French Cavalry Swords Pt 2: Some of the Extended Family
Jan 1, 2017 20:25:38 GMT
Post by Afoo on Jan 1, 2017 20:25:38 GMT
Preamble:
The French 1822 line of cavalry swords proved to be very popular at the time, seeing service with a wide range of nations throughout its 100 year lifetime. This inevitably gave rise to a host of derivatives and variants. Some, such as the US 1840/1860 line are direct descendants, whereas others like the Chilean model shown here have little formal connection with the esteemed Light Cav. Regardless of their connection, I feel that the three models I have here tell an interesting narrative about the trajectory of French sword development, and the different paths it took though to the present day.
As with part 1, this post is NOT meant to be a comprehensive review of all things French up to the present day. Rather, it’s a chance for me to share some bits of my collection and hopefully spark some interest and conversation on the topic. Again, acknowledgements to Uhlan, Kelly and Pino – their knowledge has been instrumental to the development of my own collection, and I write these articles partially as a means of passing the favour onto others who wish to enter the field. In particular, I would like to cite Uhlan’s post on the 1822 and 1896 sword, and Dave Kelly’s old review of the Windlass 1840/1860 and the Windlass 1906 US commemorative.
US 1860/1906
Chronologically speaking, my US 1906 sword is the most distant relative of the 1822, being made almost 100 years after. In terms of form and function however, it remains the most similar of the three examples. This branch of the family tree diverged from the 1822 in 1840, when the Americans decided to go looking for a new model of Cavalry sword to replace their pipe-back 1833. The 1833 was inspired by a British design and apparently, their dissatisfaction with it drove them across the channel to France, where they promptly copied the 1822 pattern to produce the US 1840. Apparently something was lost in the conversion process, and the resulting sword was found to be heavier and much less maneuverable than they had expected, earning it the moniker “Wristbreaker”. I cannot say whether this could be attributed to the actual pattern itself or the willingness of individual manufacturers or foreign contractors to deviate from spec. Regardless of cause, this dissatisfaction resulted in a new model in 1860 which featured reductions to both the length and width of the blade help lighten the sword which, combined with the redesigned grip, make it a lot more manageable. This sword would soldier on alongside its older stablemate until 1872, where it would be replaced by an abomination of a sword which does not deserve mention here. In 1906 they decided to go back to the 1860 design, but replaced the brass hilt with a steel one. The 1906 model is pretty much a copy of the 1860 in terms of specifications, hence why I refer to them as being one and the same. That said, the 1906 goes for about half the price in my market, which is how I ended up with mine. Thus, the 1906 represents the most conservative evolutionary path of the 1822, and provides a very interesting comparison.
I have heard the US 1860/1906 being described as an indifferent or mediocre sword, and a poor cousin to the 1822 LC model. In this regards I would have to disagree. The lighter blade helps with maneuverability, and the slimmer profile and more acute point gives me a bit more confidence in the thrust while retaining enough mass to give a decent cut. Perhaps a better word to describe the 1860/1906 is neutral rather than indifferent – it does not actively encourage or discourage use of the edge or the point, making it a reasonable compromise design. That said, the foible on the 1860/1906 runs for ~9 inches at the tip, or about 25% of the blade. The foible on the 1822 LC runs only runs for ~6 inches. On the longer 36 inch blade this amounts to only about 17% of the overall blade length. While I find my 1906 stiff enough for point work within the comfort of my home, this loss of material near the tip may serve to severely compromise thrusting performance under actual combat conditions.
Left: Comparison between the 1822 (top) and 1906 (bottom) blade thickness at the hilt.
Right: Comparison between the 1822 (left) and 1906 (right) thickness at the foible. Also compare the length of the foible.
I also noticed that the 1906 is noticeably thinner along its length - much more so than the stats would suggest. It also lacks the semi T-back design of the 1822 LC, which might further compromise performance.
The grips on the 1906 are much more pleasant in my hands over the 1822. While this contributes to my preference for the 1906, I recognize that this is a personal opinion, and some may differ in that regards. Also note that my example appears to be about 0.1 lb lighter than the other example I have seen online so take that with a grain of salt as well.
Aesthetics wise, the 1906 with its steel grey guard and businesslike curved blade look spectacular in a brutal kind of way. The blade is narrower than that of the 1822, but I find that this simply lends it a greater sense of purpose. My example is a bit beat up and has epoxy on the grip, but its still a gem due to its handling.
1883/1896
By 1882, the 1822 LC models were getting a bit long in the tooth, and the military brass decided it was time to shake the tree and give the cavalrymen a straight bladed weapon. In order to save money, they decided to straighten out the existing 1822 LC weapons, giving rise to the Mle 1822 Tme 1883. That did not at all end up going well, and the practice soon ceased after only a few thousand were made. They also created a new model of sword called the 1822/1882, which is essentially the 1882 sword with a brand new blade designed from the ground up to meet the 1882 requirement for a straight blade. From the nomenclature it appears that the new straight blade predates the re-forged 1822 blades – likely due to a shortage of the new weapons or a desire to save money, though I could be mistaken Personally I am rather confused by all the various nomenclatures, and the internet is not yielding much results so I will differ to the established gentry of SBG.
Markings on the spine of the blade
My example is unique in that it was once owned by the esteemed Dave Kelly. More than that, this example has the 1822/1883 blade, but mounted onto the later style 1896 hilt. Uhlan has a nice article on the 1896 over here but, in brief, the 1896 is a further development of the 1882/1883, which features a fancy art-deco shell guard. While first impressions suggest that the shell guard would provide more hand protection than the old three-bar design, closer inspection reveals that, while the guard does present a more solid surface, the actual area protected remains more or less the same (see original article for full discussion). Someone on the forums mentioned to me that the 1896 also featured a lighter blade. While the stats on Uhlan’s example (thickness of 8.5 mm vs 10 mm) support this, one must take into account the expected variation between individual examples, especially when dealing with officer’s private purchase kit.
Guards of the 1896 compared to the 1822 Bancal. With some buff and elbow grease the 1896 can stand with the best of them
That said, the 1896 guard is unique and a highlight of the pattern. In my example, I get the best of both worlds – an 1882/1993 blade on the nicer 1896 hilt.
The blade itself is also a work of art in my eyes. The T-backed profile which first started to appear in the 1822 line has now fully emerged to give a sleek and elegant weapon which is both light and remarkably stiff across its forte. Handling-wise the 1883 is a bit on the light side, but the long blade gives it a sense of presence beyond what you would expect. I personally quite like it - its like an overgrown version of the British 1897. The 1883 has been cited as an inspiration for the late 19th/early 20th century hand-lance swords such as the Spanish 1907, British 1908 and the 1913 Patton. While the resemblance is there, this evolution has yet to reach its apex. The foible of the 1883 runs for the last 6.5 inches of the blade, which is similar to what you would get for an 1822 LC. While this is suitable for the cut and thrust design of the 1822 LC, on the 1883 I find that the foible is too long and compromises stiffness at the point. In contrast to this the 1907 Spanish has almost no perceptible foible and a much higher terminal thickness.
A look down the tip of the blade. The T-backed profile with the pronounced, squared off fuller is appealing. The substantial foible makes for an aesthetically pleasing tip, but may reduce battlefield utility.
It is also worth noting that the 1883 model was supposed to become a “Universal” model for multiple branches of Cavalry, with the length of the blade ranging from 85 cm to 95 cm depending on the service. My particular example has a 90 cm blade, and its performance will differ from the 95 cm and 85 cm versions.
Chilean...thing
The last sabre here is a bit of a mystery. It is a Chilean sabre on account of its national crest, and I have seen multiple sources refer to it as such (good resource for South American swords here). However, I am unsure of the model number, and what service it belonged to, though the literature and the hilt furniture suggest cavalry, the blade length is much better suited for infantry use, perhaps out of recognition of the limited utility of cavalry swords beyond the parade ground – especially for a mountainous country like Chile.
Chatellerault markings on the spine of the blade. Inspector markings, but no model number or date
The sword itself is manufactured in Châtellerault, but the French connection goes further than that. Close inspection will reveal a T-backed blade very similar to the 1883. Unlike the 1883, the blade features a reinforced tip, with no foible to speak of. There is even a miniature fuller on the back of the blade at the tip, just to emphasize the point. Not sure what practical purpose this fuller has, though it should be noted that the Spanish 1907 features something similar.
Chilean sword (top) next to the US 1906. Note the small fuller on the spine, and the complete lack of foible down to the tip.
Close look at the massive fuller running the length of the blade. Its almost like they took a SPanish 1907 blade, made it fatter and gave it a bend.
Despite its French connections, the Chilean features many German design elements. The ergonomic composite grips for example scream of contemporary Prussian 1889 derivatives, while the stocky blade lends a very Teutonic percussive feel. This is not surprising, given the proliferation of German-inspired and manufactured designs coming out of South America around the same time period including, among others, the Brazilian 1890p and 1889 Variant, and the Argentine 1852 and 1889 Variants .
The Chilean (top) compared to the Argentine version of the Prussian 1889 (bottom)
Close up of the Chilean's Prussian-style grips
On paper, the lack of taper and heavy weight (for a 33 inch blade) suggest an unwieldy beast, the end results are surprisingly pleasant. Its not as nice to handle as the Argentine 1889 or the US 1906, but its usable. They best analogy I can come up with is the Prussian 1873 Artillery – both are vastly different in form and function. However, while they both feel heavy for what they are, the extra mass does not feel like an undue burden and they are still more than capable of getting the job done. Like the 1873, the extra mass on the Chilean lends a sense of confidence and power. I also suspect that the Prussian-inspired ergonomic grips play a significant role in keeping things manageable in both the cut and the thrust – I suspect that the same blade mounted onto an 1822 grip would be a lot less pleasant.
It should also be noted that the CS Thompson Sabre that has popped up recently in discussion has the same weight on a similar length blade, despite the Chilean having a much thicker blade. This is a testament as to the effectiveness of the T-backed design and the massive square fullers (or a testament as to the shallowness of the CS fullers). The Chilean does feel heavier in the hand, but also much more pleasant to maneuver on account of its grip design and weight distribution. This again goes to show that stats, weights and figures only tell you half the story.
Aesthetics-wise, the sword is an interesting mixed bag of French and Germanic designs, elements of which I had alluded to earlier. I am very curious to learn more about the design process of this sword, and how all the different elements came together. All in all it’s a stout, percussive weapon which retains some of the fineness of its French predecessors.
That guard conveys a sense of industrial elegance, and is one of the most distinctive features of the sword.
~
Of the three discussed here, the most interesting in my eyes are the 1883 and the Chilean, as they represent really the beginning of the end for sword evolution. Both swords contain elements of the modern hand-lance designs such as the 1908 and 1913, while retaining some of the more traditional elements. The 1906 is an oddity in this era of innovation and change, but that it itself makes it somewhat unique and endearing – a tenacious reminder of the 1822 LC from almost 100 years prior.
The Chilean bears special mention due to its uniqueness. I do not know of any other sword which looks anything like it, or has such a distinct character in both aesthetics and handling. They are not uncommon swords, and I suspect a good one can be had for the $200-300 range. I would recommend it if you get the chance. Despite the lack of taper and higher than average weight, I find them nice in the hand and pleasant to hold. Be aware that, unlike their Prussian counterparts, the Chilean sword has a peened pommel, so you need to watch out for it working loose. The grip is made of a plastic material, rather than the celluloid-wrapped wood as seen on other models. The grip is also hollow, which gives more room for things to slide around once the peen gets loose.