don’t exactly know what you mean. Are these terms for special fencing actions? I’ve googled it, read fencing terms and taken a look on some saber reviews on this forum but I cannot find these terms in context with sabres. Also my dictonary only offers translations that are already known to me and have nothing to do with fencing or swords.
|
|