|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 10, 2018 22:25:17 GMT
Essentially a design that was compromised to thrust, yet handicapped to perform it even remotely effectively. I think that this greatly under-estimates the thrusting capability of the 1864-1890 swords. While they're not purpose-built thrusters like the P1908, they are capable of significantly better than "remotely effective". Yes, they're not made for thumb-along-back-of-grip, but thumb-around-grip is fine for thrusting. Roworth discusses grips explicitly: thumb-along-grip is fine for lightweight swords like spadroons and smallswords, but thumb-around-grip should be used for heavier swords. The main complaints about the P1864 were the edges of the guard damaging clothing (the peacetime complaint) and excessive weight (the wartime complaint). The response was (a) rolled edges on the guard, and (b) a lighter sword. The experiment 1880 was liked by those who tried it - under 2lb vs the 2.5lb of the P1864. The P1882 was a little heavier than the 1880, and the converted-from-P1864 swords were a little heavier again. The complaint with the P1882 was mostly not about handling (but there were complaints about the roundness of the grips), but about the strength of the blade. Thus the P1885 was more robust. But there were still plenty of complaints about the strength. Thus, the P1890 was heavier again, back to the P1864 weights (a little heavier even), and now the complaints were about excessive weight. Why the P1899 was even heavier, I know not. Maybe the idea was that it was more of a thrusting sword, and the weight wouldn't matter (the P1899 had the long grip for thumb-along-grip). The P1908 was the heaviest of the lot. I think that the not-unimportant question of maintaining edge alignment during a cut would be a lesser problem if the soldiers were taught (or at least, taught more consistently and thoroughly) to draw-cut. The official manual of the late 1800s praises the draw-cut, especially when combined with the motion of the horse, but whether that resulted in any meaningful practice is another story. Flatter grips would have helped.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Sept 11, 2018 1:33:31 GMT
You say that as if there is something wrong with that. Seems like a fine idea for a trooper's cavalry sword. Imo, hack and slash only is fine if the sword was optimised for it ala 1796LC Problem with this is that the blade from the 1821s onw were cut and thrust compromise profiles. Yet the handle on this is so thick and fat that anything short of a tight hammer grip wont stop the blade from turning in any kind of impact. Doing so robs you of one of (or the most effective) grip to thrust: thumb on the spine, trigger finger style. Essentially a design that was compromised to thrust, yet handicapped to perform it even remotely effectively. After handling it, i could totally see why there were so many complains about the mdle Was going to take some pics, but too complicated without a video. My appreciation of the French saber is much about the long grips that allow the heal to rest on the grip and optimize hand and wrist control of the blade. I can deal with the barrel grip on these sabers, as the guards are not so big or heavy to cause the turn of the sword. I don't have any problem giving point with the sword. There is room to palm the grip and the thumb will get on top of the grip or even rest on the quillon. Where I see the problem is getting out of point and positioning the hand to parry or cut. Only way I can figure out is to moulinet broadly to shift the hand back to closed around the grip. Little practice and you can shift the hand as needed. The one that gets totally buggered up is the 1864 plate guard. Too cramped. The old 1821 better.
|
|
|
Post by likehotbutter on Sept 11, 2018 6:42:34 GMT
I think that this greatly under-estimates the thrusting capability of the 1864-1890 swords. i was exaggerating slightly lol While they're not purpose-built thrusters like the P1908, they are capable of significantly better than "remotely effective". Yes, they're not made for thumb-along-back-of-grip, but thumb-around-grip is fine for thrusting. Roworth discusses grips explicitly: thumb-along-grip is fine for lightweight swords like spadroons and smallswords, but thumb-around-grip should be used for heavier swords...... the not-unimportant question of maintaining edge alignment during a cut would be a lesser problem if the soldiers were taught (or at least, taught more consistently and thoroughly) to draw-cut. The official manual of the late 1800s praises the draw-cut, especially when combined with the motion of the horse, but whether that resulted in any meaningful practice is another story. Flatter grips would have helped. I was mainly talking about the 1853, although the 1864 carries on the same slab grips. As pointed out by Pino, the later mdles did have a much slimmer tang/grip profile and improved handling by quite abit. Its an interesting one with ideal grip placement. Rowarth is not alone in his assessment on using primarily for heavier sabres. I'm currently going through the system of the Berliner Turnschule and the Prussians were of that opinion as well (although this treatise is focused on the 1796/1811 style sabres). I myself prefer to fence primarily in the hammer grip but it is really un-ideal for giving point. The reason for this is bio-mechanics (at least for my arm). Thrusting left right down is still ok but thrusting forward in a hammer grip puts the wrist at extreme pronation. This is a common complain of baskethilts as well due to the forced hammer grip. Now, this is fine on foot, but in a side by side shock cavalry manoeuvre where you have heavy forward momentum and where the forward thrust is the primary way to give point in a charge, a sprained/broken hand is just waiting to happen via the hammer grip. Thumb on back is simply the best/safest, and we see so many period examples of trooper blades all around the world having the quillon bent forward to facilitate this, culminating with the scientifically and specifically designed thrusting P1908....with a nice divot for the thumb on the gripback. I don't have any problem giving point with the sword. There is room to palm the grip and the thumb will get on top of the grip or even rest on the quillon. Where I see the problem is getting out of point and positioning the hand to parry or cut. Only way I can figure out is to moulinet broadly to shift the hand back to closed around the grip. Little practice and you can shift the hand as needed. The one that gets totally buggered up is the 1864 plate guard. Too cramped. The old 1821 better. i probably have small hands. cant really get a confident grip with the index and last 3 fingers to give point using the thumb on the back/quillon, esp for rapid motion hammer is fine however
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Sept 11, 2018 8:22:25 GMT
Thrusting left right down is still ok but thrusting forward in a hammer grip puts the wrist at extreme pronation. This is a common complain of baskethilts as well due to the forced hammer grip. Now, this is fine on foot, but in a side by side shock cavalry manoeuvre where you have heavy forward momentum and where the forward thrust is the primary way to give point in a charge, a sprained/broken hand is just waiting to happen via the hammer grip. Thumb on back is simply the best/safest, and we see so many period examples of trooper blades all around the world having the quillon bent forward to facilitate this, culminating with the scientifically and specifically designed thrusting P1908....with a nice divot for the thumb on the gripback. I find it very easy to switch between hammer-grip with heel of hand behind bottom of grip and handshake-grip with heel of hand beside bottom of grip with these swords. Both are thumb-around, and give the security of thumb-around, and the latter gives very easy extension of the sword in line with the forearm with doing ugly things with the wrist. I don't recall this kind of grip change being discussed in the 19th century military manuals (they're rather sparse on details of the basics), but it's illustrated in La Marchant's 1796 manual.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 11, 2018 10:37:34 GMT
Concerning the handle, perhaps the problems in gripping it and the way it feels would disappear if you were wearing gloves or gauntlets, as the model in the photos is doing. In fact, maybe the best way to judge the sword would be to try using it when mounted on a horse. The dynamics will really change then.
On the other hand, some infantry officer swords were very similar to cavalry sabers in the 19th century, so maybe you could skip the horse trials after all. From what I can tell, cavalrymen were trained using their swords while on foot as much as they were while mounted. Cavalrymen eventually ceased carrying swords while on foot (they remained attached to the saddle) but it was probably better for the horses to practice with swords while dismounted.
|
|
|
Post by likehotbutter on Sept 11, 2018 12:53:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 11, 2018 14:55:10 GMT
It's not entirely a lost art:
.
|
|
|
Post by likehotbutter on Sept 11, 2018 16:19:52 GMT
My fav
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 11, 2018 19:11:01 GMT
I didn't know Portuguese was written with Cyrillic letters.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Sept 11, 2018 22:28:05 GMT
It's not entirely a lost art: . Man that is TERRIBLE! After this tape runs they show you the header for a much older made for French television program full regimental charge by the same Republican Guard. In the age before rifles, cavalry maneuver was done at the trot, charges were more often as not conducted at the gallop and not as an out of control, undisciplined mob. The idea was to hit the target in a wall, knee to knee. Look for the older charge. You will see the diff :)
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Sept 11, 2018 23:38:28 GMT
It's not entirely a lost art: .
Man that is TERRIBLE! After this tape runs they show you the header for a much older made for French television program full regimental charge by the same Republican Guard. In the age before rifles, cavalry maneuver was done at the trot, charges were more often as not conducted at the gallop and not as an out of control, undisciplined mob. The idea was to hit the target in a wall, knee to knee. Look for the older charge. You will see the diff This one?
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Sept 12, 2018 1:16:19 GMT
I was lucky enough to see a US Cavalry charge once on film. This was the real thing, not Hollywood. It took place during the Mexico Expedition. I remember thinking damn this is the real thing. It was the perfect terrain, flat and not a tree in sight. I remember the guiding wasn’t perfect, about like in “Charge napolèonienne de la Garde Republicaine” but close enough to recognize the individual ranks, and to be an unit. It was very much like the above video, but the video had better photography. Some where along the way I was fortunate enough to read the regs pertaining to the charge. Although I’ve forgotten much the charge started with a walk, trot, canter, and then a gallop and it was specific as to when each was to be initiated. The gallop was to commence at 200 yd from the target, I think. And I have no recollection as to when the others were to take place.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Sept 12, 2018 2:04:07 GMT
That's it. Copy of a copy. I have the original buried in a file some place. "Great Battles - Austerlitz"
|
|
|
Post by likehotbutter on Sept 12, 2018 2:37:15 GMT
In the age before rifles, cavalry maneuver was done at the trot, charges were more often as not conducted at the gallop and not as an out of control, undisciplined mob. The idea was to hit the target in a wall, knee to knee. thats what i like about the brazilian police cavalry video you get to see the effect of cavalry on undisciplined infantry (aka riot protestors ) at 2.08 you get one such knee-to-knee charge absolutely clearing the streets. can only imagine been on a battlefield and not in close formation (or square). would be utterly slaughtered been caught in that P.S the modern charge video was utterly horseshit but I'm also guessing it was due to been conducted in a hippodrome. Tight confined lanes, not very safe to perform one in closed ranks with so many men. One mishap and the rear ranks wont have much time to react, almost like a modern peloton accident but with heavy horse, men and sharp steel safer to do one in loose formation. Ahistorical but makes the crowd happy all the same....not like they know anyway
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Sept 12, 2018 9:40:53 GMT
You might notice that in both videos, the trumpeters hold their horns off to one side so that if the horse rears his head back, his horn won't be smashed into his mouth.
I knew one man and met another, both of whom had taken part in horse mounted operations in WWII but I never once thought to ask either of them about their experiences. All our lives were consumed by the experiences we were having at the time. But another man was impressed that I had heard of the unit he was in, the 2nd Household Cavalry Regiment, which was an armored unit.
|
|