|
Post by elbrittania39 on Oct 27, 2018 20:49:07 GMT
I think it's fair to say that as a general rule, cavalry swords tend to be longer than infantry counterparts. At least where broadswords and sabres are concerned. Obviously this has to do with extra reach and a horses momentum helping you power a bigger blade. But my question is, how short could cavalry swords get while still being viable? It seems like there were cavalry swords in history that weren't terribly long like Mongol sabres and Arabic shamshirs (both seem to average just a tad over three feet).
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Oct 27, 2018 21:31:10 GMT
I think it's fair to say that as a general rule, cavalry swords tend to be longer than infantry counterparts. At least where broadswords and sabres are concerned. Obviously this has to do with extra reach and a horses momentum helping you power a bigger blade. But my question is, how short could cavalry swords get while still being viable? It seems like there were cavalry swords in history that weren't terribly long like Mongol sabres and Arabic shamshirs (both seem to average just a tad over three feet). There are no rules. It varies in time period and in culture. Lot of horse cultures used lances as their primary weapon, and close combat sabers could vary to the size of the weilder. Across the board regimentation of weapons doesn't occur until around 1680. Standardization had supply and accounting rationale.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Oct 28, 2018 4:45:56 GMT
I can’t tell you the minimum length that was considered serviceable but there are several instances with the British cavalry that their issued swords were not long enough. I can’t say what model they were using at the time or blade length. When the Brits invaded Nepal and were fighting the Gurkhas the Gurkhas would lie on the ground out of sword’s reach and cut the horse’s leg or belly as the cavalry past. Another instance was with the Brits fighting in the Sudan where they encountered the same action. The lancers on the other hand, at least in Sudan were used, had the reach and that tactic failed.
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 28, 2018 10:28:41 GMT
33" to 36" is fairly common for Western and Asian Western-style cavalry sabres, and there is no shortage of 36-40" blades out there. Past 40" is sword-shaped lances. Late Qing cavalry dao are fairly short for cavalry swords, and are usually 28" to 30" of blade, but note that they also carried bows (and sometimes lances), so reach was a lesser issue than for some other cavalry.
The most famous Australian cavalry charge (Beersheba) was done without swords. The Light Horse were, officially, halfway between mounted infantry and cavalry, and their pre-war doctrine was to fight dismounted (the "cavalry" part of their role was mounted reconnaissance). Thus, they charged with bayonets, the P1907, with all of 17" of blade.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Oct 29, 2018 1:07:40 GMT
[...] Thus, they charged with bayonets, the P1907, with all of 17" of blade. I presume they had the bayonets fixed....
|
|
|
Post by Timo Nieminen on Oct 29, 2018 1:17:21 GMT
[...] Thus, they charged with bayonets, the P1907, with all of 17" of blade. I presume they had the bayonets fixed.... At least some had them in hand, like swords. The movie version: The history: beersheba100.com.au/history/beersheba.html
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Oct 29, 2018 13:19:46 GMT
Earlier, when the so-called Long Lee-Enfield was standard, except for cavalry, a shorter bayonet was used. The cavalry carbine did not take a bayonet. But the cavalry carbine used by other armies usually did. One, the French Berthier carbine, had an especially long bayonet, which the French called a saber-bayonet ("Sabre-baïonnette"). That carbine was used into the 1960s. It had also been a common practice for dragoons in the 18th and on into the 19th century to also have a bayonet for their muskets. They were theoretically mounted infantry, sort of, although there was also a fad for mounted infantry in the British Army around 1900 and they did not carry sabers.
Didn't the Poles or perhaps Hungarian mounted soldiers carry an unusually long saber in addition to one of normal dimensions in, probably, the 17th century or thereabouts?
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Oct 29, 2018 23:36:50 GMT
Didn't the Poles or perhaps Hungarian mounted soldiers carry an unusually long saber in addition to one of normal dimensions in, probably, the 17th century or thereabouts? The koncerz was far more of an estoc than a saber. I like the term "hand-lance" for things of this type, because functionally that's exactly what they were.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2018 3:13:12 GMT
Earlier, when the so-called Long Lee-Enfield was standard, except for cavalry, a shorter bayonet was used. The cavalry carbine did not take a bayonet. But the cavalry carbine used by other armies usually did. One, the French Berthier carbine, had an especially long bayonet, which the French called a saber-bayonet ("Sabre-baïonnette"). That carbine was used into the 1960s. It had also been a common practice for dragoons in the 18th and on into the 19th century to also have a bayonet for their muskets. They were theoretically mounted infantry, sort of, although there was also a fad for mounted infantry in the British Army around 1900 and they did not carry sabers. Didn't the Poles or perhaps Hungarian mounted soldiers carry an unusually long saber in addition to one of normal dimensions in, probably, the 17th century or thereabouts? There are articles regarding the Winged Hussars of Poland geared up with multiple swords. Three apparently not uncommon. An estoc/koncerz up to four feet or so long, a palasch/broadsword with about three feet of blade and a szabala/sabre. Then additional weapons and units but the carry of three blades referenced in several resources. Somewhere in the Patton notes are that the blade needed to be able to pierce a prone body during mop up duty. Generally speaking, western swords with blades of 30" or so seem to be accepted as possible mounted use. I have multiple 18th and 19th century swords with blades less than 30" that I would expect to be characterized as swords afoot but I have several known infantry patterns with blades of 32" and more. Blade proportion geared to an individual not just true of later uniform patterns for officers. George Washington was very much a mobile and mounted officer but I know of no anecdotal notes mentioning his actually even drawing his cuttoe during an action. By the 19th century, officers generally just pointing to the guys needing killing. There is the Peter Francisco story in which some purport of a six foot long sword and Washington ordered a big sword for him and there is a picture of him on foot battling Tarleton troops but not with the commissioned sword. Supposedly displayed but no photos have ever surfaced. www.sailsinc.org/durfee/peterfrancisco.pdfThere is a Gettysburg account I am forgetting the name of but an officer almost scalped by a saber during the cavalry charge. I don't think a couple/few inches of blade matter much when saddle to saddle. I guess it's all relative but 34"-36" of blade not uncommon for cavalry pattern sabres back to the 16th century. The pallasch types with a metre or so of blade prevalled to the end.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Nov 24, 2018 13:14:23 GMT
Phillip Smucker, author of "Riding With George," a new book about George Washington as a sportsman and country gentleman, also believes that Washington never drew his sword in battle. But he did devote an entire chapter in the book to Washington, the swordsman. In his day, gentlemen carried swords and learned to use them, the same as the way they learned to ride and dance and a few other things. He had a notable collection of swords.
Phillip Smucker is my wife's first cousin and the keeper of the family heirloom U.S. Army sword I mentioned in another thread. He is presently living in Afghanistan.
|
|