Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2009 17:48:01 GMT
Here is a fun video from the Royal Armouries that depicts the P1796 LC saber and P1853 universal sword in action:
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Mar 10, 2009 18:13:33 GMT
I'm waiting for someone to say it's "too whippy" to cut well! Mwahahaha, mwahahaha!
|
|
|
|
Post by alvin on Mar 10, 2009 18:19:00 GMT
Looks nice !! But, I think that it's a little whippy for making good cuts. The devil made me do it !! Mwahahaha, mwahahaha!  |
|
|
|
Post by YlliwCir on Mar 10, 2009 18:38:33 GMT
Nice! and from horseback as well. Yeah, kinda whippy. LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2009 19:04:24 GMT
Its amazing to see just how much it distorts and flexes at 55 seconds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2009 20:26:40 GMT
If it was good enough for the cavalry at Waterloo I think it'll be ok for us ;D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2009 23:18:48 GMT
I'm no expert on cavalry based swordsmanship, but I will put forth the argument that a sword used from horseback requires more flex due to the dynamics and the power that the horse applies to a sword edge, not to mention that many of those cuts are through the skull. Without the flex the sword would snap on a botched cut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2009 12:34:42 GMT
Thanks Jonathan! Excellent viewing! Does anyone know what swords they were using? I'm assuming they're not originals! So who made the reproductions? Haveakarma  Cheers Marc E |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2009 14:50:41 GMT
Thanks Jonathan! Excellent viewing! Does anyone know what swords they were using? I'm assuming they're not originals! So who made the reproductions? Haveakarma Cheers Marc E I am not sure if they used antiques or replicas. I don't think that there are any mass produced replicas of either pattern (P1796 light cavalry sword, P1821 light cavalry sword) that are close enough to the originals to be of much use in learning about the swords' properties, however I am not sure if the RA would risk damaging originals for such a demonstration. I will see if I can find an answer. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2009 18:50:27 GMT
I have a repro 'Weaponedge' 1796 and there is no way that you could get it to flex that much.
Yes, the repro blade is thicker than the original, but not that much. I am suspicious they have a blade on that sword that is a long way from the actual thing. When you look at the flex with the later (and lighter) sword, it is more like what you would expect.
Very curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Erick R. on Mar 11, 2009 22:09:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Mar 11, 2009 22:15:09 GMT
This may be a question outside the range of the topic, and mayhap I ought to attempt the research on my own, but when the question as to authenticity of the demonstration sabre came up, I began to wonder, "What WAS the total official production of the 1796?"
For clarification: my reasoning went that, if production was sufficiently high, then there should be, in the Royal Armouries, at least some respectable quantity of authentic, issue 1796 pattern sabres, and that it would be no great risk to use one of them for some testing, performed along the lines of that for which the sword was designed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 0:43:46 GMT
I am not aware of a final tally, but Britain sold between 15,000-20,000 to its allies alone(the largest numbers going to Spain, Prussia, & Sweden), and they retained a number for their army and yeomanry. So there were tens of thousands of them in total between 1796 and the early 1820s. I am not sure where those numbers stand today, obviously, but it does not seem unlikely that the RA would use an original if they wanted to demonstrate accurate handling. I have asked a few people who might know about the swords used in the video. I will update if I learn anything. And then there are officers' swords...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 1:19:40 GMT
 I...want...one...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on Mar 12, 2009 1:40:59 GMT
The officer swords are both lovely, Jonathon, but the Runkel absolutely sings to me. Thank you for both the video and the information.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 2:12:51 GMT
I have a repro 'Weaponedge' 1796 and there is no way that you could get it to flex that much. Yes, the repro blade is thicker than the original, but not that much. I am suspicious they have a blade on that sword that is a long way from the actual thing. When you look at the flex with the later (and lighter) sword, it is more like what you would expect. Very curious. I think that first cut is a botched cut. It looks like the trooper strikes the top of the melon with the flat of the blade before the cut, thus the exaggerated wobble. The second cut is cleaner and the blade does not distort to the same degree. One can see some flex in the blade from the cut made by the P1853. Also, the P1853 has a flattened diamond cross section after the fuller terminates, although I am not sure if this would have an effect on the flex or stiffness of the blade, although I assume it would as the sword is a compromise cut and thrust design. I don't think that P1853 is a lighter sword. The example illustrated in Robson weighs 2 lbs. 7 3/4 oz., my officer's P1796 LC sword weighs 1 lb. 12 oz. (maybe slightly lighter than a trooper's sword, but not by much). Although the weight in the P1853 could be due to the fact that it has Reeves' Patent Solid Tang (a.k.a. full tang) construction... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 3:07:50 GMT
For reference, here is a P1853 Universal Pattern cavalry trooper's sword (used by both light cavalry and heavy cavalry).
From OldSwords.com
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 5:41:14 GMT
Thanks for all the pics Jonathan! That J.J. Runkel is a mighty sweet saber! But I actually really like the 1853 for some reason. I know it got all sorts of criticism for being neither Arthur nor Martha, but I'm not a cavalryman, and I like swords that can both cut and thrust ;D I kinda like the simple strength of the slab tang, too. They're certainly not as pretty as the 1796, but then I like the US 1917 cutlasses, so I think my beauty-meter must be busted...  Does anyone actually make a repro 1853? I haven't seen any, but people here have resources beyond my ken... Cheers Marc E |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 15:00:39 GMT
I could have sworn that www.worldwidearms.com carried a replica P1853, but when I checked the only Victorian era British trooper's sword I see is the P1885 Cavalry Trooper's Sword. Military Heritage does not carry the P1853. I like the pattern, too, and if I had more disposable income and could spend with reckless abandon I would definitely buy one.  The period complaint against the P1853 was that the grip was too round, which made it difficult to hold properly, thus affecting edge alignment when cutting. The P1853 was replaced in 1864 by a sword with a bowl guard, the P1864. However, the pattern must have been liked by some because the Royal Horse Artillery asked to keep the P1853 and carried it throughout the 19th century. Antique P1853s with scabbards will probably start at about $500. Rodwell & Co. made a copycat version of this pattern for the Indian police c.1900. These are inferior to actual P1853s, and visually they are distict due to the straighter grip and blade, and brown leather scabbard (these are marked Rodwell & Co.). However, the Rodwell P1853s are usually less expensive. I have seen them for sale at around $350. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 19:35:56 GMT
An acquaintance who is associated with the Royal Armouries believes they did use originals for this video. He will attempt to confirm this tomorrow.
|
|
I...want...one...
The period complaint against the P1853 was that the grip was too round, which made it difficult to hold properly, thus affecting edge alignment when cutting. The P1853 was replaced in 1864 by a sword with a bowl guard, the P1864. However, the pattern must have been liked by some because the Royal Horse Artillery asked to keep the P1853 and carried it throughout the 19th century. Antique P1853s with scabbards will probably start at about $500. Rodwell & Co. made a copycat version of this pattern for the Indian police c.1900. These are inferior to actual P1853s, and visually they are distict due to the straighter grip and blade, and brown leather scabbard (these are marked Rodwell & Co.). However, the Rodwell P1853s are usually less expensive. I have seen them for sale at around $350.
