|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jul 19, 2019 6:26:30 GMT
Should these be called the M1858? I was once sure, but now I'm not. Oh well. Here's my thoughts on these two swords after having a lotof time to handle and cut with either sabre.
FEELINGS ON HANDLING The 1822 grip less secure then the Germanic styled 1860 grip. 1822 tends to slip down to the rear of the hand. 1822 feels heavier overall, with less percussive force in the distal end. The 1822 has much more material in the hilt, with similar guard size, but much thicker pommel and guard. This can be further seen in the tell tale dents in the pommel cap that can be observed in many “M1860” sabres. The M1860 will from this point on be addressed as the M1858. The MLE1822LCS (Modele 1822 light cavalry troopers sabre) has a far thicker blade, and much more aggressive fullering and distal taper. The foible abruptly tapers past the fuller to a thinness that becomes detrimental to durability in the thrust and performance in the cut. This is noted as well by Colonel Marey Monge on page 711 of his Memoir of Swords. The grip is shaped in such a way that the little finger is not supported, and the taper of the grip encourages the hand to slip down during cutting movements, and makes a poor grip with little constitution in the parry or cut in this writers opinion, when compared to the grip of the M1858 which supports the pinky, has a palm swell, and supports the upper fingers. The blade is also more flexible than the M1858. The M1858 is lighter overall and has a longer hilt, with more support to the hand. There is less material in the hilt, less material in the blade despite the much less aggressive fullering (not to be confused with poor fullering, the M1860 simply has shallower fullers given its thinner blade) and less aggressive foible tapering. The taper on the M1860 is linear and much stiffer than the MLE1822LCS. The blades are about the same length. In handling, the MLE1822LCS is slower to move from the wrist and is more comfortably moved from the elbow, as opposed to the M1858 which is perfectly comfortably maneuvered from the wrist. In cutting, either rolled newspaper, or tatami mats, the M1858 cuts smoother and the MLE1822LCS tends to meet more resistance and needs more force to cut, due to the thicker spine compared to the thin edge profile, and lighter foible respectively (the thicker spine contrasting the thin edge profile contributing to resistance at the spine, and the lighter foible contributes to less cutting presence). THOUGHTS ON LACK OF DEVELOPMENT The MLE1822LCS is an impressive feat of engineering, but would have benefited greatly with the British or American, or indeed even the German and Spanish trends of examining the flaws in their service weapons. See the Starr Sabres -> 1833 -> 1840 -> 1860 -> 1906 -> 1913 -> end of the American service cavalry weapons, the (I know I am missing the earlier 178? And ‘96 Patterns, focusing here mostly on 19th century use) -> 1821 -> 1853 -> 1864 -> 1885 -> 1890 -> 1899 -> 1908 of the British service light cavalry weapons, and the 1811 -> 1849 -> 1852 -> 1879 -> 1889 of the Prussian light cavalry service weapons, and the multiple iterations (ending in the 1907/18 and going through 4 major changes in styles) of the Spanish light cavalry service weapons. Compare this to the 1802 -> 1816 -> 1822 -> 1882 (which saw limited service anyways) -> 1896 changes in the 19th century. A grand total of 5 changes, with only three being in the realm the French cavalry saw heavy fighting in melee actions. Contrast this to the 7 changes in the 19th century alone with British weapons, 3 changes in less than 30 years with American weapons, 5 in the 19th century in the Prussian war experiences in the middle of the 19th century. The Spanish went through multiple as well. The French MLE1822LCS is no doubt a dependable sword, and served it’s soldiers well. But it is not without the flaws, and in my own opinion does not deserve the outlandish praise that is heaped upon it, at least not when compared to how often the British and American models are slandered by people who never actually try to learn how to use the sabre in the way a sabre is used, which is really the point of this article. The M1858 and MLE1822LCS are entirely and vastly different swords, and while the M1858 bears resemblance in terms of hilt and blade style, it does not deserve the moniker of copy in my opinion. 1 1/16ths inches wide at base, 15/16ths inches at PoP, 13/16ths 3 inches from tip. 7 1/8ths inches long foible. Blade is 35 1/8ths inches long. Guard bars project 3 7/16ths over right side of hand. Guard plate measures 2 1/8 across. ABOVE M1860 STATS 1 3/16ths inches wide at base. Slightly over 1 inch (less than 1/16ths over) at PoP, 13/16ths wide 3 inches from tip. 6 ¼ inches long foible. 36.25 inches long blade. 35 1/8t Guard projects 3 3/8ths over right side of hand. Guard plate measures 2.25 inches across. ABOVE MLE1822LCS STATS PICTURES ON THE PHOTO BELOW, NOTE THE KINK IN THE DISTAL END OF THE FOIBLE. BELOW – SPINE THICKNESS DIFFERENCES SOME CAMERA TRICKERY HERE – THE M1858 GRIP IS ACTUALLY LONGER THAN THE MLE1822LCS
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jul 19, 2019 11:10:36 GMT
1. Edelweiss is going to wake up and tell you that any date assignation to the Ames Light Cavalry Saber is irrelevant as the US Ordnance Dept referred to it simply as the LCS. The habit of referring to it as the 1860 is a modern writers convention. The Ordnance Dept called for a new LCS as of 1856 and Ames started to make deliveries in 1858. The system wasn't debugged for bulk orders until 1860. Take your pick. 2. The French M1822 CL was in fact modified twice: 1855 and 1873. Your 1822 has a production date of 1876. Having lost to the Prussians in 1871, the 1822 was made more percussive. A perfectly good CL was made as sempriniesque as the Kirschbaum/Ames version used in the US Civil War. The best and brightest of the 1822s were manufactured before 1855. You're comparing apples and dogpoo. 3. Combat cavalry sword fighting, excepting the officer class who were supposed to have some sword training, was done close fisted, except for delivering the point. Wrist cuttting wasn't normal or physiologically safe. Open handed position was the most efficient way to present the point to thrust. The Italians changed that in 1870 reintroducing rapiers like duelling swords for general use. I'll agree with you that the Ames LCS was a great improvement over the 1840, but with regards to the last gen M1822 CL representing the saber, that to me is worst case.
|
|
pellius
Moderator
Posts: 5,213
Member is Online
|
Post by pellius on Jul 19, 2019 14:42:33 GMT
Jordan Williams - Thank you for the write-up. It is interesting to see two seemingly similar sabers compared and contrasted, especially when based upon actual use in practice and cutting.
The development of these two saber designs, in a global environment of improving industrialization in manufacturing, mechanization of war, and contemporaneous economic development and battlefield analysis, seems to have followed two distinct trajectories. It is fascinating to see an historical snapshot of those endeavors - two actual production sabers - evaluated side by side with over a century of hindsight for perspective. The variations on the theme seem to have been substantial.
I occasionally ponder the ultimate destination for this general sword design had swords remained a viable weapon of warfare. Cavalry swords seemed (to my uneducated eye) to have been generally evolving toward the pallasch design at the turn of the century. However, given another century of development and battlefield catastrophes, who knows? Perhaps a cut and thrust design would have come back into favor. (After all, the US military famously removed guns from jet fighters as antiquated and vestigial, only to add them back and, so far, keep them.)
Dave Kelly - Thank you for the insight and commentary. Being entirely untrained in cavalry swordsmanship, my hand feels a noticeable, but not really substantial, difference between my French m1822/1824 and my Solingen made US m1840 (kinda the opposite ends of the development curves Jordan discussed). Unlike me, those whose observations are unencumbered by ignorance of the subject note a world of difference between such swords.
You pointed out troopers had less swordsmanship training than officers. I wonder whether such differences in handling would be lost on them as well. Even if not, perhaps they would nonetheless find attributes other than handling equally important? Indeed, if troopers were generally using their sabers with skill only marginally better than a beginner, is it possible that a "worse" handling saber would actually produce better/more consistent results?
Anyway, thanks for the write-up and thoughts. This is very interesting stuff.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 17:29:15 GMT
The US "LCS" (I like that Dave) was generated to address the faults/complaints found with the US m1840. The trials adopting the S&K contract to become the m1840 was in turn simply choosing the German model 1822 over the French, no doubt simply a better perceived deal for immediate import. The m1840 was the sword that began major use during the ACW, as fielded by both sides in great numbers. Run what you brung means there were more swords other than the light. The French swords supplied for the trials was better thought of by the end users than the S&K swords that were adopted.
The hump in the grip on the "1858" is what one sees on a lot of the French 1822 officers swords and probably how they came to be part of why Ames, and other suppliers followed suit. The early Roby contract swords have more turns of wire to the grip and are sometimes confused with the m1840. I am forgetting my notes on German imports of the light with the same straighter oddball grip ala Roby but the most common hump of a light/1860 distinctively part of the French formula
The French 1822 certainly a more engineered sword in terms of distal taper and mass distribution. A bit curvier in the blades over the decades as well. The m1840 imports from Germany were simply known there as the French 1822.
Carry on
|
|
|
Post by Dave Kelly on Jul 19, 2019 19:24:21 GMT
Dave Kelly - Thank you for the insight and commentary. Being entirely untrained in cavalry swordsmanship, my hand feels a noticeable, but not really substantial, difference between my French m1822/1824 and my Solingen made US m1840 (kinda the opposite ends of the development curves Jordan discussed). Unlike me, those whose observations are unencumbered by ignorance of the subject note a world of difference between such swords. You pointed out troopers had less swordsmanship training than officers. I wonder whether such differences in handling would be lost on them as well. Even if not, perhaps they would nonetheless find attributes other than handling equally important? Indeed, if troopers were generally using their sabers with skill only marginally better than a beginner, is it possible that a "worse" handling saber would actually produce better/more consistent results? Anyway, thanks for the write-up and thoughts. This is very interesting stuff. Thee were 14 different German swordmakers delivering M1840s and even 3 delivering M1860s. In the US there were 15 contract sword makers delivering M1840s. In a blind fold test you could probably find the French 1822 in the crowd. I've done this to visitors many times; let them handle a number of 1840, then hand them the 1st Gen 1822 and see the grin. The civil war cavalry was a special case. There was a dearth of sophisticated cavalry in the US armed forces of the period. Sword craft was rudimentary in many units. The training was complicated by a need to develop foundational skill as a fencer while doing the same for a horseman; then melding the two to fight mounted. We are all familiar with stories of training going back to ancient history, where raw recruits are given over weight training equipment to build endurance and prepare them to use field gear. That's fine for training. But you don't take that crap off to war. You want weapons that are a good mix of durability and speed. A sword that you can strike with, and recover to parry and counter. Don't remember as many stories as I should. One on Nathan Bedford Forrest. Got in the middle of a cavalry fight and suddenly found himself surrounded by Union cavalry. Forrest, using his saber, managed to beat his way out of the mess and get back to friendly faces. His staff congratulated him on his fight. Forrest answered, " One of them damn fools had thought to thrust and that would have been the end of Forrest." I like the the US 1860. It served it's purpose as a livelier saber than the 1840. But I'll take the 1st generation French 1822 CL over any of them, any time.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Jul 19, 2019 21:08:35 GMT
1. Edelweiss is going to wake up and tell you that any date assignation to the Ames Light Cavalry Saber is irrelevant as the US Ordnance Dept referred to it simply as the LCS. The habit of referring to it as the 1860 is a modern writers convention. The Ordnance Dept called for a new LCS as of 1856 and Ames started to make deliveries in 1858. The system wasn't debugged for bulk orders until 1860. Take your pick. 2. The French M1822 CL was in fact modified twice: 1855 and 1873. Your 1822 has a production date of 1876. Having lost to the Prussians in 1871, the 1822 was made more percussive. A perfectly good CL was made as sempriniesque as the Kirschbaum/Ames version used in the US Civil War. The best and brightest of the 1822s were manufactured before 1855. You're comparing apples and dogpoo. 3. Combat cavalry sword fighting, excepting the officer class who were supposed to have some sword training, was done close fisted, except for delivering the point. Wrist cuttting wasn't normal or physiologically safe. Open handed position was the most efficient way to present the point to thrust. The Italians changed that in 1870 reintroducing rapiers like duelling swords for general use. I'll agree with you that the Ames LCS was a great improvement over the 1840, but with regards to the last gen M1822 CL representing the saber, that to me is worst case. I was under the (perhaps mistaken?) impression that the only changes regarding the 1822LCS over time was in build quality. So while most sword development was leaning towards better swords for the light cavalry (up to a certain point with some countries ofc, like the Spanish 1860 backsword to the 1895 machete sword), the French seemed to make them worse? I'll have to get my hands on the earlier example, to have a good comparison. Interesting that they made it less percussive before the Franco Prussian war, I wonder if Monge's writing had any due in the change? He complained about its foible, but then again most of his complaints were about the grip. I should have been more clear on my comment regarding wrist cutting, and probably used a different term. What I meant was more using the wrist to primarily manipulate the sabre, and the elbow secondly to power the cut. The French sabre moves slower when using the wrist to manipulate, and seems to wants to use the whole elbow. Yeah, even in my own fencing I use the close fisted group. I took a hit to the extended thumb and decided it wasn't a pleasant sensation. From horseback and my own experience riding and working from horseback I would never extend the thumb. Even in point, the hand shake grip works well enough and won't snap my thumb off if I screw up. I'll edit in the two changes and late model/early model info.
|
|