You've got it exactly right Matt, the 1908 evolved to fit a specific set of circumstances just the way living things evolve to fit specific environments. There is no goal, no peak or end to evolution it's all context dependent. People make that mistake all the time, thinking that things change towards some perfect end point, but it just ain't so.
Matt, you have yet to respond to the very serious allegations of cactus abuse that have been levied against you. If anything, the poor succulent looks even worse off than in your last video. Sir, we plead with you to show merciful compassion, and release your loyal plant from the throes of misery to which you have resigned it.
scholagladiatoria Have you no soul at all man!? -goes on a posh rant with alot of mumbo jumbo for the next hour- Sorry about that, but yeah CUTTING TEST! :D
***** I rather think his comment was meant to be humerous - made me laugh, anyway. Besides, given the vastness of space + the possibility of other dimensions, maybe somewhere they are not fictional. Ok, so that's unlikely, but you never know, lol.
***** Commissars are normally depicted with single edged power swords. vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/c/c4/Guess-the-gaunt.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110725213950
***** Power Weapons generally exude a hazy, blue-coloured field of energy that wraps around the primary impact region of a melee weapon, be it a sword's blade or warhammer's head and *is capable of disrupting the molecular bonds of matter when it strikes.* These weapons may be constructed to appear as a primitive, simple melee weapon, with the power field generator concealed within the hilt or haft of the weapon. Once the power field is switched on, however, the obvious humming sound given off and the blue light gives the secret of the weapon's true nature away. warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Power_Weapons
***** To counter that, no it doesn't happen instantly. You are breaking something down at a molecular level, but now the blade is in the way of it reforming as it sinks into the gap. Which means, at worst it tries and fails to bond to the sword, because the disruption is still happening cause the weapon is still there, or they fall and bond with things in the air and on the ground, or perhaps other parts of the target.
***** Are you kidding me? You cant let this go? The people that made it are English, Games Workshop the company that makes Warhammer 40k is based in Nottingham, England. Also, Lightsabers wouldn't work ether, yet people still joke about them. *MOM! SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!*
its interesting to note the psychological effect of the sight of cavalry. In Guderian's memoirs of WW2 he twice mentioned of how the sight of Polish Cavalry caused panic amongst his infantry, setting up an anti tank gun on one instance and in the other the 2nd Division claiming they were "compelled to withdraw" until he calmed them down
TIL that cavelry was still relevant, and effective (yay!) in certain scenarios of the WW1! That makes the Polish using cavelry in WW2 look considerably less stupid and out of place.
RE the usefullness of cavalry: During the First World War the Australian Light Horse, even though equipped as dragoons mostly, did in fact do a couple of famous sucsessfull charges against Turkish Infantry. An example was during the capture of Bersheeba. They were developed separately to the British cavalry in style by Australia because of experience with and admiration of the Boer Commandos of the second Boer war. The Australian military thought the Africal conditions were similar to Australia. There were 5 Brigades of Australian Light Horse in the Middle East engaged with the Turks. They were mainly dependent on their .303 carbines and Maxims but due to the wide open spaces some were armed with sabres for the charge and used them. They were actual cavalry and not mounted infantry and were used in traditional roles such as scouting and screening. The point is they were very usefull despite repeating firearms and machine guns and it was only the motor vehicle that rendered them obsolete. Those magnificent men on their farting machines!!!!!!
I think it is one of the best looking swords ever. Interesting though that despite looking like an elegant fencing rapier, its actually more like a spear.
A very young Winston Churchill engaged in a battle in Northern Africa,armed with a Mauser,probably a broomhandle Mauser pistol. He reckoned it saved his life over a sword,there was indeed a melee. There was a reason why he chose that,but I have forgotten, too many years. Decades later,his sword was used to cut a wedding cake,by family members with no knowledge of how to use it,and it was bent quite badly. No idea what pattern of sword he chose. I do believe your argument has merit. Any engineered product is a series of compromises. Without backup,a single use product is not going to be good at plan B when the flying fecal matter encounters the oscillating rotator. Cheers.
As far as WWI in Europe is concerned, cavalry charges played an enormous role on the eastern front. They were also crucial during the Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920.
I'm not familiar with period British manuals, really only with the American 1914 Saber Manual for the U.S. 1913 saber, which is sort of similar. Re-read it and Patton mentions in the beginning that the thrust is primary (like the 1908 here) yet on very rare occasions, used to cut. Matt here superbly demonstrates that this blade was definitely intended for the thrust as well, but I've noticed it looks to have an edge, does that suggest that troopers could *attempt* cutting with them?
I would have thought that if you slashed at someone in a cavalry charge there would be a pretty good chance of your sword simply deflecting off their rifle as they held it out in front of them in a panic but using the sword to piece youd almost certainly get straight past a guard like that
Your point about running an enemy through on horseback at full gallop and then trying to extract the sword is well presented. I wonder if any cavalryman has dislocated a shoulder when suddenly his sword weighs an extra 150 pounds (10.5 stone). I've watched this particular video at least a half dozen times. Suddenly I want a Patton saber. 😄
You haven't commented on the Spanish 1907 Puerto Seguro sword. I don't own a 1908 pattern British cavalry sword, but I have a couple of examples of the Puerto Seguro. My examples look similar to your 1908, but are very quick swords - my examples weigh between 2.0 and 2.5 pounds. They are straight thrusting swords with long 35" blades. The 2.5 pound example has quite a stiff blade. I suspect the 2.0 pound example got to that weight by excessive polishing, since there is still some deep pitting and the "Artilleria National" is almost polished-off.
Great video Matt. I was wondering if you could do an overview of sword evolution over specific period of time (e.g 17-19 century) showing some specimens. One video or small series would be fantastic.
Fiore de'i Liberi I hear this idiotic accusation a lot. Mostly from complete imbeciles who have no knowledge of the facts (or anything else) and only regurgitate the raw sewage that the liberal media pumps into them.
You find plenty of misinformation on Google as well. If you want to bash someone for murdering innocent women and children look to the Islamic terrorists. War has casualties, unfortunately, you cannot prevent that. But to paint it as something America intentionally tries to do is dishonest. The Islamics on the other hand deliberately go for max civilian casualties, not only against non Muslims, but against their own as well. What aggravates me is people attacking the US for civilian casualties when we go to the extreme to prevent them, and pretending that the muslims are innocent victims in all of it.
And while your on Google, why not look up all the humanitarian work the U.S. has done around the world. That's another thing that really bugs me. People want to demonize America and ignore anything good that we have achieved.
I think a good idea is to look at the biggest cavalry battle in XX century and weapons used by both side of conflict, when looking at usage of swords and sabers in cavalry fighting in that century. And it was a Battle of Komarów and took part in 1920 in war between Poland and Bolsheviks en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Komar%C3%B3w Both sides used mainly thrust and cut sabers. And even after that (both Poland and Soviet Union used cavalry in WW II) both of them used cut and thrust sabers as a melee weapons. This is only showing that trend to rearm cavalry in swords focused on thrusting was common to western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe remain with cut and thrust weapons.
Is there any skill to using armor? I am not talking about being comfortable wearing it but moving in such a way in combat to lessen the impact of incoming blows? Any info is greatly apprecaited!
That's the video i have been waiting for ! Thanks a lot Matt. We know that rapiers were also used on horseback ( yet they were not very common) So were they used exactly like a 1908 pattern sword ? 2) How would a lancer defend himself in a single combat ?
I'd imagine a lancer's goal would be to get the hell out of there if caught in a melee. Depending on the length, he might be able to uses the lance like a two-handed spear in a pinch. However it would be unwise for him to not carry a sidearm, and most likely said sidearm would be drawn and fought with in melee.
MariusThePaladin This. I can't think of a single lancer, or lancer-like cavalry that didn't have a sword or some other sidearm (mace, axe, hammer, pick your poison), specifically because of the melee problem.As for rapiers on horseback, I didn't see any period accounts, but I'd guess they weren't used in charge, but as part of a melee - also, they might not have been rapiers, exactly, what Mair calls a rapier is more or less arming sword with a rapier-like guard.
A lancer was actually a very forminable opponent in single combat (NOT IN A MELEE), many period military manuals and eyewitness described that a skilled lancer have a tremendous advantage over an equally skilled sabreur. Which given the range, power and leverage of the lance, made perfect sense.
I would imagining a common rapier will break at the moment of impact due to the charging speed. That's why P1908 is made shorter but thicker. I would choose a common rapier, which is supposed to be longer or less weight, on foot, but P1908 on horseback.
I read many cavalry swords were not sharpened and the weight tells me why - the blunt edge would still split skin and break bone and the point would go into target regardless of sharpness and you may not want a sharp sword that can cut you as the horse is running.
Our (US) best cavalry action in WWI was agaiinst machine gun nests, but they used 1911 pistols instead of drawing their swords. 20 guys coming fast all firing semi automatic pistols at close range. No need to draw the sword or the rifle.
on foot cut blade gives more options than dedicated thrust one. on horse why not carrying a lance if length is important no thrusting sword will ever beat lance. Lance + cut sword as a backup.
It's a beautiful weapon and it would be really effective, but I wouldn't choose it if I have to choose a weapon to use. For impaleing people from horse back, I'd choose a lance, and if I have to fight on foot, I'd choose a lighter backsword or arming sword, or if the protocol forcing me, a 1897 Pattern Sword, over this sword. It look/sounds like a weapon that is really HARD to use.
Dear Matt, thank you very much for your videos, I think they are really great!! What I would like to share and came to my mind with this topic is this: This British 1908 pattern cavalry sword seems to me, much to my surprise, pretty much like, or similar to the french heavy cavalry sword as used by for example the french cuirassiers. So I was pretty much surprised to see the British went "back" (although improving some features as the hilt) to that design, although the previous model, as you showed it (actually similar to the french "a la monmorency" sword) , was very successfully used throughout a century. I wonder if they had that in mind when they were introducing it in WW1, especially since the cuirassiers were pretty much successful on the napoleonic battlefield, used as some sort of shock troops. Just my thoughts, Best Regards Imi
Even if you treat your cavalry as a missile, considering the cut'n'thrust can still give point fairly well, isn't the versatility still superior? Thanks for the food for thought! I still can't imagine why anyone would choose thrust over cut in the 19th century for all the reasons you mentioned and more.
Sometimes, I feel like the option is between using the weapon or using your fists, rather than using another weapon that isn't available at that point in time.
If highlander was real lol and you had to choose just ONE sword......which would it be. (Sure you've been asked this before but I'm a new subscriber) cheers
This is spot on. I also thought the 1908 sword was a Light Cavalry Sabre. Then a couple of years back I went to Shrewsbury regimental museum and saw one up close. My first thought was: thats not a sabre. And then "That's just a nasty heavy spike with a big guard". The problem is that visually in a book or on film it doesn't come across as heavy as it is. As for calvary I was under the impression that heavy cavalry in close formation had a preference for the point, but light cavalry because of loose formations preferred the cut. Any truth in this?
Your take on cavalry sword preference were true enough, and certainly the French cavalry regiments of the Napolenic War and those of many other nations during and after the period commonly gave their heavy cavalry thrust centric swords and their light cavalry curved sabers. Then again, European heavy cavalry from the previous centuries were more commonly armed with cut-centric backswords rather than thrust-centric rapiers, and they performed well enough. So maybe much if it was due to the whims of fashion, with the use of the eastern style curved saber and light cavalry becoming popular in the 19th century due to the rise of colonialiam and orientalism.
Hey, I love the videos and how you really can see that you know what you are talking about. And as I always have been interested in edged weapon I really like your channel. One thing I wonder though is if you would mind using the metric system once in a while, or both that and the imperial system. As I am Swedish and only know metric, when you say three pound, it means nothing to me as I have no idea what it is in metric. And I thought that since uk uses both imperial and metric I hope that it wouldn't be to much of a bother for you. Great videos and please do keep it up!
1 pound ~ 0.45 kg, 1 oz (ounce) ~ 28 grams 1 inch ~ 2.5 cm, 1 yard ~ 0.9 metres, 1 mile ~ 1.6 km I also use the metric system, but since I spend a lot of my time on English content, I have to deal a lot with imperial measurements, and it has become easy to do the conversion! :)
Interesting as usual although I have some comments (as usual). My take on a lot of these early 20th century changes is that sword and bayonet combat became so rare that nobody had any practical experience and the theorists took over. Similar to the whole 'arms race' that happened with the lengthening of bayonets - to ridiculous lengths. In the end it didn't matter because actual bayonet combat had become so rare. How often did the early 20th cen cavalry use these swords? You said yourself that they acted as horse mobile infantry. With repeating firearms it's always easier to just shoot somebody. The other comment that caught my interest was about the uselessness of a rapier to Viking. I would say that the technology to make a functional rapier did not exist at that time. We can't say they wouldn't have used one if they could have made one. I agree that probably not in a shield wall :). I'm not disagreeing with your point about context, but there is also another limit at work which is technology. I think it's an interesting point worth exploring. My opinion is that sword shapes and lengths were constrained by limits of steel quality and the amount of iron that could be forges at one time - at least up until the Renaissance period.
I looked at 84 WWI VC citations as a sample. 5 mentioned bayonets with one of those being a bayonet charge. 5 mentioned revolvers. One mentioned both a revolver AND a bayonet which makes no sense unless the soldier was using it as a knife. One mentioned fisticuffs which is pretty extraordinary. Of course there were a great many uses of grenades. I should note that VC citations would be a poor way to establish the usefulness of any weapon since by its nature mentions extraordinary situations. By far, the most effective weapons were artillery and machineguns which the VC winners were often working against instead of using.
***** And don't forget the odd table leg or wooden club wrapped in barbed wire! I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least one usage of a wooden plank with a nail going through it.
scholagladiatoria Here's a rather interesting thought.. So body armor was, albeit rare, put into use by many sides during the first World War (if you get a chance you should look at what the Italians were fielding, in some cases what look to be actual full suits of armor). Usually it was crudely made by the soldiers at the front, but there were field issued types too (the Germans for one, but I believe Britain and even the US had body armor types being fielded). I suppose what I'm getting at, is do you think that there were ever instances were Entente/Allied soldiers clashed with soldiers from the Central powers and both sides were in a melee engagement while wearing this armor. True not much good against a bullet, but still a rather interesting situation don't you think? It's not utterly implausible.
The weight is why cavalry recruits spend so long doing "Pocky drills" to strengthen their arm. The left arm gets plenty of exercise working the reins! :)
The 1853 blade i recall in a few places being slated for not cutting well. The sword handles well enough and the shape is fine so i have a theory that so many swords were produced when the order to sharpen was given they either did a shit job sharpening them or the edges were never maintained. The Indian cavalry regiments used various British patterns and they seem to have found them quite effective.(Used wooden scabbards and maybe resharpend blades?) Any thoughts?
rewtuser because in the UK we grow up measuring sword weights (and also things like bow draw weight) in pounds. We also tend to use Imperial measurement for our own weight and height.
scholagladiatoria I live in france now, my sport is archery, they also use pounds and inches (livres et pouces) in archery specs, whether that is the US influence on the sport due to their manufacturers or not I don't know. They get a bit confused with measurement such as 3/8" though!
After doing some research, I suspect this is actually because england didn't fully stop using the imperial system of measures until fairly recently (like ww2). So it would make sense that there's a lot of mixing that still happens.
As a student of war I would say that the cut and thrust sword is indeed better due to it's inherent versatility, overall a strong cut is quite a bit more relevant at the point where you must fight in a melee against UNARMORED combatants. A thrust is fine as a finisher but a cut to the limb (against a competent opponent) to wear your enemy down usually precedes giving point. And as Matt pointed out, using the sabre to give point requires training. In wartime when your reserve fluctuates and you must recruit people, but at the same time maintain an onslaught, you have to consider time as an asset. That said, the cut/thrust sword is better, for it cuts (pun intended) down on the time for training cavalry.
***** Certainly the thrust is in more cases the deadlier, but you have to weigh the risk you're taking when thrusting. If you extend strongly and your point is pushed off line, you are less likely to recover with a response to your opponents counter. Cutting is also risky, but I personally atleast find it a lot easier to recover from a missed cut attempt and thusly I will live long enough to attempt another attack.
Not necessarily, the defensive stance can be prepared in both the hanging guard and just your regular point up guard and still rather effectively defend both sides, both the cutting oriented style and thrust can be maneuvered around, moving yourself offline and opening a side for you attack. My original point was that I PERSONALLY find it superior to use a sabre type sword, not that it is universally superior.
+Hideyori Nakano If you look at how Side Swords and Rapiers were used, they'd usually deliver cuts to the limbs and torso, which bled, weakened, and distracted the enemy. Then they would thrust. So yeah, history more or less confirms what you said. I'd think if you gash the other guy's leg or sword arm open, maybe put out an eye or give him some nasty cuts on the stomach or groin, he's going to be a LOT easier to bring down and probably have less strength to fight back when you go for the finisher.
I notice that you use pounds pretty often in your videos. Is that a consideration for your American viewers, or are pounds still a fairly common unit of weight in England?
Will nonya If it makes you feel better, England is pretty much the only country in Europe where Imperial units are still common in everyday use. In Norway, where I live, the only imperial unit most people use is inches, but even that is only for lumber dimensions.
Very interesting, thanks. Re. the Charge of the Light Brigade din't the cavalry have trouble cutting the Russian gunners due to the thick clothing which the gunners wore?
Hi Matt, Your videos are very interesting, i watch them like a child! :) Do you have Austro-Hungarian 1904 pattern cavalry sabre? What do you think about these sabres? Could you make a video about it? Soma, from Hungary
I know nothing about swords. Nevertheless, I was thinking if the trusting sword are heavier maybe because the motion of a trusting is more linear and involves less rotations. When you rotated a sword you would feel it much heavier than trusting because of the angular momentum I guess.
Thanks Matt. I collect Militaria and have what I thought to be that sword in my collection back home in South Africa.made by a H. Maxwell and co. Has lotus flower design on guard, etched blade. Edwardian period I should presume as I don't have it on me. I was always under the impression it was a heavy cavalry officers undress sword? Great videos. I think Scottish regimental officers ie regimental colonels ect. When mounted on horseback wore these swords, but with red backing behind the guard and red tassels like on the basket hilts? Thanks for the reply buddy
The last functional cavalry in Europe was from Switzerland, which had a corps of dragoons active until 1973. The Swiss people petitioned to keep them on several occasions following WWII, until parliament finally voted to abolish them. These were more mounted infantry than cavalry, however, and their primary weapon was a carbine rather than a sword. Outside Europe, India and China still have functional cavalry units to this day.
hi I was wondering why the "toe" of many of the 19th century scabbards I see in the background of your vids are so flattened and for want of a better term guitar shaped. Love the channel.
Hi Matt I know you have mentioned talwars and scimitars in previous videos I was wondering if you agree that the Kilij of Romania epically Transylvania was really the start of Europeans use of the more eastern style curved blade especially for calvary?
Thanks great video. I've always wanted a 1908/Patton sword for self defense. A pointy bar with a good grip, no chance of getting a horse ready but,,,,,
+skeeter sorenson you've obviously never practiced sword play in a house. A sabre is designed to swing and slash. in a house everything is in the way. A patton sword is designed to thrust. At any rate to each to his own.
+John Koeberlein It's basically a rapier with a short-ish blade and great hand protection, and nobody would argue with you for picking that for self defense. People are weird sometimes.
+John Koeberlein Get a cutlass... Easy to use, short enough to use indoors, both cuts well and pierce at need. Or a short spear. You can really block a doorway with spear. And the thrust is superior...
Matt,Would you know how to determine to whom a sword was issued? Back in the 1920s, my grand-father was walking a section of rail line out in Wyoming (he was a rail-road inspector). Off in the distance something glinting in the sun caught his attention. Thinking it curious (normally, most objects that fall or are thrown from a train, typically refuse, land close by the rails, but this object was quite some distance off), my grand-father walked the quarter mile to the glinting object and found half-buried in the ground a US cavalry sabre bearing the Mansfield & Lamb manufacturer's mark (date-stamped 1863). We have always wondered how that sabre came to rest in so remote a part of the US. We know that Custer's ill-fated expedition on 1876 was in the general area and have often wondered if the sabre belonged to someone assigned to one of the 7th Cavalry's flanking elements. The sabre also bears a serial number. I would love to know more about the cavalryman to whom the sabre was issued and so I thought perhaps in some dusty US Army archive somewhere there might be a record of the last person to whom the sabre was issued. Thanks!
Monty, you're memory is quite correct. A few days after I wrote my comment, I recalled Lt. Godfrey's memoirs. Subsequent to the engagement, Godfrey, who was assigned to Captain Benteen's battalion at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, committed his memory of the action in particular and the campaign in general to paper in quite impressive detail. One of the things he mentions in his memoirs is that the 7th rode out of Ft. Lincoln sabre-less. However, I believe there were elements of the 2nd Cavalry involved in the campaign (I seem to recall Godfrey mentioning that Custer was offered two or three companies of the 2nd but declined out of concerns that the amalgamation of elements from a different formation into his own unit's ranks would in the end lead to more trouble than what it was worth). Whether or not elements of the 2nd participated in the campaign is unknown to me. Equally unknown to me is whether those elements, if present, carried sabres or not. If elements of the 2nd did participate in the campaign and did ride out with their sabres, then I suppose its possible that the sabre-in-question might have belonged to one of their troopers.....or perhaps not,
I agree. I'd love to know the history of how it came to rest where it did. My father speculated once that things must have been pretty desperate for a cavalryman to lose (or toss) his sabre, as this seemingly was. BTW, one of the things I'm unclear of is whether or not the infantry columns (there were three) that participated in the campaign had cavalry flankers screening their lines of advance. If they did, the sabre might have originated from one of the escorts.
I could be totally wrong here, but a 1908 pattern sword looks an awful lot like fencing saber. Did a fencing saber look the same in 1908 look like a modern fencing saber? My idea (could be total off base) is that by 1908 no one was using swords in battle, but cavalry troopers were probably doing sport fencing, so they designed their war swords to be like what they were using for sport.
If for cavalry charges both a thrust dedicated sword and a cutting dedicated sword are just as likely to kill or otherwise render a target out of action, why use a thrust sword if it limits you in a melee. A slash from horseback can take a mans head clean off (as you mentioned in a previous video), so why risk losing your weapon at all? Not to mention that sometimes wounding targets rather than killing can sometimes cause more havoc. Since you take out the man by being wounded, and another that has to carry him.
Matt has explained in a lot of his videos that having a longer striking range is a TREMENDOUS advantage in combat between unarmoured opponents. If you can strike your opponent from a greater range, you immediately has an advantage over him, as you can hit him as he try to close in to hit you while you stand no chance of being hit at all. A thrust centric sword has a much greater range compared to one dedicated for cutting. This sword is not designed for melee fighting at all, the cavalrymen using it were never supposed to let their horses slow down enough that a melee where you need to parry could take place. Whien fighting on horseback this is actually an option.
As to a blow from a cavalry sword taking a man's head or arm clean off, this was not a common occurence at all on the battlefield when your opponent was constantly moving and actively trying to kill you back. Most military authorities agreed that thrusts were much more likely to be fatal compared to cuts.
Thank you for great and informative video. I have a question about British cavalry attack from Spielberg's movie War horse (2011). Is it not too accurate sword choreography you can see when they attack infantry with far more cutting than thrusting?
Matt a question i have is wouldnt it be better to arm ww1 cavalry with a lance, its longer and if you are riding picking them off and then running away anyway make the lance a better weapon? Plus give the troopers a cut and thrust sword so you could once you charged draw swords and cut people down who survived or whatever....
Why didn't they just turn every cavalry regiment into a lancer one? Charging in with a lance to outrange folks giving point with their sword and then switching to saber for the rest of the fight. PS, Matt could you do a video on Medieval mounted swordsmanship both in a civilian and military context? Perhaps even a comparison to post Napoleonic cavalry.
He explained this from 15:00 onwards in the video. British cavalry were more and more focusing on dismounted actions (hence being equipped with the same rifle as their infantry) and hence the War Office opted to forego the lance and just gave the troopers thrust-centric swords.
What would you say where the claim you can find on Wikipedia is coming from? That the 1908 has been called the most effective cavalry sword ever designed. (I think you're talking about this, when you mention the "end of an evolution" of cavalry swords.) Is this claim just coming from the perspective of prefering the thrust over the cut? Would the people aguing this disagree with you and say that the 1908 would have been always the better cavalry sword in every possible context?
I don't know if this will get a response, but I'll ask a question. How does this sword compare to the US M1913 Patton Saber? I don't have knowledge of either one, but they look to be similar designs. Let's be careful out there.
I have a question. This technique you're mentioning for extraction, or extracting the blade from a passing opponent on horseback, once stabbed, was this a similar tactic used far earlier in history, by knights with lances? I have always wondered how on Earth knights could use lances in combat, because as soon as someone is stabbed on your lance, you have a great big 200 pound weight stuck onto the end of your lance. Do you just let it go? Go get another one? Or was there a technique for extracting the lance from the opponent's body?
Knightly lances were generally one oft weapon that were dropped after impact, but light lances (basically a spear) could definitely be extracted after being thrust into an enemy on horseback, using the same technique as used with swords.
The extraction method seems to me like it could still cause shoulder, elbow or wrist injuries even in a reasonably skilled practitioner, how reliable/safe was it in reality?
I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to have thrusting swords for cavalry. If you have that, you're better off with a lance, because it also thrusts and it's longer. The point of having a sword on horseback is you can cut with it. If you're going to make it so you can only thrust, wouldn't a lance work better? Specially since rifles with bayonets are longer than swords. I would think that giving such a sword to cavalry is probably just cultural due to legacy from sabre cavalry. I guess it makes sense to give them a thrusting sword if they're also going to be using a short riffle like a winchester, or possibly a pistol from horseback, in which case you might want a sword instead of a lance, since they're more portable. So, basically, a thrusting sword is a good idea on horseback only under the following conditions: a) you don't need cutting because there won't be any melee, only charging giving point and b) you want them also using firearms so it's better to give them a sword they can wear rather than a lance they have to carry on their hand.
He explained this from 15:00 onwards in the video. British cavalry were more and more focusing on dismounted actions (hence being equipped with the same rifle as their infantry) and hence the War Office opted to forego the lance and just gave the troopers thrust-centric swords. Basically you had it right all along.
Not really relevant to the period, but lots of Eastern European cavalry from the 15th to the 17th century opted to carry two swords, a curved saber for the melee and a thrust-only koncerz/estoc for the charge, to be used after they have expended their lance.
So why not just give the cavalrymen a lance and a sabre rather than this sword? To me it seems like what you said about the spadroon describes this as well: A sword trying to be to many things, and coming worse off at all of them as a result.
He explained this from 15:00 onwards in the video. British cavalry were more and more focusing on dismounted actions (hence being equipped with the same rifle as their infantry) and hence the War Office opted to forego the lance and just gave the troopers thrust-centric swords.
Matt dosen`t seem to consider Eastern Front of the WW I and the cossak cavalry of the Russian Empire, which were armed (beside firearm, obviously) with pikes and shashkas.
scholagladiatoria When talking about cut vs thrust, you said that making a sword better at cutting 'generally' reuduces the ability to thrust. Do you know any examples of cutting based swords that are still good at thrusting (or vice versa)?
Lukos0036 Not really - in fact many British swords were sold to the Confederates, so there were actually a lot of British swords used in that war. Particularly the British 1853 pattern cavalry sabre.
They don't "give point" very much in that War Horse sequence where they charge the German tents. A lot of slices. Maybe to give the impression that they got up and walked it off? That was a pretty PG movie.
You see these being used in 'Warhorse' - chopping Germans down, apparently. But then I suppose the actual use, with that odd withdrawing technique following the thrust, is not very filmic. It even looks a bit comical in those early training films. This video is really a development of what you had to say elsewhere about the poor information on sword use and effectiveness in Robson's otherwise very good 'Swords of the British Army'.
You've got it exactly right Matt, the 1908 evolved to fit a specific set of circumstances just the way living things evolve to fit specific environments. There is no goal, no peak or end to evolution it's all context dependent. People make that mistake all the time, thinking that things change towards some perfect end point, but it just ain't so.
Matt, you have yet to respond to the very serious allegations of cactus abuse that have been levied against you. If anything, the poor succulent looks even worse off than in your last video. Sir, we plead with you to show merciful compassion, and release your loyal plant from the throes of misery to which you have resigned it.
Wreqt You want me to kill it humanely?
scholagladiatoria Cutting test! Cutting test!
scholagladiatoria
As humanely as a cactus can be finished, yes.
scholagladiatoria Have you no soul at all man!? -goes on a posh rant with alot of mumbo jumbo for the next hour-
Sorry about that, but yeah CUTTING TEST! :D
Ulric Kessler
Drive Me Closer! I Want To Hit Them With My Sword! - Commissars of Warhammer 40k. These men knew what was up they have cut and thrust weapons!
***** I rather think his comment was meant to be humerous - made me laugh, anyway. Besides, given the vastness of space + the possibility of other dimensions, maybe somewhere they are not fictional. Ok, so that's unlikely, but you never know, lol.
***** Commissars are normally depicted with single edged power swords.
vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/warhammer40k/images/c/c4/Guess-the-gaunt.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110725213950
***** Power Weapons generally exude a hazy, blue-coloured field of energy that wraps around the primary impact region of a melee weapon, be it a sword's blade or warhammer's head and *is capable of disrupting the molecular bonds of matter when it strikes.* These weapons may be constructed to appear as a primitive, simple melee weapon, with the power field generator concealed within the hilt or haft of the weapon. Once the power field is switched on, however, the obvious humming sound given off and the blue light gives the secret of the weapon's true nature away.
warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Power_Weapons
***** To counter that, no it doesn't happen instantly. You are breaking something down at a molecular level, but now the blade is in the way of it reforming as it sinks into the gap. Which means, at worst it tries and fails to bond to the sword, because the disruption is still happening cause the weapon is still there, or they fall and bond with things in the air and on the ground, or perhaps other parts of the target.
***** Are you kidding me? You cant let this go? The people that made it are English, Games Workshop the company that makes Warhammer 40k is based in Nottingham, England.
Also, Lightsabers wouldn't work ether, yet people still joke about them.
*MOM! SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET!*
its interesting to note the psychological effect of the sight of cavalry. In Guderian's memoirs of WW2 he twice mentioned of how the sight of Polish Cavalry caused panic amongst his infantry, setting up an anti tank gun on one instance and in the other the 2nd Division claiming they were "compelled to withdraw" until he calmed them down
I think i'm in love with the 1864 that you showed. Absolutely amazing.
TIL that cavelry was still relevant, and effective (yay!) in certain scenarios of the WW1! That makes the Polish using cavelry in WW2 look considerably less stupid and out of place.
I truely enjoy your thoughtful analysis and commentary of the various weapons. Well done sir.
RE the usefullness of cavalry: During the First World War the Australian Light Horse, even though equipped as dragoons mostly, did in fact do a couple of famous sucsessfull charges against Turkish Infantry. An example was during the capture of Bersheeba. They were developed separately to the British cavalry in style by Australia because of experience with and admiration of the Boer Commandos of the second Boer war. The Australian military thought the Africal conditions were similar to Australia. There were 5 Brigades of Australian Light Horse in the Middle East engaged with the Turks. They were mainly dependent on their .303 carbines and Maxims but due to the wide open spaces some were armed with sabres for the charge and used them. They were actual cavalry and not mounted infantry and were used in traditional roles such as scouting and screening. The point is they were very usefull despite repeating firearms and machine guns and it was only the motor vehicle that rendered them obsolete. Those magnificent men on their farting machines!!!!!!
This is magnificent sword! Another great video Matt! :)
I think it is one of the best looking swords ever. Interesting though that despite looking like an elegant fencing rapier, its actually more like a spear.
Very well done! That is the most reasoned evaluation of the 1908 pattern sword I've seen.
A very young Winston Churchill engaged in a battle in Northern Africa,armed with a Mauser,probably a broomhandle Mauser pistol. He reckoned it saved his life over a sword,there was indeed a melee. There was a reason why he chose that,but I have forgotten, too many years. Decades later,his sword was used to cut a wedding cake,by family members with no knowledge of how to use it,and it was bent quite badly. No idea what pattern of sword he chose. I do believe your argument has merit. Any engineered product is a series of compromises. Without backup,a single use product is not going to be good at plan B when the flying fecal matter encounters the oscillating rotator. Cheers.
As far as WWI in Europe is concerned, cavalry charges played an enormous role on the eastern front. They were also crucial during the Polish-Bolshevik war of 1920.
I'm not familiar with period British manuals, really only with the American 1914 Saber Manual for the U.S. 1913 saber, which is sort of similar. Re-read it and Patton mentions in the beginning that the thrust is primary (like the 1908 here) yet on very rare occasions, used to cut. Matt here superbly demonstrates that this blade was definitely intended for the thrust as well, but I've noticed it looks to have an edge, does that suggest that troopers could *attempt* cutting with them?
I would have thought that if you slashed at someone in a cavalry charge there would be a pretty good chance of your sword simply deflecting off their rifle as they held it out in front of them in a panic but using the sword to piece youd almost certainly get straight past a guard like that
I've always been a big fan of the saber in most of its forms. I like a cut AND thrust blade. Its just that simple.
Scholar gladiatoria drinking game. Take one shot every time Matt says context.
Your point about running an enemy through on horseback at full gallop and then trying to extract the sword is well presented. I wonder if any cavalryman has dislocated a shoulder when suddenly his sword weighs an extra 150 pounds (10.5 stone).
I've watched this particular video at least a half dozen times. Suddenly I want a Patton saber. 😄
I feel like you have dispelled the myth. Thank you.
Thank you for this longer video. It is a very good lenght in my opinion.
I'm taking notes because I think this will all be on our next exam. ;-) I'm a sword geek too and that's why I love your videos, bro.
well that was a lot of context.
i love context
Offhand Zweihander
same tbh
Offhand Zweihander I am context
b33lze6u6
No, I AM context!
somebody please send Mr. Easton a t-shirt with a big +CONTEX+T written on it
Excellent vid. This answers a lot of questions I've had about the 1908. Do you plan to do a video on the 1897 infantry sword?
Why do I love these swords so much?
You haven't commented on the Spanish 1907 Puerto Seguro sword. I don't own a 1908 pattern British cavalry sword, but I have a couple of examples of the Puerto Seguro. My examples look similar to your 1908, but are very quick swords - my examples weigh between 2.0 and 2.5 pounds. They are straight thrusting swords with long 35" blades. The 2.5 pound example has quite a stiff blade. I suspect the 2.0 pound example got to that weight by excessive polishing, since there is still some deep pitting and the "Artilleria National" is almost polished-off.
You're videos are so educational. Thank You.
Great video Matt. I was wondering if you could do an overview of sword evolution over specific period of time (e.g 17-19 century) showing some specimens. One video or small series would be fantastic.
the american saber is just an instrument to give a point of freedom into someone's heart
Fiore de'i Liberi I hear this idiotic accusation a lot. Mostly from complete imbeciles who have no knowledge of the facts (or anything else) and only regurgitate the raw sewage that the liberal media pumps into them.
You find plenty of misinformation on Google as well. If you want to bash someone for murdering innocent women and children look to the Islamic terrorists. War has casualties, unfortunately, you cannot prevent that. But to paint it as something America intentionally tries to do is dishonest. The Islamics on the other hand deliberately go for max civilian casualties, not only against non Muslims, but against their own as well. What aggravates me is people attacking the US for civilian casualties when we go to the extreme to prevent them, and pretending that the muslims are innocent victims in all of it.
And while your on Google, why not look up all the humanitarian work the U.S. has done around the world. That's another thing that really bugs me. People want to demonize America and ignore anything good that we have achieved.
Error 404 - Page not found
I'm ignorant because you sent me a bad link... seriously?
New series of short 1-2 minute Q&A videos "Matt calls bullshit"
Many thanks for this video, I think it answers all my questions about the 1908.
I think a good idea is to look at the biggest cavalry battle in XX century and weapons used by both side of conflict, when looking at usage of swords and sabers in cavalry fighting in that century.
And it was a Battle of Komarów and took part in 1920 in war between Poland and Bolsheviks
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Komar%C3%B3w
Both sides used mainly thrust and cut sabers. And even after that (both Poland and Soviet Union used cavalry in WW II) both of them used cut and thrust sabers as a melee weapons.
This is only showing that trend to rearm cavalry in swords focused on thrusting was common to western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe remain with cut and thrust weapons.
Is there any skill to using armor? I am not talking about being comfortable wearing it but moving in such a way in combat to lessen the impact of incoming blows? Any info is greatly apprecaited!
That's the video i have been waiting for ! Thanks a lot Matt.
We know that rapiers were also used on horseback ( yet they were not very common) So were they used exactly like a 1908 pattern sword ?
2) How would a lancer defend himself in a single combat ?
I'd imagine a lancer's goal would be to get the hell out of there if caught in a melee. Depending on the length, he might be able to uses the lance like a two-handed spear in a pinch. However it would be unwise for him to not carry a sidearm, and most likely said sidearm would be drawn and fought with in melee.
I'm pretty sure lancers during napoleonic war were armed with light sabre, same as those that hussar used.
MariusThePaladin This. I can't think of a single lancer, or lancer-like cavalry that didn't have a sword or some other sidearm (mace, axe, hammer, pick your poison), specifically because of the melee problem.As for rapiers on horseback, I didn't see any period accounts, but I'd guess they weren't used in charge, but as part of a melee - also, they might not have been rapiers, exactly, what Mair calls a rapier is more or less arming sword with a rapier-like guard.
A lancer was actually a very forminable opponent in single combat (NOT IN A MELEE), many period military manuals and eyewitness described that a skilled lancer have a tremendous advantage over an equally skilled sabreur. Which given the range, power and leverage of the lance, made perfect sense.
I would imagining a common rapier will break at the moment of impact due to the charging speed. That's why P1908 is made shorter but thicker. I would choose a common rapier, which is supposed to be longer or less weight, on foot, but P1908 on horseback.
I read many cavalry swords were not sharpened and the weight tells me why - the blunt edge would still split skin and break bone and the point would go into target regardless of sharpness and you may not want a sharp sword that can cut you as the horse is running.
Our (US) best cavalry action in WWI was agaiinst machine gun nests, but they used 1911 pistols instead of drawing their swords. 20 guys coming fast all firing semi automatic pistols at close range. No need to draw the sword or the rifle.
Great info, good sir. Always a pleasure to learn new things from you. ^^
i would take cut blade over thrust blade every time doesn't matter on foot or on horse
really now! but what about the extra length you can afford with a thrusting weapon
on foot cut blade gives more options than dedicated thrust one.
on horse why not carrying a lance if length is important no thrusting sword will ever beat lance. Lance + cut sword as a backup.
It's a beautiful weapon and it would be really effective, but I wouldn't choose it if I have to choose a weapon to use. For impaleing people from horse back, I'd choose a lance, and if I have to fight on foot, I'd choose a lighter backsword or arming sword, or if the protocol forcing me, a 1897 Pattern Sword, over this sword.
It look/sounds like a weapon that is really HARD to use.
I find this sword to be very offensive.
I tried arguing with a shield, but it got too defensive.
Alright guys, we get the point.
Dean Equilibrium
Well, aren't you so edgy?
I figured being blunt was the best option.
Well, let's Albion-est and admit this isn't going anywhere.
love to see your reluctance to touch the blade even though you want to demonstrate its flexibility!
Dear Matt, thank you very much for your videos, I think they are really great!!
What I would like to share and came to my mind with this topic is this: This British 1908 pattern cavalry sword seems to me, much to my surprise, pretty much like, or similar to the french heavy cavalry sword as used by for example the french cuirassiers. So I was pretty much surprised to see the British went "back" (although improving some features as the hilt) to that design, although the previous model, as you showed it (actually similar to the french "a la monmorency" sword) , was very successfully used throughout a century. I wonder if they had that in mind when they were introducing it in WW1, especially since the cuirassiers were pretty much successful on the napoleonic battlefield, used as some sort of shock troops. Just my thoughts, Best Regards Imi
Even if you treat your cavalry as a missile, considering the cut'n'thrust can still give point fairly well, isn't the versatility still superior? Thanks for the food for thought! I still can't imagine why anyone would choose thrust over cut in the 19th century for all the reasons you mentioned and more.
So this sword helped inspire the Patton pattern sabre 😃
Point of balance being close to the hand means less slash power but more control, which is ideal because you never want to slash with this weapon
coming back to this, it's still kind of silly to have spent all that money on a semi-obsolete piece of kit
Sometimes, I feel like the option is between using the weapon or using your fists, rather than using another weapon that isn't available at that point in time.
If highlander was real lol and you had to choose just ONE sword......which would it be. (Sure you've been asked this before but I'm a new subscriber) cheers
This is spot on. I also thought the 1908 sword was a Light Cavalry Sabre. Then a couple of years back I went to Shrewsbury regimental museum and saw one up close. My first thought was: thats not a sabre. And then "That's just a nasty heavy spike with a big guard". The problem is that visually in a book or on film it doesn't come across as heavy as it is. As for calvary I was under the impression that heavy cavalry in close formation had a preference for the point, but light cavalry because of loose formations preferred the cut. Any truth in this?
Your take on cavalry sword preference were true enough, and certainly the French cavalry regiments of the Napolenic War and those of many other nations during and after the period commonly gave their heavy cavalry thrust centric swords and their light cavalry curved sabers. Then again, European heavy cavalry from the previous centuries were more commonly armed with cut-centric backswords rather than thrust-centric rapiers, and they performed well enough. So maybe much if it was due to the whims of fashion, with the use of the eastern style curved saber and light cavalry becoming popular in the 19th century due to the rise of colonialiam and orientalism.
A little bit och "Mytth Busting" is alwys nice :)
Hey,
I love the videos and how you really can see that you know what you are talking about. And as I always have been interested in edged weapon I really like your channel.
One thing I wonder though is if you would mind using the metric system once in a while, or both that and the imperial system.
As I am Swedish and only know metric, when you say three pound, it means nothing to me as I have no idea what it is in metric. And I thought that since uk uses both imperial and metric I hope that it wouldn't be to much of a bother for you.
Great videos and please do keep it up!
1 pound ~ 0.45 kg, 1 oz (ounce) ~ 28 grams
1 inch ~ 2.5 cm, 1 yard ~ 0.9 metres, 1 mile ~ 1.6 km
I also use the metric system, but since I spend a lot of my time on English content, I have to deal a lot with imperial measurements, and it has become easy to do the conversion! :)
Interesting as usual although I have some comments (as usual).
My take on a lot of these early 20th century changes is that sword and bayonet combat became so rare that nobody had any practical experience and the theorists took over. Similar to the whole 'arms race' that happened with the lengthening of bayonets - to ridiculous lengths. In the end it didn't matter because actual bayonet combat had become so rare. How often did the early 20th cen cavalry use these swords? You said yourself that they acted as horse mobile infantry. With repeating firearms it's always easier to just shoot somebody.
The other comment that caught my interest was about the uselessness of a rapier to Viking. I would say that the technology to make a functional rapier did not exist at that time. We can't say they wouldn't have used one if they could have made one. I agree that probably not in a shield wall :). I'm not disagreeing with your point about context, but there is also another limit at work which is technology. I think it's an interesting point worth exploring. My opinion is that sword shapes and lengths were constrained by limits of steel quality and the amount of iron that could be forges at one time - at least up until the Renaissance period.
Matt Lentzner Though bayonets were used a lot in WW1. Just look at the Victoria Cross awards and see how many were awarded during close combat.
Bayonets were even used during WW2, but mostly as hand-held knives and less when mounted on the weapon!
I looked at 84 WWI VC citations as a sample. 5 mentioned bayonets with one of those being a bayonet charge. 5 mentioned revolvers. One mentioned both a revolver AND a bayonet which makes no sense unless the soldier was using it as a knife. One mentioned fisticuffs which is pretty extraordinary.
Of course there were a great many uses of grenades. I should note that VC citations would be a poor way to establish the usefulness of any weapon since by its nature mentions extraordinary situations. By far, the most effective weapons were artillery and machineguns which the VC winners were often working against instead of using.
***** And don't forget the odd table leg or wooden club wrapped in barbed wire! I wouldn't be surprised if there was at least one usage of a wooden plank with a nail going through it.
scholagladiatoria Here's a rather interesting thought..
So body armor was, albeit rare, put into use by many sides during the first World War (if you get a chance you should look at what the Italians were fielding, in some cases what look to be actual full suits of armor). Usually it was crudely made by the soldiers at the front, but there were field issued types too (the Germans for one, but I believe Britain and even the US had body armor types being fielded). I suppose what I'm getting at, is do you think that there were ever instances were Entente/Allied soldiers clashed with soldiers from the Central powers and both sides were in a melee engagement while wearing this armor. True not much good against a bullet, but still a rather interesting situation don't you think? It's not utterly implausible.
The first enemy you run down with that is going to be in lots of trouble. However, I think the "extraction" bit has several ways to go wrong.
The weight is why cavalry recruits spend so long doing "Pocky drills" to strengthen their arm. The left arm gets plenty of exercise working the reins! :)
To sum up the 20 minutes: CONTEXT.
Very interesting look at history. :)
The 1853 blade i recall in a few places being slated for not cutting well. The sword handles well enough and the shape is fine so i have a theory that so many swords were produced when the order to sharpen was given they either did a shit job sharpening them or the edges were never maintained. The Indian cavalry regiments used various British patterns and they seem to have found them quite effective.(Used wooden scabbards and maybe resharpend blades?) Any thoughts?
Serious question, is there a reason you do your weighing of the sword in pounds instead of kilograms?
Caramel Johnson HAHAHAHHA
rewtuser because in the UK we grow up measuring sword weights (and also things like bow draw weight) in pounds. We also tend to use Imperial measurement for our own weight and height.
Cuz the metric system was invented by the French.
scholagladiatoria I live in france now, my sport is archery, they also use pounds and inches (livres et pouces) in archery specs, whether that is the US influence on the sport due to their manufacturers or not I don't know. They get a bit confused with measurement such as 3/8" though!
After doing some research, I suspect this is actually because england didn't fully stop using the imperial system of measures until fairly recently (like ww2). So it would make sense that there's a lot of mixing that still happens.
As a student of war I would say that the cut and thrust sword is indeed better due to it's inherent versatility, overall a strong cut is quite a bit more relevant at the point where you must fight in a melee against UNARMORED combatants. A thrust is fine as a finisher but a cut to the limb (against a competent opponent) to wear your enemy down usually precedes giving point.
And as Matt pointed out, using the sabre to give point requires training. In wartime when your reserve fluctuates and you must recruit people, but at the same time maintain an onslaught, you have to consider time as an asset. That said, the cut/thrust sword is better, for it cuts (pun intended) down on the time for training cavalry.
*****
Certainly the thrust is in more cases the deadlier, but you have to weigh the risk you're taking when thrusting. If you extend strongly and your point is pushed off line, you are less likely to recover with a response to your opponents counter. Cutting is also risky, but I personally atleast find it a lot easier to recover from a missed cut attempt and thusly I will live long enough to attempt another attack.
Not necessarily, the defensive stance can be prepared in both the hanging guard and just your regular point up guard and still rather effectively defend both sides, both the cutting oriented style and thrust can be maneuvered around, moving yourself offline and opening a side for you attack. My original point was that I PERSONALLY find it superior to use a sabre type sword, not that it is universally superior.
True enough. Both have their merits, no doubt about it.
+Hideyori Nakano
If you look at how Side Swords and Rapiers were used, they'd usually deliver cuts to the limbs and torso, which bled, weakened, and distracted the enemy. Then they would thrust.
So yeah, history more or less confirms what you said. I'd think if you gash the other guy's leg or sword arm open, maybe put out an eye or give him some nasty cuts on the stomach or groin, he's going to be a LOT easier to bring down and probably have less strength to fight back when you go for the finisher.
vary insightful, Thanks!
I notice that you use pounds pretty often in your videos. Is that a consideration for your American viewers, or are pounds still a fairly common unit of weight in England?
Will nonya Yes, we normally use Imperial weight and distance measurement in everyday use.
scholagladiatoria I feel like every one of my high school Science teachers lied to me. lol
Will nonya If it makes you feel better, England is pretty much the only country in Europe where Imperial units are still common in everyday use. In Norway, where I live, the only imperial unit most people use is inches, but even that is only for lumber dimensions.
Commonly it's a crazy mix of imperial and metric. I think in metres for short distances and miles for long ones, and in kilos for weight.
Will nonya I think it's also a generational thing - younger people tend (in my experience) to be taught and use the metric system in everyday use.
Very interesting, thanks. Re. the Charge of the Light Brigade din't the cavalry have trouble cutting the Russian gunners due to the thick clothing which the gunners wore?
Hi Matt,
Your videos are very interesting, i watch them like a child! :)
Do you have Austro-Hungarian 1904 pattern cavalry sabre? What do you think about these sabres? Could you make a video about it?
Soma, from Hungary
I know nothing about swords. Nevertheless, I was thinking if the trusting sword are heavier maybe because the motion of a trusting is more linear and involves less rotations.
When you rotated a sword you would feel it much heavier than trusting because of the angular momentum I guess.
Thanks Matt. I collect Militaria and have what I thought to be that sword in my collection back home in South Africa.made by a H. Maxwell and co. Has lotus flower design on guard, etched blade. Edwardian period I should presume as I don't have it on me. I was always under the impression it was a heavy cavalry officers undress sword?
Great videos.
I think Scottish regimental officers ie regimental colonels ect. When mounted on horseback wore these swords, but with red backing behind the guard and red tassels like on the basket hilts?
Thanks for the reply buddy
Wonderful lecture. :)
Excellent vids. If the spatha was a roman cavalry strait blade it was because they give the point ?
Around what period did England actually phase out traditional cavalry?
Will nonya The early 1930s I believe - when light fast tanks became more widespread.
scholagladiatoria Christie suspension FTW !
scholagladiatoria love your videos. Carry on brother!
The last British Cavalry action was in 1953 in Kenya
The last functional cavalry in Europe was from Switzerland, which had a corps of dragoons active until 1973. The Swiss people petitioned to keep them on several occasions following WWII, until parliament finally voted to abolish them. These were more mounted infantry than cavalry, however, and their primary weapon was a carbine rather than a sword. Outside Europe, India and China still have functional cavalry units to this day.
hi I was wondering why the "toe" of many of the 19th century scabbards I see in the background of your vids are so flattened and for want of a better term guitar shaped. Love the channel.
richard mundy That's called a 'drag' and is to protect the end of the scabbard when the sword is worn on foot.
Hi Matt I know you have mentioned talwars and scimitars in previous videos I was wondering if you agree that the Kilij of Romania epically Transylvania was really the start of Europeans use of the more eastern style curved blade especially for calvary?
Weren't swords as these call Pallasch in earlier times? The old Polish Hussars used something similar called a konercz.
Thanks great video. I've always wanted a 1908/Patton sword for self defense.
A pointy bar with a good grip, no chance of getting a horse ready but,,,,,
Horrible sword for self defense. Why notf a sabre or even an arming sword or mace?
+skeeter sorenson you've obviously never practiced sword play in a house. A sabre is designed to swing and slash. in a house everything is in the way. A patton sword is designed to thrust. At any rate to each to his own.
+John Koeberlein It's basically a rapier with a short-ish blade and great hand protection, and nobody would argue with you for picking that for self defense. People are weird sometimes.
+John Koeberlein Get a cutlass...
Easy to use, short enough to use indoors, both cuts well and pierce at need.
Or a short spear. You can really block a doorway with spear. And the thrust is superior...
I have a spear but it's way too long. I've always wanted a Japanese short spear, te yari I think it's called.
Matt,Would you know how to determine to whom a sword was issued? Back in the 1920s, my grand-father was walking a section of rail line out in Wyoming (he was a rail-road inspector). Off in the distance something glinting in the sun caught his attention. Thinking it curious (normally, most objects that fall or are thrown from a train, typically refuse, land close by the rails, but this object was quite some distance off), my grand-father walked the quarter mile to the glinting object and found half-buried in the ground a US cavalry sabre bearing the Mansfield & Lamb manufacturer's mark (date-stamped 1863). We have always wondered how that sabre came to rest in so remote a part of the US. We know that Custer's ill-fated expedition on 1876 was in the general area and have often wondered if the sabre belonged to someone assigned to one of the 7th Cavalry's flanking elements. The sabre also bears a serial number. I would love to know more about the cavalryman to whom the sabre was issued and so I thought perhaps in some dusty US Army archive somewhere there might be a record of the last person to whom the sabre was issued. Thanks!
+CaesarInVa
I would try any nearby university or museum
Monty, you're memory is quite correct. A few days after I wrote my comment, I recalled Lt. Godfrey's memoirs. Subsequent to the engagement, Godfrey, who was assigned to Captain Benteen's battalion at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, committed his memory of the action in particular and the campaign in general to paper in quite impressive detail. One of the things he mentions in his memoirs is that the 7th rode out of Ft. Lincoln sabre-less. However, I believe there were elements of the 2nd Cavalry involved in the campaign (I seem to recall Godfrey mentioning that Custer was offered two or three companies of the 2nd but declined out of concerns that the amalgamation of elements from a different formation into his own unit's ranks would in the end lead to more trouble than what it was worth). Whether or not elements of the 2nd participated in the campaign is unknown to me. Equally unknown to me is whether those elements, if present, carried sabres or not. If elements of the 2nd did participate in the campaign and did ride out with their sabres, then I suppose its possible that the sabre-in-question might have belonged to one of their troopers.....or perhaps not,
I agree. I'd love to know the history of how it came to rest where it did. My father speculated once that things must have been pretty desperate for a cavalryman to lose (or toss) his sabre, as this seemingly was. BTW, one of the things I'm unclear of is whether or not the infantry columns (there were three) that participated in the campaign had cavalry flankers screening their lines of advance. If they did, the sabre might have originated from one of the escorts.
Can you talk about the Colichemarde? I'm a long time fan and I would love to hear what you had to say about that sword.
What do you consider as the best 19th century Infantry sword, best 19th century Cavalry sword and the best 19th century cut & thrust sword?
I could be totally wrong here, but a 1908 pattern sword looks an awful lot like fencing saber. Did a fencing saber look the same in 1908 look like a modern fencing saber? My idea (could be total off base) is that by 1908 no one was using swords in battle, but cavalry troopers were probably doing sport fencing, so they designed their war swords to be like what they were using for sport.
If for cavalry charges both a thrust dedicated sword and a cutting dedicated sword are just as likely to kill or otherwise render a target out of action, why use a thrust sword if it limits you in a melee. A slash from horseback can take a mans head clean off (as you mentioned in a previous video), so why risk losing your weapon at all? Not to mention that sometimes wounding targets rather than killing can sometimes cause more havoc. Since you take out the man by being wounded, and another that has to carry him.
Matt has explained in a lot of his videos that having a longer striking range is a TREMENDOUS advantage in combat between unarmoured opponents. If you can strike your opponent from a greater range, you immediately has an advantage over him, as you can hit him as he try to close in to hit you while you stand no chance of being hit at all. A thrust centric sword has a much greater range compared to one dedicated for cutting.
This sword is not designed for melee fighting at all, the cavalrymen using it were never supposed to let their horses slow down enough that a melee where you need to parry could take place. Whien fighting on horseback this is actually an option.
As to a blow from a cavalry sword taking a man's head or arm clean off, this was not a common occurence at all on the battlefield when your opponent was constantly moving and actively trying to kill you back. Most military authorities agreed that thrusts were much more likely to be fatal compared to cuts.
The great issue of cavalary thrusts was a wrist trauma.
3 pounds is preaty much the maximum weight that a one handed sword tends to get.
Thank you for great and informative video. I have a question about British cavalry attack from Spielberg's movie War horse (2011). Is it not too accurate sword choreography you can see when they attack infantry with far more cutting than thrusting?
Thanks matt great video good ifo .
Could you do some cavalry tests with this or some of your other sabres on a bicycle or motorcycle to show how easy it is to penetrate on horseback?
Matt a question i have is wouldnt it be better to arm ww1 cavalry with a lance, its longer and if you are riding picking them off and then running away anyway make the lance a better weapon? Plus give the troopers a cut and thrust sword so you could once you charged draw swords and cut people down who survived or whatever....
Why didn't they just turn every cavalry regiment into a lancer one? Charging in with a lance to outrange folks giving point with their sword and then switching to saber for the rest of the fight.
PS, Matt could you do a video on Medieval mounted swordsmanship both in a civilian and military context? Perhaps even a comparison to post Napoleonic cavalry.
He explained this from 15:00 onwards in the video. British cavalry were more and more focusing on dismounted actions (hence being equipped with the same rifle as their infantry) and hence the War Office opted to forego the lance and just gave the troopers thrust-centric swords.
What would you say where the claim you can find on Wikipedia is coming from? That the 1908 has been called the most effective cavalry sword ever designed. (I think you're talking about this, when you mention the "end of an evolution" of cavalry swords.)
Is this claim just coming from the perspective of prefering the thrust over the cut? Would the people aguing this disagree with you and say that the 1908 would have been always the better cavalry sword in every possible context?
I don't know if this will get a response, but I'll ask a question.
How does this sword compare to the US M1913 Patton Saber?
I don't have knowledge of either one, but they look to be similar designs.
Let's be careful out there.
I have a question. This technique you're mentioning for extraction, or extracting the blade from a passing opponent on horseback, once stabbed, was this a similar tactic used far earlier in history, by knights with lances? I have always wondered how on Earth knights could use lances in combat, because as soon as someone is stabbed on your lance, you have a great big 200 pound weight stuck onto the end of your lance. Do you just let it go? Go get another one? Or was there a technique for extracting the lance from the opponent's body?
Knightly lances were generally one oft weapon that were dropped after impact, but light lances (basically a spear) could definitely be extracted after being thrust into an enemy on horseback, using the same technique as used with swords.
The extraction method seems to me like it could still cause shoulder, elbow or wrist injuries even in a reasonably skilled practitioner, how reliable/safe was it in reality?
I think it doesn't make a lot of sense to have thrusting swords for cavalry. If you have that, you're better off with a lance, because it also thrusts and it's longer. The point of having a sword on horseback is you can cut with it. If you're going to make it so you can only thrust, wouldn't a lance work better? Specially since rifles with bayonets are longer than swords. I would think that giving such a sword to cavalry is probably just cultural due to legacy from sabre cavalry. I guess it makes sense to give them a thrusting sword if they're also going to be using a short riffle like a winchester, or possibly a pistol from horseback, in which case you might want a sword instead of a lance, since they're more portable. So, basically, a thrusting sword is a good idea on horseback only under the following conditions: a) you don't need cutting because there won't be any melee, only charging giving point and b) you want them also using firearms so it's better to give them a sword they can wear rather than a lance they have to carry on their hand.
He explained this from 15:00 onwards in the video. British cavalry were more and more focusing on dismounted actions (hence being equipped with the same rifle as their infantry) and hence the War Office opted to forego the lance and just gave the troopers thrust-centric swords. Basically you had it right all along.
Not really relevant to the period, but lots of Eastern European cavalry from the 15th to the 17th century opted to carry two swords, a curved saber for the melee and a thrust-only koncerz/estoc for the charge, to be used after they have expended their lance.
So why not just give the cavalrymen a lance and a sabre rather than this sword? To me it seems like what you said about the spadroon describes this as well: A sword trying to be to many things, and coming worse off at all of them as a result.
He explained this from 15:00 onwards in the video. British cavalry were more and more focusing on dismounted actions (hence being equipped with the same rifle as their infantry) and hence the War Office opted to forego the lance and just gave the troopers thrust-centric swords.
I can imagine how easy it is for the sword to get stuck in an opponent's body
Matt dosen`t seem to consider Eastern Front of the WW I and the cossak cavalry of the Russian Empire, which were armed (beside firearm, obviously) with pikes and shashkas.
Just out of curiosity, how would such a sword stand up to fighting against infantry with bayonets, if the trooper was unhorsed?
... context...
Like the "Patton" basically glorified BBQ spit.
Would’ve the 1908 sword ever been worn on the belt? Or was it strictly saddle mounted?
scholagladiatoria When talking about cut vs thrust, you said that making a sword better at cutting 'generally' reuduces the ability to thrust. Do you know any examples of cutting based swords that are still good at thrusting (or vice versa)?
the theory makes sense, but like you said, they're rarely seen thrusting which makes me think that might not be so true.
+Jordan Parker
Another good example would be a Scimitar or Khopesh. Very good for slashing and chopping, not so good at the stabby-stabby.
The Puerto Seguro sabre and the Patton sword could have been work more like the cut and trust sabre?
Is there any appreciable difference between British sabres from the 1850s-60s and the ones used in the American civil war?
Lukos0036 Not really - in fact many British swords were sold to the Confederates, so there were actually a lot of British swords used in that war. Particularly the British 1853 pattern cavalry sabre.
scholagladiatoria Along with guns, ammo, etc.!
They don't "give point" very much in that War Horse sequence where they charge the German tents. A lot of slices. Maybe to give the impression that they got up and walked it off? That was a pretty PG movie.
Most likely because thrusts were much more difficult to reenact safely in stage fighting, particularly from horseback.
it is very strange like a wierd cavalry sidsword
You see these being used in 'Warhorse' - chopping Germans down, apparently. But then I suppose the actual use, with that odd withdrawing technique following the thrust, is not very filmic. It even looks a bit comical in those early training films. This video is really a development of what you had to say elsewhere about the poor information on sword use and effectiveness in Robson's otherwise very good 'Swords of the British Army'.
you should put a big context on the new scholagladiatoria t shirt