You know, my vicar is the spitting image of Matt Easton. Every time I see him I have an urge to come home and find out about a particular pattern of 19th century military sword.
As a student of a hungarian hussar lineage, my take on that sword is that it looks perfect lol. Its made to be a cavalry sword first and foremost, so the weight is not too much of an issue, you most likely get one decent swing as you are riding past your target. If you are a hussar on foot, well, you are already having a bad time. That being said, the hungarians did develop a specific way to use their heavy sabers on foot it involves using the muscles of your core to swing the weapon rather than from any part of the arm. It makes swinging the blade quite easy when you have the right technique, as demostrated to me when my instructor picked up a glaive and proceded to swing it around like it was just a stick. Anyway no idea if the brits trained their light infantry that way. Its nice tot hear the opinions of a british saber enthusiest on proper cavalry swords =)
On the topic of looks and style when it comes to military or martial matters, I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of it. If soldiers think they are well trained and well equipped, this might improve morale, and if they think the enemy is well trained and well equipped, this might worsen morale. This applies to looks, sounds, soldier behavior, the tactile feeling of the equipment, all of it can have significant effects on the psychological side of the battle, and in the end, victory isn't just about body count, having your enemies surrender or run away, often still means victory.
I spent my whole 20 year military career on the C-130, which is... ahem... not a pretty airplane. We learned to love it anyway and freely joked among ourselves about how ugly it was. But woe betide an outsider who insulted the Mighty Herk. At least it looks like it means business, even if it's not a sexy beast.
So true, psychology of appearance is without doubt a huge factor. Hugo Boss his uniform designs for nazi germany, or the designer of the iconic stahlhelm that still has a huge impact on people.
The Hungarians and the Poles who used this type of saber were all about the style, but the shape of the tip of the weapon was not important. It was in the scabbard, and even when drawn out, the enemy couldn't see it until it hit him. No, it was about function. I wrote more about it in a different post.
Given how this sabre stemms from a time of fur trimmed pelisses, elaborately decorated Dolmans, Shakos with braids and feathers, skin tight trousers and tassled boots, one can assume STYLE was their main concern; after all, how can you win if you don't look good doing so? Practicallity was more a lucky coincidence, like the hight of the Shako or the excessive braiding actually protecting from sabre cuts...
@@mnk9073 " *STYLE was their main concern* " Not the main concern, but it surely mattered. Anyway, we are talking about the shape of the tip of the sword! It stays in the scabbard. If they wanted to show off, they would decorate the guard and handle, which is always on display, and they did that too. The shape of the blade and the style of the hilt was *not* primarily a matter of style. The Poles and Hungarians who favored this style did it for *practical* reasons.
I really appreciate how you point out when soldiers did what came natural rather than what was trained and reference battlefield or surgeons accounts (as you have done in previous videos) in cases that it stands out. That's something that I hadn't considered or looked into until I saw your video on (I believe) the Khyber Pass knife/short sword. It's now something I try to look for anytime I'm reading about a period or battle that came in a time of "Oh crap, we need a lot of soldiers quickly" rather than times when bigger standing armies were a thing. Cheers pal
Same reason Napoleon handed out the infamous Sabre briquet to the Grande Armée. It's not a good sword for swordsmen but it is cheap and perfect for the instinct driven brawling/flailing of an adrenalin-fueled conscript whose reptile-brain is in charge. The AK of it's day, essentially.
When I first began my interest in swords, I did not like them. Actually, it’s not that I didn’t like them, I simply paid them very little attention. I was the typical noob-all about longswords & two-handed swords, but once I started getting more knowledgeable, sabers began to slowly edge their way up my favorites list. Nowadays, an 1845 blade with a royal engineers hilt is at the very top of my ‘Awesome Swords’ list.
You can kill your enemies or make them not want to fight anymore. I suspect that the combination of the confidence that the troops had in the sabre, and it's ability to make gruesome wounds might have had an effect on the outcome of some skirmishes beyond the physical.
You have developed my interest in sabers over the years. Mass distribution is a huge thing that is hard to put numbers too. Given that we have a limited amount of power that we give a weapon sometimes we can get more energy by removing weight than adding it. It's suprizing how much harder even an axe hits if weight is reduced from the handle. The thing to keep in mind is that we are more or less rotating the blade and the more balanced the blade is the harder it is to rotate. The tradeoff that we really tend to play with us where the balance falls off with how much speed we can get into the blade and if more energy is going to come from speed or weight. Then we have to add edge geometry as well. As modern people who can chose what we like there in theory will be an ideal ratio for both or body and what we are trying to do and we get to pick and choose. For a military they would really need to look at a lot different picture and often what is actually best doesn't seem as sexy. But sometimes it ends up l8damn sexy. Look how long the 1911 has been in service and how popular it still is even though it's not really the most efficient.
1796 Light Cavalry Sabre will also make quite a lot of sense in a civilian self defence context since it is functionally very similar to the Polish sabre and some types of dussacks.
Depends on what self-defense scenario. Indoors? Not really. Else, it's a pretty solid choice and you can be fairly confident that a single hit will solve the problem... I've said it before: For a knife duel, a Bowie would be a better choice than a Kukri, but if you're at home and you have to ambush an armed burglar, the Kukri makes the better choice...
@@edi9892I disagree, I’ve looked it up, the light cavalry saber is surprisingly the length of a long cutlass. ( about 36 to 37 inches) it’s sort of surprisingly how these things were used on horseback at all.
Long time fan. Wonder if you could do a video talking about the life span of tools of war, such as armor, swords, etc. How long were swords expected to last from a durability perspective from warriors who were actively engaged in conflicts like the 100 years war? With medieval innovations over ancient era metals did lifespans and durability change significantly? Do we know what was done with worn out equipment? Was it simply discarded, or was it recycled? etc? Was it a practice to scavenge equipment off the dead, or were they typically left to rot in their kit like at the battle of vibsy?
[Repost from past video] Hey Matt, this is not quite your usual weapons review, but maybe have a look at the German company VAH Spielzeugmanufaktur (Toy factory). They make wooden swords/spears/axes and polearms for kids inspired by different ages (Roman, Normans, Vikings). Swords come in various lengths (e.g.Dagger to Bi-hander). They are the most accurate wooden toys I've found so far and might be a great start for kids into the world of re-enactment. Plus, the hard wood weapons are of great quality. I've crossed swords with my daughter many times and the swords still look like new. We tested them against several swords of lesser quality (e.g. what's being sold at English Heritage sites or National Trust) and the VAH products dent the opposing blades while staying flawless themselves.
Le Marchant designed the sword to complement his 1796 Sword Exercise of the Cavalry. He wrote the exercise, but it was immediately adopted as the official manual of mounted sword combat by the British Army. By 1796 Le Marchant had seen considerable mounted combat in the Low Countries Campaign; at one stage, though only a captain, he commanded the Queen's Bays (Dragoons). During his campaigning, he developed a philosophy of mounted swordsmanship. As well as noting that cutting was more instinctive than thrusting in the heat of battle, he also thought that thrusting was dangerous to the thruster! He considered that the thrust executed from the saddle resulted in an over-extension, was more difficult to recover from than a cut and often left the trooper exposed to a cut in response. As a result, the 1796 Sword Exercise of the Cavalry only allowed the thrust to be delivered at the back of a fleeing enemy, or at infantry, all other attacks were to be cuts. Even in the charge, unlike the French, who held their swords point-first with a locked wrist, the sword was the be held in a guard position, held horizontally at eye-level, the edge to the fore, not the point.
Thank you so much for the content you make, you have struck a historical thread in me, and every video you make is so informative. I hope when I go to visit the shop in person when my husband and I save up for our abroad trip to get some of the swords you give us knowledge on and that sparked our interest.
Multiple examples you give of '96 and '88 patterns, all beautiful, all wonderful to me. 😊 But looking back over the past 2-3 decades, I think a *lot* of us fell in love with the standard '96 light for a simple couple reasons. First, we were most "into" medieval European swords and the '96s felt the closest "modern" cavalry blade to a medieval--by way of being much like many 16th century Polish-Hungarian swords, and cut-focused. And second, they were (past tense, alas 😔) once so very inexpensive and common in antique and pawn shops, on eBay, etc. So, especially pre-early 2000s, if you wanted historical instead of repro, and something that even if it was 18th-19th century hearkened back more (with a cut focus), AND you didn't want to break the bank--the 1796 Light was the way to go!
Also, many of us in those times weren't taken aback by the relative lack of nimbleness, even though almost no one was picturing themselves as horsemen, because--more "medieval" interest again--we liked its pros and cons when imagined paired with a shield. And you've of course so many times explained how that changes the complexion of things.
A good reminder here that the late period katana isn't _effectively_ as short as it seems, for the exact same reason. The very tip of the blade will still cut quite well. They are cut down swords of course, shortened to make life easier for the samurai class, who had to carry them as a sign of their social position, and intended for self defence and dueling.
Great vid, very informative as usual - I would not want to feel the wrong end of that! It certainly looks like a limb remover and as always...looking the part is half the psychological battle. I get that it's not a good poker, but is a messed up thrust actually a push cut?
I have a Briquet Sabre, made in Solingen and apparently belonged to Boer General Francois Gerhardus Joubert. The blade looks like a shorter version of the 1796 Cavalry sabre, but has on the blade the French Navy Anker. The makers mark is S&K (Schnitzler & Kirschbaum) The serial number on the blade is L 1852 and on the hilt L 1854. I have no idea how old this Briquet is, and have never been able to find out. Unfortunately the scabbard was missing, and I had to make one myself completely out of leather.
Hi Matt, history enthusiast and a sword noob here, but just to check, you said the design was based on Austro-Hungarian sabers, but if it the sword was from 1796 then there was no Austro-Hungary, but Habsburg empire (Habsburg rule in HRE, Hungary, Croatia, etc.). Don't wish to sound nitpicky, just checking and also if "Austro-Hungarian" is a term in sword nomenclature then sorry for misunderstanding.
I hope VERY MUCH that you work with windlass to makea 96 LC saber and HC sword!!!! Even with leather covered wooden scabbards for cost effectiveness they would be great!
I would love to have one of these. But they are too expensive. Instead Im actually looking for a prussian M1848. The curve is just as nice as on the English 1796, but it has a spear point. I think its a nice compromise and looks just as nice.
An Italian 1833 horse artillery saber is another one to look at. Matt did a video on those some time ago, and I got one based on that. Not disappointed.
Ultimately i think there is a similarity with modern (20th century onwards) military rifles. Those are not (primarily) designed for accuracy but for "ease of shooting". I.e. the military doesn't necessarily need the most accurate rifle, but instead one where the trooper can get fairly accurate with a relatively low amount of training.
No, it is all substance. It is the classic cleaver. It is one of my two favorites. I do not have the 1796 but the 1811 Prussian. It is second in my opinion only to the Spanish 1728 Pattern Cavalry Sword. As for hand protection, the Spanish 1796 Cav Sword is on par with the 1788 Brit Heavy.
Excellent, finally someone speaks to the functional use of a saber when riding. When you are moving fast on a horse on uneven ground, managing something long and sharp in your hand, trying to stay on and not cut your horse or anyone beside you is hard enough, doing some fancy fencing moves is difficult if not just impractical. Arne Coats bobbing around in a leveled smooth arena at a slow canter is an idealized version of mounted combat at least in this period. The slower you go, the more control you have but you are an easier target. Bobbing up and presenting the point to a hedge row of bayonets with the third rank blazing away isn't going to end well. It is far easier to swing at something while moving around it than poke it. Heavy cavalry charged boot to boot to be effective, they are essentially a living avalanche. Holding your hand straight out and maybe poking someone as you rushed by, if your horse didn't crush him first, makes sense. A light cavalry man would more likely be engaging the enemy in small groups, so a swing makes sense because you have some room and it's easier to do. Comparing light to heavy cavalry weapons needs to take this use case into account. Most riders are going to be pretty loaded with fear and adrenaline, fine motor skills are harder, a good chopper and some parries riposte muscle memory will help.
Well put. Imagine playing tennis, you are trying to run and swing at a passing tennis ball. Now replace your tennis racquet with a pool que and try and to poke the passing tennis ball !!
Since today is the birthday of MY United States Marine Corps, I just thought I'd say I would love for you to do videos on the Marine Officer Mameluke sword and the Marine NCO sword
I've held a fresh artillery sword that came from Waterloo at the Kelvingrove museum, Glasgow. Amazingly well balance. The bloke that owned it probably died with it on him or in his hand.
Awesome video as always, Matt! In future videos, could you please talk about the circumstances in which cavalry swords might benefit from having extra hand protections, like side bars and a full basket? Just the protection those offer, not the change to the mass distribution.
probably in situations where armor was equivalently heavy, like how heavy cavalry sabres generally have bigger guards and so on. I imagine it has something to do with the fact that light cavalry is expected to harrass and move on while heavy cavalry may be expected to be more "in the melee" so to speak.
Interesting stuff. I was thinking about the training levels of the average user, just before you mentioned it. Wasn't there an ancient greek writer who said that men knew instinctively how to strike out at foe? That's possibly why this sword was designed to do just that; lash out. Given the brief training British Cavalrymen got, I'd expect that in a high stress environment, most forgot their lessons and just hacked away. SO, good sword for that. Plus; thrusting may be more lethal, but in a cavalry melee, with the horses constantly moving, getting a good thrust in may be more difficult. I don't think it's an accident that throughout history, most cavalry blades, as far back as the Greek Macharia, have been cutters first and foremost.
Any recommendations on cleaning and maintaining old horn grips on millitary swords? A fair few people online say they just oil them along with the blade. Matt specifically says not to get oil on them, but i dont think hes ever said what he does actually use on them. Anyone know?
Great video. Is it fair to say the shape was influenced by the lack of skill of the trooper? In that case all issued swords would be designed as mindless slashers. Light cavalry's purpose was to skirmish and target artillery etc. The shape of the blade is suited to these tactics where strict formations were not required like heavy cavalry.
Hi Matt, great stuff as always. Could you do a video on what to look for in real antique swords like this as imagine there would me many fakes about. Thanks!
While what you said might reflect very well the realities of British cavalry of the era, I just want to point out that the styles of swords 1976 Light was based on were designed and used by *expert* riders and swordsmen. Le Marchand have seen them in action, and that's why he wanted to copy their weapon of choice. Yes, the style was important for those experts too, but the shape of the tip did not factor in very much into it, so it was more likely about function than style. I think that the type of cut they tended to use was simply too difficult to be trained into your troops within reasonable time. I mean the Iwanowski cuts, which can be confirmed on period paintings. It's the cut with the sword's blade initially facing backwards, then the sword would twist in the hand, additionally powered by the fingers, and you ended up with the sharp of the blade facing your own neck, which helped in a quick follow up. With that style you simply can't use complex hilts, they'd just get in the way. In comparison with that, the "stickem with the pointy end" type of sabers appear to be more simplistic in use, not more sophisticated. The wide, sweeping cuts delivered from the elbow, without all the fancy grip work, appear to be much more intuitive than those crazy Iwanowski cuts. And since people tended to use those anyway, they might as well have a pointier pointy end, and a bit more hand protection.
Dear Matt, hacking and chopping were this blades primary mission and raison detre . It was not meant to be a thrusting or stabbing blade, per se, save on occasional incident. I have the Cold Steel copy of this saber. I'm convinced this blade was meant almost exclusively for chopping motions executed from the saddle on a horse's back. A curved blade simply chops or hacks better, without being stuck in the body of your opponent on the ground. This sword was designed to separate heads from shoulders at contact. Thanks, Gregg.
This. Given my background as primarily a cutter, this sabre seems like just the ticket. Also, I fought with a d guard for many, many years; it is sufficient. The d guard also pushes the balance of the sword into the lower third to mid point of the blade. This balance point is ideal for cutter in terms of blade rotation.
I'm wondering if there was a basic change in the function of light cavalry in the Napoleonic era. I'd say Henry Angelo's techniques for unhorsed cavalry fencing would prove much heavier with the 1790s than the 1780s. The 1790s pattern seems to me to be designed for passing cavalry swipes on infantry, rather than one-to-one combat. The huge curved blade swings down under gravity and extra weight in that context might be seen an advantage even. Dragoons (from which maybe light cavalry evolved) needed versatile swords for dismounted work.
One needs to wonder how much hand protection or ability to fence is meaningful for a cavalryman who is not nor likely to ever be a tremendous fencer nor his adversaries?
I've always considered the 1796 to be a psychological weapon aimed more at shock cavalry charges vs infantry. Psychologically I think that being surrounded by your fellow soldiers laying on the floor screaming at gaping wounds is more distracting & unnerving than clambering over dead bodies, the same with when you see those survivors brought back to camp. From a practical perspective I doubt it was ever intended for sword on sword clashes & leaving a soldier badly wounded, but alive, adds a lot more logistical damage because they're going to need treatment.
Wasn't that the theoretical principle for small anti personnel mines? That a wounded enemy soldier is psychologically and logistically more costly than a dead enemy soldier?
Forgive the invocation of Nicholas Moran here. The other captain context out there. I'm struck by how this sabre and say, the T-72, T-64 have some similarities here. The T-72 is a very offensive tank. A highly offensive tank. It is meant to be driven forward, attacking the enemy. It's lack of gun depression and it's shortness, it's use of an autoloader, all of it adds up to a very particular platform with a very particular task. Combined with the Russian operational art, that cycling of units some of its weaknesses aren't so obvious. Perhaps even used as intended, are not weaknesses at all. Especially if we're talking about a tank that is hard to hit, easy to get across rivers, light enough for the sappers to rebuild the bridges and more importantly speedy enough to keep up with the hostile forces. It's made such a series of deliberate trade offs, deliberate choices to be so specialised, so simple to use and so effective that it can't be easily used in other functions. You need something to hand to someone that works for as many people as possible. Who's use is the most instinctive, is the most obvious for the role of a cavalry sabre. It works, it does what it needs to and does no more. A case point in good design? Maybe. It makes a lot of trade offs. However it makes a lot of 'deliberate' trade offs. That's quite a difference.
There wasn't an emphasis on having a light cavalry sword that could be better "fenced" with (in parry-riposte moulinet actions), or one with extensive hand protection, because light cavalry units are intended for attacking infantry and artillery units from the flank or rear. There isn't much of sword-on-sword combat in those engagements. It's heavy cavalry units that are best used for engaging other cavalry.
Interesting that some officers had started to adopt the three bar handguard before the end of the Napoleonic wars. It would be interesting to know just how many hand injuries light cavalrymen suffered in mounted combat - if the standard tactic involved slashing at your opponent as you rode past him at the gallop or canter, you might be unlucky to get a hand injury. It would be rather different is using it dismounted or as an infantry officer - and hence, presumably, the slightly better protection of the P1803 "flank company" sabre.
One could counter argue more hand protection might cause hand injuries as it doesn't allow to extract your hand as easily if at speed the sword is wrench? Much like how riding bare back allows one to fall free uninjured from a horse while the saddle trappings give you a firm seat but can lead to be fallen upon or dragged.
@@mysticonthehillI like the d guard for wrist mobility and that they push the balance of the weapon forward. As far as protection goes, it works fine.
Why did you not address the curved design of the cavalry sabre against the the straight infantry sabre? The reason the blade is curved is to present the tip of the blade (stabbing at chest height when mounted with forward thrust from the horse’s momentum) the curve facilitates the exit of the blade on passing. If you use a straight blade you would break you wrist or the blade as you rode passed you skewered victim! On foot or mounted but stationary the weapon was perfect for slashing and cutting, Yet did not require thrusting at close quarters because the horse had no forward momentum.
Excellent comment. As an aside, I fought with axes a lot in my youth and used to thrust with the horn of the ax blade. I question those dissecting the ability of this sabre to thrust... It is more than capable, just not specialized. Besides, only wankers use the point; it's not manly.
Also, if I remember correctly, old cavalerists mentioned in D.A. Kingsley's book often preferred "good cutters" over those "spits" so beloved by swordmasters in England.
I surmise they have a design that will strike fear towards anyone on the wrong end of it and that counts for a lot in war time or even in a one on one fight. Instinctively everyone can see how dangerous it is in the chop. If just the look of it causes one's enemy to second guess themselves then the fight is already half won.
I'm one of those people who doesn't have much use for the modern swords of the revolutionary/Napoleonic war era but I do rather like the 1796 beasty,for me I'd treat the thing like a Dao and use it with a shield,I suppose you could also treat it somewhat like a kilij and again pair the thing with a shield. Europe at the time was rather obsessed with gentlemanly duels and fencing and not the old knock down drag out fighting (well unless you count things like Waterloo and such battles) so no surprise a sword like this one baffled some people,hand it to a Chinese or Turk and they may do things with it that'd shock a Brit from that time period.
Not that Heavy Cavalry and Light Cavalry weren't ever used interchangeably, but in 1796 I think military officers would have insisted that the weapons, men, horses and training for each were different to adapt them to their respective roles. The 1788 heavy cavalry saber is probably the better sword in battle, which tells us a lot about how these weapons were expected to be used.
I always wondered if it being So cut-centric to the expense of almost all else, may have been in some small part influenced by experience of (and the effectiveness of) Indian swordsmen, that British troops were encountering? Tulwars though (usually) seem to have a more capable thrusting tip though, so maybe my musings were way off and it had Nothing to do with experience in India.
Personally, I'd feel more comfortable with a 1796 than with a basket hilted sword. However, it depends on the context. I'd probably take a different weapon for a duel, but when it comes at using a sword on horseback, or engaging riflemen in close combat, this looks a lot more promising. The same goes for European dagger vs kukri... Well, not of horseback, but duel vs actual combat.
Important thing to remember before one starts arguing against mister Easton: Watch video till the end. I was about to argue that this sabre is chop and slash implement when I heard exactly that being said. Also - wasn't 2 main opponents of light cavalry either unorganised foot soldiers or another unit of light cavalry? And wasn't they most often used not in massed charges on open ground but in small detachments in any kind of unopen ground? Also also - wait a sec, didn't Richard Sharpe got this sabre in his hands and didn't it go well with his unskilled brawling style of melee fighting?
Wouldnt the doctrine and tactixs of the units using these different weapons vary based on the amrament they had? Essentially the pattern dictated the doctrine or perhaps the other way around, but never the less, wouldnt their design reflect the way these troops were intended to fight?
It's clearly become one of those cult objects that gain a following by some random combination of influences, which pushes values to a level that those outside the "world" of those objects find hard to understand. It's the Mark 1 Ford Escort or maybe Nissan S14 of swords.
idk Matt I have to disagree with the "jack of all trades" argument, at least as it relates to firearms. I do own a few rifles, and the AR-15 (or similar platform, could be a SCAR or ACR i guess) would be the one I would choose if I could only have one. It's not the best at anything it does, but it does so many things moderately well that it's always a safe pick. Sort of like how everyone says the gladius is the best sword to carry. Does everything fairly well considering the all logistics of actually carrying a weapon i.e. weight, comfortability, user-friendliness for lack of a better term, and of course effectiveness and efficiency. Just food for thought.
This begins the colonial conquest period and weapons depend on the weapons and tactics of those your trying to conquer. Many were almost all horse vs horse clashes, others a foot. Note, if you stab at speed, you often leave your sword or lance in the man and must rearm. Also, its easier to pull up tent pegs with a curved blade, a popular sport of the time.
now the big question: in combat does it really matter that much that you "only" chop half into an arm or can take it clean off. I guess the guy is out of the fight either way...
While it doesn't make that big of a difference to the person whose arm you're chopping, it can matter to the person doing the chopping since only cutting half way through a limb could potentially mean that your blade gets stuck in the bone. While the person whose arm you've chopped in half might not be in a condition to attack you back since they'd likely be in a lot of pain and in shock, their buddy next to them might be able to do something while you're trying to dislodge your sword from the poor sod's arm bone.
@@Riceball01 it doesn't matter to the supposed user of that sabre, a horse-mounted cavalry soldier, whose horse will gallop away regardless of whether that sabre chopped through that arm or not additionally, it is possible to use the draw-cut technique (like slicing with a knife) while on horseback to avoid the sabre getting stuck, unlike it could be possibly stuck with a straight chop
Getting into the industrial age, they had the ability to manufacture swords for specific purposes. The trooper sabers would have been issued so they stay with the unit, right? If a soldier went from a light cav to a heavy cav unit, he'd be issued a heavy saber there. If you're keeping the same sword your whole career then, sure, you'd want something less specialized.
I would guess it wasn´t that common to jump between diffrent kind of cavalery. if you try to do a sword that can do fit any cavalery unit. you get a halft decent sword at best. If you want a long life as a military. you don´t want Half decent at best.
Matt: Nobody likes to have weapons that look dumb Ministry of Defense: Here's the SA-80 Tommy: This looks dumb Ministry of Defense: Wait till you see the bayonet Tommy: FML
Do you never regret that you were not born an octopus, and thus able to wield any number of varying swords at the same time, otherwise I think you have too many for choice?
"You don't gain something w/o losing something else"... Really, Matt, Really? Well this holiday season I'm gonna gain 2 stone and not sure what that means I have to lose.
Its a perfect sword for the kind of trooper who thinks getting drunk and starting fist fights at the infantry barracks next door is a good way to spend a friday night. Which is to say, most of them.
Really, not a world of difference between that and the Polish model 34 sabre except for the straighter, better suited to thrusting blade on the latter.
You know, my vicar is the spitting image of Matt Easton. Every time I see him I have an urge to come home and find out about a particular pattern of 19th century military sword.
Both handsome men.
Approach him after the mass and ask if he fences :v
@@Sk0lzky Then he'll just wink and tap his nose.
Does he preach about context?
@@darrylviljoen6227 He preaches about penetration.
As a student of a hungarian hussar lineage, my take on that sword is that it looks perfect lol. Its made to be a cavalry sword first and foremost, so the weight is not too much of an issue, you most likely get one decent swing as you are riding past your target. If you are a hussar on foot, well, you are already having a bad time.
That being said, the hungarians did develop a specific way to use their heavy sabers on foot it involves using the muscles of your core to swing the weapon rather than from any part of the arm. It makes swinging the blade quite easy when you have the right technique, as demostrated to me when my instructor picked up a glaive and proceded to swing it around like it was just a stick.
Anyway no idea if the brits trained their light infantry that way. Its nice tot hear the opinions of a british saber enthusiest on proper cavalry swords =)
any videos or descriptions of that technique?
@@AggelosKyriou Russ Mitchell is the best english language source. Hes written some books too.
@@oneman9000 found him. Thanks a bunch!
I know I didn't ask the question originally, but thank you for sharing where to learn this.
On the topic of looks and style when it comes to military or martial matters, I think a lot of people underestimate the importance of it.
If soldiers think they are well trained and well equipped, this might improve morale, and if they think the enemy is well trained and well equipped, this might worsen morale.
This applies to looks, sounds, soldier behavior, the tactile feeling of the equipment, all of it can have significant effects on the psychological side of the battle, and in the end, victory isn't just about body count, having your enemies surrender or run away, often still means victory.
I spent my whole 20 year military career on the C-130, which is... ahem... not a pretty airplane. We learned to love it anyway and freely joked among ourselves about how ugly it was. But woe betide an outsider who insulted the Mighty Herk. At least it looks like it means business, even if it's not a sexy beast.
So true, psychology of appearance is without doubt a huge factor. Hugo Boss his uniform designs for nazi germany, or the designer of the iconic stahlhelm that still has a huge impact on people.
The Hungarians and the Poles who used this type of saber were all about the style, but the shape of the tip of the weapon was not important. It was in the scabbard, and even when drawn out, the enemy couldn't see it until it hit him.
No, it was about function. I wrote more about it in a different post.
Given how this sabre stemms from a time of fur trimmed pelisses, elaborately decorated Dolmans, Shakos with braids and feathers, skin tight trousers and tassled boots, one can assume STYLE was their main concern; after all, how can you win if you don't look good doing so? Practicallity was more a lucky coincidence, like the hight of the Shako or the excessive braiding actually protecting from sabre cuts...
@@mnk9073 " *STYLE was their main concern* "
Not the main concern, but it surely mattered. Anyway, we are talking about the shape of the tip of the sword! It stays in the scabbard. If they wanted to show off, they would decorate the guard and handle, which is always on display, and they did that too.
The shape of the blade and the style of the hilt was *not* primarily a matter of style. The Poles and Hungarians who favored this style did it for *practical* reasons.
I really appreciate how you point out when soldiers did what came natural rather than what was trained and reference battlefield or surgeons accounts (as you have done in previous videos) in cases that it stands out. That's something that I hadn't considered or looked into until I saw your video on (I believe) the Khyber Pass knife/short sword. It's now something I try to look for anytime I'm reading about a period or battle that came in a time of "Oh crap, we need a lot of soldiers quickly" rather than times when bigger standing armies were a thing.
Cheers pal
Same reason Napoleon handed out the infamous Sabre briquet to the Grande Armée. It's not a good sword for swordsmen but it is cheap and perfect for the instinct driven brawling/flailing of an adrenalin-fueled conscript whose reptile-brain is in charge. The AK of it's day, essentially.
I always loved sabers from the industrial era they just look so good that and they are the only historical swords I could get my hands on.
When I first began my interest in swords, I did not like them. Actually, it’s not that I didn’t like them, I simply paid them very little attention.
I was the typical noob-all about longswords & two-handed swords, but once I started getting more knowledgeable, sabers began to slowly edge their way up my favorites list. Nowadays, an 1845 blade with a royal engineers hilt is at the very top of my ‘Awesome Swords’ list.
1796 LCS.
Fell in love with them at first sight.
Still in love with them.
You can kill your enemies or make them not want to fight anymore. I suspect that the combination of the confidence that the troops had in the sabre, and it's ability to make gruesome wounds might have had an effect on the outcome of some skirmishes beyond the physical.
You have developed my interest in sabers over the years.
Mass distribution is a huge thing that is hard to put numbers too. Given that we have a limited amount of power that we give a weapon sometimes we can get more energy by removing weight than adding it. It's suprizing how much harder even an axe hits if weight is reduced from the handle. The thing to keep in mind is that we are more or less rotating the blade and the more balanced the blade is the harder it is to rotate. The tradeoff that we really tend to play with us where the balance falls off with how much speed we can get into the blade and if more energy is going to come from speed or weight. Then we have to add edge geometry as well. As modern people who can chose what we like there in theory will be an ideal ratio for both or body and what we are trying to do and we get to pick and choose. For a military they would really need to look at a lot different picture and often what is actually best doesn't seem as sexy. But sometimes it ends up l8damn sexy. Look how long the 1911 has been in service and how popular it still is even though it's not really the most efficient.
1796 Light Cavalry Sabre will also make quite a lot of sense in a civilian self defence context since it is functionally very similar to the Polish sabre and some types of dussacks.
Depends on what self-defense scenario. Indoors? Not really. Else, it's a pretty solid choice and you can be fairly confident that a single hit will solve the problem...
I've said it before: For a knife duel, a Bowie would be a better choice than a Kukri, but if you're at home and you have to ambush an armed burglar, the Kukri makes the better choice...
@@edi9892I disagree, I’ve looked it up, the light cavalry saber is surprisingly the length of a long cutlass. ( about 36 to 37 inches) it’s sort of surprisingly how these things were used on horseback at all.
Long time fan. Wonder if you could do a video talking about the life span of tools of war, such as armor, swords, etc. How long were swords expected to last from a durability perspective from warriors who were actively engaged in conflicts like the 100 years war? With medieval innovations over ancient era metals did lifespans and durability change significantly? Do we know what was done with worn out equipment? Was it simply discarded, or was it recycled? etc? Was it a practice to scavenge equipment off the dead, or were they typically left to rot in their kit like at the battle of vibsy?
[Repost from past video]
Hey Matt, this is not quite your usual weapons review, but maybe have a look at the German company VAH Spielzeugmanufaktur (Toy factory). They make wooden swords/spears/axes and polearms for kids inspired by different ages (Roman, Normans, Vikings). Swords come in various lengths (e.g.Dagger to Bi-hander). They are the most accurate wooden toys I've found so far and might be a great start for kids into the world of re-enactment.
Plus, the hard wood weapons are of great quality. I've crossed swords with my daughter many times and the swords still look like new. We tested them against several swords of lesser quality (e.g. what's being sold at English Heritage sites or National Trust) and the VAH products dent the opposing blades while staying flawless themselves.
Le Marchant designed the sword to complement his 1796 Sword Exercise of the Cavalry. He wrote the exercise, but it was immediately adopted as the official manual of mounted sword combat by the British Army. By 1796 Le Marchant had seen considerable mounted combat in the Low Countries Campaign; at one stage, though only a captain, he commanded the Queen's Bays (Dragoons). During his campaigning, he developed a philosophy of mounted swordsmanship. As well as noting that cutting was more instinctive than thrusting in the heat of battle, he also thought that thrusting was dangerous to the thruster! He considered that the thrust executed from the saddle resulted in an over-extension, was more difficult to recover from than a cut and often left the trooper exposed to a cut in response. As a result, the 1796 Sword Exercise of the Cavalry only allowed the thrust to be delivered at the back of a fleeing enemy, or at infantry, all other attacks were to be cuts. Even in the charge, unlike the French, who held their swords point-first with a locked wrist, the sword was the be held in a guard position, held horizontally at eye-level, the edge to the fore, not the point.
Huge fan of that guard style i like it on my bowies.
Thank you so much for the content you make, you have struck a historical thread in me, and every video you make is so informative. I hope when I go to visit the shop in person when my husband and I save up for our abroad trip to get some of the swords you give us knowledge on and that sparked our interest.
Multiple examples you give of '96 and '88 patterns, all beautiful, all wonderful to me. 😊
But looking back over the past 2-3 decades, I think a *lot* of us fell in love with the standard '96 light for a simple couple reasons.
First, we were most "into" medieval European swords and the '96s felt the closest "modern" cavalry blade to a medieval--by way of being much like many 16th century Polish-Hungarian swords, and cut-focused.
And second, they were (past tense, alas 😔) once so very inexpensive and common in antique and pawn shops, on eBay, etc.
So, especially pre-early 2000s, if you wanted historical instead of repro, and something that even if it was 18th-19th century hearkened back more (with a cut focus), AND you didn't want to break the bank--the 1796 Light was the way to go!
Also, many of us in those times weren't taken aback by the relative lack of nimbleness, even though almost no one was picturing themselves as horsemen, because--more "medieval" interest again--we liked its pros and cons when imagined paired with a shield. And you've of course so many times explained how that changes the complexion of things.
A good reminder here that the late period katana isn't _effectively_ as short as it seems, for the exact same reason. The very tip of the blade will still cut quite well.
They are cut down swords of course, shortened to make life easier for the samurai class, who had to carry them as a sign of their social position, and intended for self defence and dueling.
And, from my own experience, you're taught to cut with the last 8 inches of the blade only, at least today. Good point.
Hmm now I want too build a 1796 style lightsaber
Love this video. Awesome history.
Great vid, very informative as usual - I would not want to feel the wrong end of that! It certainly looks like a limb remover and as always...looking the part is half the psychological battle.
I get that it's not a good poker, but is a messed up thrust actually a push cut?
I have a Briquet Sabre, made in Solingen and apparently belonged to Boer General Francois Gerhardus Joubert.
The blade looks like a shorter version of the 1796 Cavalry sabre, but has on the blade the French Navy Anker.
The makers mark is S&K (Schnitzler & Kirschbaum)
The serial number on the blade is L 1852 and on the hilt L 1854.
I have no idea how old this Briquet is, and have never been able to find out.
Unfortunately the scabbard was missing, and I had to make one myself completely out of leather.
Hi Matt, history enthusiast and a sword noob here, but just to check, you said the design was based on Austro-Hungarian sabers, but if it the sword was from 1796 then there was no Austro-Hungary, but Habsburg empire (Habsburg rule in HRE, Hungary, Croatia, etc.). Don't wish to sound nitpicky, just checking and also if "Austro-Hungarian" is a term in sword nomenclature then sorry for misunderstanding.
Favorite fighting sword
I hope VERY MUCH that you work with windlass to makea 96 LC saber and HC sword!!!!
Even with leather covered wooden scabbards for cost effectiveness they would be great!
I would love to have one of these. But they are too expensive. Instead Im actually looking for a prussian M1848. The curve is just as nice as on the English 1796, but it has a spear point.
I think its a nice compromise and looks just as nice.
An Italian 1833 horse artillery saber is another one to look at. Matt did a video on those some time ago, and I got one based on that. Not disappointed.
Ultimately i think there is a similarity with modern (20th century onwards) military rifles. Those are not (primarily) designed for accuracy but for "ease of shooting". I.e. the military doesn't necessarily need the most accurate rifle, but instead one where the trooper can get fairly accurate with a relatively low amount of training.
No, it is all substance. It is the classic cleaver. It is one of my two favorites. I do not have the 1796 but the 1811 Prussian. It is second in my opinion only to the Spanish 1728 Pattern Cavalry Sword.
As for hand protection, the Spanish 1796 Cav Sword is on par with the 1788 Brit Heavy.
Form follows Function!
Excellent, finally someone speaks to the functional use of a saber when riding. When you are moving fast on a horse on uneven ground, managing something long and sharp in your hand, trying to stay on and not cut your horse or anyone beside you is hard enough, doing some fancy fencing moves is difficult if not just impractical. Arne Coats bobbing around in a leveled smooth arena at a slow canter is an idealized version of mounted combat at least in this period. The slower you go, the more control you have but you are an easier target. Bobbing up and presenting the point to a hedge row of bayonets with the third rank blazing away isn't going to end well. It is far easier to swing at something while moving around it than poke it. Heavy cavalry charged boot to boot to be effective, they are essentially a living avalanche. Holding your hand straight out and maybe poking someone as you rushed by, if your horse didn't crush him first, makes sense. A light cavalry man would more likely be engaging the enemy in small groups, so a swing makes sense because you have some room and it's easier to do. Comparing light to heavy cavalry weapons needs to take this use case into account. Most riders are going to be pretty loaded with fear and adrenaline, fine motor skills are harder, a good chopper and some parries riposte muscle memory will help.
Well put. Imagine playing tennis, you are trying to run and swing at a passing tennis ball. Now replace your tennis racquet with a pool que and try and to poke the passing tennis ball !!
I feel like I’ve been waiting years for the 1788 light cavalry to come back out on your channel.
Since today is the birthday of MY United States Marine Corps, I just thought I'd say I would love for you to do videos on the Marine Officer Mameluke sword and the Marine NCO sword
I just searched TH-cam and saw that you already did one on the NCO sword. Oops. 🤣
Good to know. Thank you.
I've held a fresh artillery sword that came from Waterloo at the Kelvingrove museum, Glasgow.
Amazingly well balance.
The bloke that owned it probably died with it on him or in his hand.
Awesome video as always, Matt! In future videos, could you please talk about the circumstances in which cavalry swords might benefit from having extra hand protections, like side bars and a full basket? Just the protection those offer, not the change to the mass distribution.
probably in situations where armor was equivalently heavy, like how heavy cavalry sabres generally have bigger guards and so on. I imagine it has something to do with the fact that light cavalry is expected to harrass and move on while heavy cavalry may be expected to be more "in the melee" so to speak.
Interesting stuff. I was thinking about the training levels of the average user, just before you mentioned it. Wasn't there an ancient greek writer who said that men knew instinctively how to strike out at foe? That's possibly why this sword was designed to do just that; lash out. Given the brief training British Cavalrymen got, I'd expect that in a high stress environment, most forgot their lessons and just hacked away. SO, good sword for that. Plus; thrusting may be more lethal, but in a cavalry melee, with the horses constantly moving, getting a good thrust in may be more difficult. I don't think it's an accident that throughout history, most cavalry blades, as far back as the Greek Macharia, have been cutters first and foremost.
Hi Matt
I searched and found no vids on the Model 1840 Cavalry Saber wrist breaker, thoughts?
Any recommendations on cleaning and maintaining old horn grips on millitary swords? A fair few people online say they just oil them along with the blade. Matt specifically says not to get oil on them, but i dont think hes ever said what he does actually use on them. Anyone know?
Any chance of getting 1788 heavies like yours done in partnership with windlass?
Great video. Is it fair to say the shape was influenced by the lack of skill of the trooper? In that case all issued swords would be designed as mindless slashers. Light cavalry's purpose was to skirmish and target artillery etc. The shape of the blade is suited to these tactics where strict formations were not required like heavy cavalry.
Hi Matt, great stuff as always. Could you do a video on what to look for in real antique swords like this as imagine there would me many fakes about. Thanks!
While what you said might reflect very well the realities of British cavalry of the era, I just want to point out that the styles of swords 1976 Light was based on were designed and used by *expert* riders and swordsmen. Le Marchand have seen them in action, and that's why he wanted to copy their weapon of choice.
Yes, the style was important for those experts too, but the shape of the tip did not factor in very much into it, so it was more likely about function than style.
I think that the type of cut they tended to use was simply too difficult to be trained into your troops within reasonable time. I mean the Iwanowski cuts, which can be confirmed on period paintings. It's the cut with the sword's blade initially facing backwards, then the sword would twist in the hand, additionally powered by the fingers, and you ended up with the sharp of the blade facing your own neck, which helped in a quick follow up.
With that style you simply can't use complex hilts, they'd just get in the way.
In comparison with that, the "stickem with the pointy end" type of sabers appear to be more simplistic in use, not more sophisticated. The wide, sweeping cuts delivered from the elbow, without all the fancy grip work, appear to be much more intuitive than those crazy Iwanowski cuts. And since people tended to use those anyway, they might as well have a pointier pointy end, and a bit more hand protection.
I’ve often wondered about the history of swords made in America
Dear Matt, hacking and chopping were this blades primary mission and raison detre . It was not meant to be a thrusting or stabbing blade, per se, save on occasional incident. I have the Cold Steel copy of this saber. I'm convinced this blade was meant almost exclusively for chopping motions executed from the saddle on a horse's back. A curved blade simply chops or hacks better, without being stuck in the body of your opponent on the ground.
This sword was designed to separate heads from shoulders at contact. Thanks, Gregg.
This. Given my background as primarily a cutter, this sabre seems like just the ticket. Also, I fought with a d guard for many, many years; it is sufficient. The d guard also pushes the balance of the sword into the lower third to mid point of the blade. This balance point is ideal for cutter in terms of blade rotation.
I'm wondering if there was a basic change in the function of light cavalry in the Napoleonic era. I'd say Henry Angelo's techniques for unhorsed cavalry fencing would prove much heavier with the 1790s than the 1780s. The 1790s pattern seems to me to be designed for passing cavalry swipes on infantry, rather than one-to-one combat. The huge curved blade swings down under gravity and extra weight in that context might be seen an advantage even. Dragoons (from which maybe light cavalry evolved) needed versatile swords for dismounted work.
One needs to wonder how much hand protection or ability to fence is meaningful for a cavalryman who is not nor likely to ever be a tremendous fencer nor his adversaries?
I've always considered the 1796 to be a psychological weapon aimed more at shock cavalry charges vs infantry.
Psychologically I think that being surrounded by your fellow soldiers laying on the floor screaming at gaping wounds is more distracting & unnerving than clambering over dead bodies, the same with when you see those survivors brought back to camp.
From a practical perspective I doubt it was ever intended for sword on sword clashes & leaving a soldier badly wounded, but alive, adds a lot more logistical damage because they're going to need treatment.
Wasn't that the theoretical principle for small anti personnel mines? That a wounded enemy soldier is psychologically and logistically more costly than a dead enemy soldier?
@@Wolf-Wolfman I believe so, especially when you look at wooden ones like the schu bomb that the Germans used.
Forgive the invocation of Nicholas Moran here. The other captain context out there.
I'm struck by how this sabre and say, the T-72, T-64 have some similarities here.
The T-72 is a very offensive tank. A highly offensive tank. It is meant to be driven forward, attacking the enemy. It's lack of gun depression and it's shortness, it's use of an autoloader, all of it adds up to a very particular platform with a very particular task. Combined with the Russian operational art, that cycling of units some of its weaknesses aren't so obvious. Perhaps even used as intended, are not weaknesses at all.
Especially if we're talking about a tank that is hard to hit, easy to get across rivers, light enough for the sappers to rebuild the bridges and more importantly speedy enough to keep up with the hostile forces.
It's made such a series of deliberate trade offs, deliberate choices to be so specialised, so simple to use and so effective that it can't be easily used in other functions.
You need something to hand to someone that works for as many people as possible. Who's use is the most instinctive, is the most obvious for the role of a cavalry sabre. It works, it does what it needs to and does no more.
A case point in good design? Maybe. It makes a lot of trade offs. However it makes a lot of 'deliberate' trade offs. That's quite a difference.
There wasn't an emphasis on having a light cavalry sword that could be better "fenced" with (in parry-riposte moulinet actions), or one with extensive hand protection, because light cavalry units are intended for attacking infantry and artillery units from the flank or rear. There isn't much of sword-on-sword combat in those engagements. It's heavy cavalry units that are best used for engaging other cavalry.
Interesting that some officers had started to adopt the three bar handguard before the end of the Napoleonic wars. It would be interesting to know just how many hand injuries light cavalrymen suffered in mounted combat - if the standard tactic involved slashing at your opponent as you rode past him at the gallop or canter, you might be unlucky to get a hand injury. It would be rather different is using it dismounted or as an infantry officer - and hence, presumably, the slightly better protection of the P1803 "flank company" sabre.
One could counter argue more hand protection might cause hand injuries as it doesn't allow to extract your hand as easily if at speed the sword is wrench? Much like how riding bare back allows one to fall free uninjured from a horse while the saddle trappings give you a firm seat but can lead to be fallen upon or dragged.
@@mysticonthehillI like the d guard for wrist mobility and that they push the balance of the weapon forward. As far as protection goes, it works fine.
Why did you not address the curved design of the cavalry sabre against the the straight infantry sabre? The reason the blade is curved is to present the tip of the blade (stabbing at chest height when mounted with forward thrust from the horse’s momentum) the curve facilitates the exit of the blade on passing. If you use a straight blade you would break you wrist or the blade as you rode passed you skewered victim! On foot or mounted but stationary the weapon was perfect for slashing and cutting, Yet did not require thrusting at close quarters because the horse had no forward momentum.
Excellent comment. As an aside, I fought with axes a lot in my youth and used to thrust with the horn of the ax blade. I question those dissecting the ability of this sabre to thrust... It is more than capable, just not specialized. Besides, only wankers use the point; it's not manly.
Also, if I remember correctly, old cavalerists mentioned in D.A. Kingsley's book often preferred "good cutters" over those "spits" so beloved by swordmasters in England.
I surmise they have a design that will strike fear towards anyone on the wrong end of it and that counts for a lot in war time or even in a one on one fight. Instinctively everyone can see how dangerous it is in the chop. If just the look of it causes one's enemy to second guess themselves then the fight is already half won.
I'm one of those people who doesn't have much use for the modern swords of the revolutionary/Napoleonic war era but I do rather like the 1796 beasty,for me I'd treat the thing like a Dao and use it with a shield,I suppose you could also treat it somewhat like a kilij and again pair the thing with a shield.
Europe at the time was rather obsessed with gentlemanly duels and fencing and not the old knock down drag out fighting (well unless you count things like Waterloo and such battles) so no surprise a sword like this one baffled some people,hand it to a Chinese or Turk and they may do things with it that'd shock a Brit from that time period.
🤔how does the 1796 lcs compare to the unboxed big tulwar???
imagine what would a hybrid sword between the 1788 backsword and the 1796 sabre be like
Is that not the 1796 Heavy Cav?
Not that Heavy Cavalry and Light Cavalry weren't ever used interchangeably, but in 1796 I think military officers would have insisted that the weapons, men, horses and training for each were different to adapt them to their respective roles. The 1788 heavy cavalry saber is probably the better sword in battle, which tells us a lot about how these weapons were expected to be used.
Would you say that the 1896 is a good example of function driving form?
I always wondered if it being So cut-centric to the expense of almost all else, may have been in some small part influenced by experience of (and the effectiveness of) Indian swordsmen, that British troops were encountering?
Tulwars though (usually) seem to have a more capable thrusting tip though, so maybe my musings were way off and it had Nothing to do with experience in India.
Personally, I'd feel more comfortable with a 1796 than with a basket hilted sword. However, it depends on the context. I'd probably take a different weapon for a duel, but when it comes at using a sword on horseback, or engaging riflemen in close combat, this looks a lot more promising. The same goes for European dagger vs kukri... Well, not of horseback, but duel vs actual combat.
The ultimate sword.
Am curious what you think about the British heavy cavalry swords from the same era. I've always thought they were kinda sexy.
I like the 1821 heavy cavalry officer sword the best that is my favorite saber
So it actually was inspired by an Austro-Hungarian saber and it's not a coincidence? Based. You learn something every day :v
Yup, that's all on point, so to speak :)
Important thing to remember before one starts arguing against mister Easton:
Watch video till the end.
I was about to argue that this sabre is chop and slash implement when I heard exactly that being said.
Also - wasn't 2 main opponents of light cavalry either unorganised foot soldiers or another unit of light cavalry? And wasn't they most often used not in massed charges on open ground but in small detachments in any kind of unopen ground?
Also also - wait a sec, didn't Richard Sharpe got this sabre in his hands and didn't it go well with his unskilled brawling style of melee fighting?
Usually cuirassiers had been first charge wave, Dragons or Gendarmes the second, and if necessary, light cavallry as third wave ( 18th century HRE).
I thought Sharpe has the 1796 heavy cavalry sabre. Which is a straight blade.
@@johnbattyll6874 ... I might have misremembered it.
@@PobortzaPl no worries, I just read your conment and it made me question what I thought. Good excuse to read the books again.
Wouldnt the doctrine and tactixs of the units using these different weapons vary based on the amrament they had? Essentially the pattern dictated the doctrine or perhaps the other way around, but never the less, wouldnt their design reflect the way these troops were intended to fight?
It's clearly become one of those cult objects that gain a following by some random combination of influences, which pushes values to a level that those outside the "world" of those objects find hard to understand. It's the Mark 1 Ford Escort or maybe Nissan S14 of swords.
idk Matt I have to disagree with the "jack of all trades" argument, at least as it relates to firearms. I do own a few rifles, and the AR-15 (or similar platform, could be a SCAR or ACR i guess) would be the one I would choose if I could only have one. It's not the best at anything it does, but it does so many things moderately well that it's always a safe pick. Sort of like how everyone says the gladius is the best sword to carry. Does everything fairly well considering the all logistics of actually carrying a weapon i.e. weight, comfortability, user-friendliness for lack of a better term, and of course effectiveness and efficiency. Just food for thought.
nothing is cooler than horses running on the battlefield. why no one else though of that nowadays? I want a horse t-bone :D thank you my friend
This begins the colonial conquest period and weapons depend on the weapons and tactics of those your trying to conquer. Many were almost all horse vs horse clashes, others a foot. Note, if you stab at speed, you often leave your sword or lance in the man and must rearm. Also, its easier to pull up tent pegs with a curved blade, a popular sport of the time.
What are the chances that Wilkinsons will make some of these swords?
Super Cool Looking ...
Even from a purely aesthetic point of view, I like the clipped point version much more. The standard fat hatchet point looks… goofy to me.
if they haven't ridden on a horse before but did people also ride other animals like oxen back then?
Hey, Matt, would you do a sabre fight scene review from movie The Krays (1990)? =)
Cheers!
Conyers falchion: Well you can't really thrust with it...
now the big question: in combat does it really matter that much that you "only" chop half into an arm or can take it clean off. I guess the guy is out of the fight either way...
Exactly.
While it doesn't make that big of a difference to the person whose arm you're chopping, it can matter to the person doing the chopping since only cutting half way through a limb could potentially mean that your blade gets stuck in the bone. While the person whose arm you've chopped in half might not be in a condition to attack you back since they'd likely be in a lot of pain and in shock, their buddy next to them might be able to do something while you're trying to dislodge your sword from the poor sod's arm bone.
@@Riceball01 it doesn't matter to the supposed user of that sabre, a horse-mounted cavalry soldier, whose horse will gallop away regardless of whether that sabre chopped through that arm or not
additionally, it is possible to use the draw-cut technique (like slicing with a knife) while on horseback to avoid the sabre getting stuck, unlike it could be possibly stuck with a straight chop
What's the oldest weapon you own?
I would love to see someone at full gallop swing a 1796 at something and see the damage
Getting into the industrial age, they had the ability to manufacture swords for specific purposes. The trooper sabers would have been issued so they stay with the unit, right? If a soldier went from a light cav to a heavy cav unit, he'd be issued a heavy saber there. If you're keeping the same sword your whole career then, sure, you'd want something less specialized.
I would guess it wasn´t that common to jump between diffrent kind of cavalery. if you try to do a sword that can do fit any cavalery unit. you get a halft decent sword at best. If you want a long life as a military. you don´t want Half decent at best.
Osborne and Gumby is pretty styling, I might still like the 1796 better.....🤔 Maybe not though
So it is an axe, rather than a spear.
Optimised for mass issue to minimally trained recruits, that caters to an instinctive style of fighting...
Matt: Nobody likes to have weapons that look dumb
Ministry of Defense: Here's the SA-80
Tommy: This looks dumb
Ministry of Defense: Wait till you see the bayonet
Tommy: FML
Do you never regret that you were not born an octopus, and thus able to wield any number of varying swords at the same time, otherwise I think you have too many for choice?
"You don't gain something w/o losing something else"... Really, Matt, Really? Well this holiday season I'm gonna gain 2 stone and not sure what that means I have to lose.
The 1796 is very reminiscent of a szabla. The swell at the tip, and hilt design are very Eastern Europe.
Yes, it's based on Austro-Hungarian sabres.
It is the Christmas sword.
And famous Poland sabre… Ludwikowka.
SuperDry is back hip hip heray
Its a perfect sword for the kind of trooper who thinks getting drunk and starting fist fights at the infantry barracks next door is a good way to spend a friday night. Which is to say, most of them.
"Nobody want to have weapons or uniforms that look dumb."
And yet, the SA80 is still in service...
And has never been popular with soldiers or civilians, even on its third version....
Really, not a world of difference between that and the Polish model 34 sabre except for the straighter, better suited to thrusting blade on the latter.
Weight and hand protection, even length, are damn near identical.
Is it me or does the 1788 heavy look very much like a late 18th century mortuary hilt without all the chiseling?
Needs more point.
Idk if my hand would even fit in the handle 😆 🤣 😂 😹 I'll bring a Kukri instead 😉
So what I hear, is that these would be awesome for the Zombie apocolypse, when you just need to hack about you. Good to know
Hmm, the AK of sabres.
🙃
In ww2 Poland had the best cavalry on earth
Butcher saber?
an irrelevant comment
I don;t like it.