Was the British 1897 Infantry Officer Sword a BAD WEAPON?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ย. 2024
- Frequently I see people make sweeping statements about the 1897 pattern British infantry officer's sword. Either it's described as a wonderful sword, or a terrible weapon. Which was it?
www.antique-sw...
Patreon & Extra Videos: / scholagladiatoria
Support & extra content on Subscribestar: www.subscribes...
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
Matt Easton's website and services:
www.matt-easto...
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-sw...
![[FULL EP.16] เซียนพาลุย "เผือก-ฟรอยด์" กรี๊ดลั่น จนปูหนี | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FsqUvwS3b-Y/mqdefault.jpg)
![PURPEECH - นี่ฉันเองคนที่... (It's me) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NuhHd0hOOg8/mqdefault.jpg)
Well done Matt. A lot of info in a minimum of time. I, for one, don't mind longer videos. ;-)
It is basically a short rapier as I see it
Battle rapier
Yes, more or less.
I'd imagine a rapier to be quite long and clumsy when worn at the waist in confined formations, so I guess part of its value is that this one doesn't anger your subordinates with it because you hit their shins when turning around.
@@voodoodummie there is example of full-length military rapiers (caroleans) but you are right, I regularly bang my scabbard against door frame
@@alexxu3004 Maybe the caroleans swords where "side swords" and not rapiers in modern English typology?
I'd take an asymmetric guard that's easier to carry all day, day after day over a theoretical marginal improvement in cutting efficiency (in a primarily thrusting sword) every time.
If you want good edge alignment that’s easy to carry, better be ready to sacrifice hand protection.
Then again, if you trained in a school that emphasizes parrying away from the hands, might as well trade some protection for convenience and good alignment.
I understand the sentiment. Though, personally I just find that asymmetrical guards (even asymmetrical hilts, really) sorta irks me. Might have something to do with me being partially ambidextrous, but I also don't really like the way they look. Give me a little bit of carrying discomfort any day, I can deal with that.
@John Tremblay Though, that never stopped people from carrying rapiers, baskethilts and other swords with large, mostly symmetrical guards. If anything that makes the asymmetric hilt seem like a relatively minor convenience at the cost of versatility and slightly messed up balance. Especially since I doubt carrying a sword around at all times is very convenient regardless.
Alternatively, if you don't expect to get into sword fights except in very rare circumstances and would rather prioritize ease of wear, just go all the way and pick a sword with a simple knuckle-bow or something.
Actually, the asymmetrical style rather seems like something you'd go for if you had to carry a sword all the time _and_ use it in combat fairly often.
@@RelativelyBest remember those swords were being worn in very different ways than the swords of the 19th century
@@paullytle1904 Well, yeah, because that was the comfortable way of carrying them. Just, you know, stick with that.
Missed opportunity to just say "Yes it was!" and disco dancing for 8 minutes.
Gay
Yeah it's terrible as a weapon.. Good way to get yourself killed
Anybody who says this isn't a proper fighting weapon has never been in a prison riot.
Agree. I have been in prison and almost all inmates made 1897 pattern swords out of cardboard, sand and toothbrushes to carry around for self defense.
@@EntropicEcho *XD*
I don't think many British Army officers ever found themselves in that situation either.
@@remittanceman4685 Yes they did, actually. MP.
@@MaliciousMollusc Really!!!?
Love the combination of 97 hilt and 45 blade. Would love to own a piece like that
With the caveat that 45 pattern gothic hilt is IMHO nicer and I'd preffered it for dress carry.
But I admit the 97 pattern hilt is more durable on campaign.
I recall a story from a napoleonic wars period memoir about russian soldier who fell of a horse during the cavalry charge and was attacked by couple of french artillerists wielding sabers. He was basically lay on the ground defenseless covering his head with his arms while they would chop him with sabers.
His comrades soon came to his aid and routed frenchmen. When they checked on the guy he was surprisingly fine- 2 dozens of small cuts and nicks but overall not a single life threatening injury, altrough his uniform was turned to rags. I don't know how representative this story but it appears that cutting weapon isn't best choice if you want to kill or incapacitate your enemy efficiently with a single well delivered blow especially if he wears some thick clothes. Even a relatively dull bayonet would nail poor guy to the ground like a bug on a pin.
Fab work Matt, under ten minutes, punchy to the point delivery, sword addiction fix delivered, avenues of tangential cogitation mercifully parried.
It's not a weapon for fencing other officers in a suitably refined manner, it's for batting bayonets or spears out of the way long enough for either it's wielder or one of his men to stab or shoot the bayonet or spears' owners. It will have been clear for a long time by 1897 that an officer was far more likely to need to be able to defend himself against enemy private soldiers than officers and also that an officer's sword spends most of it's time in it's scabbard being carried around.
Presumably an officer of the period would have a bang/shooty thing in his other hand
I doubt any spears were being used after 1897
@@appa609 The Battle of Omdurman was in 1898.
It seems similar to a spadroon, which is also a controversial sword.
It's a very different sword in the hand to what most spadroons are like.
@@scholagladiatoria
Heavier weight, but closer POB, correct?
Nice concise video; thanks for the reference article too. I used it recently to identify my sword, which is an 1895 pattern in excellent condition and with leather case, owned by WA Maclean of the Kaffrarian Rifles.
I've always liked mine, nice to see a positive viewpoint of this much maligned sword 👍
It's fine for ceremonial occasions but, if I needed to fight, I would have been like Winston Churchill in "Young Winston" and bought a good pistol. I'm sure a few officers would have looked down on me but that wouldn't have stopped me.
@@shepherd3522 that's really an argument about whether a sword is useful at all though, rather than if this is a good or bad example of one.
You should have a good handgun anyway!@@shepherd3522
Given what the level of training as regards swordsmanship was for the average- I mean, average British officer, not someone who'd been on the North-West Frontier for 25 years and extensively studied both Western and Eastern fencing styles- it's not a bad choice. A 20-something kid just out of Sandhurst, or a young Oxford grad working as a junior barrister and in a Territorial unit on the weekends as a junior officer with just basic fencing training could at least competently poke holes with it.
Every villager who lived on the North West Frontier province was not a Skilled Swordsman either .
Majority of villagers could just barely stab with a knife .
Afghanistan and South Asia ( Indian Subcontinent ) were not particularly renowned for warfare and fighting like Caucasus mountains or Circassia or Georgia and Ossetia .
Caucasus mountains , Circassia , Georgia and Ossetia were the best and most skilled swordsmen in the world and had a thriving culture of warfare , martial arts like wrestling , Horse riding , sword fighting, Shooting .
In Europe , Cossacks were the most skilled with the lighter Shaska sword 🗡.
Scottish Highlanders were highly skilled with the longer and heavier Broadsword .
I just bought one in an antique store, as my first sword, not really knowing what it was except that it was English and from Wilkinson I hoped you had a video about it!
I don't know about it's practicality, but the 1897 has a special place in my heart. I have 2, and one was my first antique. Thanks for the video!
Not referring to this particular video (though I liked it a lot!) but in general: Just wanted to say that Matts channel is one of the first I look at when having some time for watching a clip (have been subscribed for a long time now anyway).
And I am not even actively into HEMA myself, just an interested lurker. ;)
I prefer my sabres to be cutters. If I feel like playing the stabbie game then I'll pick up my rapier.
It might be a perfectly good weapon but really ... I think I'd prefer a second Webley revolver.
In a WW1 context, yes... But a shotgun or rifle would be even better! In general, the extra Webley only gives you 6 more shots (most of which will miss) and nothing to parry with. On the Northwest Frontier, for example, I'd much rather have a firearm AND a sword. The choice really depends on the type of conflict and in a place where swords and spears might be coming to get me, I'd want something that can parry and not run out of shots.
As would any sane person.
@@scholagladiatoria My line of thinking is that if you are an officer then being able to put out, for the period, a lot of firepower in a short time is more effective for shoring up a faltering flank etc than waving some pointed metal around. I can certainly appreciate your point of view though!
I'm certainly not the expert Matt is but my limited reading on the subject seems to indicate that both schools of thought were common at the time. That probably means there was no definitive correct answer.
@Kelton - Indeed. There were people with experience who argued for both sides. My 'in hindsight' historian's view is that their differing experiences were often responsible for the different views. In the trenches of 1916 you wanted pistols, grenades and a knife. In the mountains of Afghanistan in 1898 you wanted a rifle, a pistol and a sword. Neither are right or wrong, they are just different solutions for different situations.
On the subject of whether or not it is a good sword, I guess another factor worth pondering is the amount of work that goes into making one of these 1897 Infantry Officer Swords. Is the sword's value worth the effort that goes into making one, as opposed to a different (presumably previous) design?
It's not really an issue, as these were expensive private purchase items for officers, who bought most of their equipment themselves.
@@scholagladiatoria My thinking wasn't necessarily about money and more about the time, skill and workmanship involved in producing the sword as these are all finite resources. Is its improvement in handling commensurate with the effort that went into it (relative to the technology of the time, of course)?
There is going to be a balancing point between quality and opportunity costs. A sword could have a very good balance, efficient at thrusting, etc but if it takes forever and an age to produce a single such specimen, then the design wouldn't be very good - especially in a military context, since there are only X number of sword-makers with the skill and ability to produce them and so meet demand.
@@evilwelshman Some historians think that was the reason the Ferguson rifle never gained traction. In some important ways (accuracy and rate of fire) it was demonstrably better than the musket but it was twice as expensive and took several times as long to make. Although an officer's sword doesn't necessarily conform to the same rules since they were personally purchased items from bespoke manufacturers. The artisans making officer swords may not have been the same people making the mass-produced ones even if they came from the same maker.
@@evilwelshman Well, I guess you can teach every ape to use a file for some fancy decoration, but the rest is just industrial production at that time, isn´t it? Mh, maybe I am to much used to Solingen standards and Wilkinson used some fairy dust for their swords.
@@itsapittie You could take that line of thought one step further. Would the typical officer discerning enough with a sword to be able to make use of the qualities of the sword? This is actually a line of reasoning some people (including Matt if I'm not mistaken) use to argue how a spadroon isn't actually as bad as others make it out to be - i.e. that the typical officer at the time was likely familiar with a smallsword, which the spadroon was essentially a more robust version of. In contrast, there are lots of examples of Victorian era officers leaning ever more towards thrust-centric designs with their regulation sword yet perfectly comfortable (possibly even happily) using a tulwar (which sits pretty squarely on the cutty/choppy end of the spectrum) when on campaign in India. Either they're really flexible and be good at both or their skill is at a level it doesn't make a difference.
Matt, could you please do me a tremendous favour and make a review (or similar type of video) on schiavonas and how they handle, after having used one for a while to het a proper feel for them?
(I should like to reccomend the Del Tin Schiavona, which I happen to own myself, and I've found to be a tremendously authoritarian cutter, as well as being an excellent thrusting sword. Albeit that they would be a tad on the short side when facing off against a rapier or something of the like.)
(For the record; I do realise that no two 'types' of schiavona will handle the same, seeing as their blades and hilts may vary and thus may have different points of balance, or even may not have a straight blade at all, hence why I specifically wished for the model made by Del Tin nowadays.)
This is very late, but I have long been curious about the schiavona myself. I _assume_ it's used similarly to other baskethilt broadswords, but there is very little to go by if you try to research it. It seems nobody is really talking about those swords.
Though, I guess we shouldn't expect too much from Matt on the subject since it doesn't seems to be within his field of interest/expertise. Still, would love to have any information at all on how they were used.
(By the way, the plural is _schiavone,_ because Italian. Not a big deal, just felt like mentioning that.)
Much appreciated. I have one of these blades from grandfather. Thank you for the information 😊🙏
Hi Matt. Cool Idea for the channel that I was thinking about today. A Pith helmet weapon test. I was just looking for one as I was wondering how a helmet made of Cork or pith could be effective defence but no one else has seemingly made one.
It would be interesting to see how it would far against contemporary swords and other weapons (do you still have the Assegai?) Either way just an idea.
Could you compare the sword to others that it would come up against around the world? The German/French/American/Russian etc etc
Excellent idea! Let's hope Matt sees your comment
@@Kraven83 Hear! Hear!
Should be reports from the allies adventures in China during that time. But, I'm not sure how much battle fencing that occurred when the officers also had a revolver.
Congrats on making a shorter video which is still packed with interesting info. We could really see how hard it was not to digress ;) But you caught yourself each time!
Personally, I find this format much more suitable for a little break at work :) And I like that you break the topic into several videos. Thanks for the video, Matt :)
You should do a video on George S. Patton's sabre.
I touched on it in my video about the Swedish 1893 recently.
I've used a reproduction of the Patton sword in competition at the U. S. Cavalry Association's annual match and although it is very much a thrust-centric weapon, it has a natural feel in a cut and edge alignment is easy because of the hilt design. Of course, we only cut fruit and melons so I can't say what it would do in actual combat but I certainly wasn't at any noticeable disadvantage compared to curved sabers. I've handled originals but never used one on targets. The Windlass reproduction is pretty good but still doesn't handle quite as well as an original. Someday I may grind down the distal taper a little. Overall I like it a lot. I've used an original Spanish 1907 and a reproduction British 1908 and I prefer the U. S. M1913 to both of them. I'd really like to see a review of the original and the reproduction.
@@scholagladiatoria that was a good video but I agree I would really like a video specifically about the M 1913 Patton Sword as well. There really aren't any videos about this sword and I'd really like to hear your thoughts on handling one especially since I have one myself.
Thinking a bit about the advantages and disadvantages of asymmetrical hilts, how feasible would it be to design a hilt that was asymmetrical how far out from the blade it extends, but not in center of mass? Hypothetically this could be accomplished by varying the thickness of material used or with perforations on one side. A potential disadvantage of such a design would probably be increased overall mass. Do we know if anything like this was ever attempted, and if so, how well it worked?
Actually one of my favorite swords..
Great to have you and your knowledge in this somewhat lonely times♡
One thing I have learnt about swords from yours and similar channels is that there are only two types, specialised and compromise swords .. neither are bad unless you compare them ...
+scholagladiatoria *Lynn Thompson of COLD STEEL® used a grip consistent with the P.1897 and a less asymmetric guard for the slightly-curved Thompson Saber™* (Cold Steel Inc. P/N CS-88EBTS), which has a wide spine and a willow point. In respect, the P.1897 strikes a balance betwixt backsword and spadroon with its single-edged straight blade and bisymmetric point.
Keep these great videos coming!!
Here's something I was wondering Matt:
Let's talk "weapon accuracy", or how easy it is to hit with weapons.
If we were to categorize the classics (sword, falchion, rapier, two-handed sword, axe, two-handed axe, spear, polearm, war hammer, mace, two-handed hammer) by also distinguishing attack types (swing/thrust) into roughly 5 categories (highest being easiest to hit targets with) what would we get?
Is it a case of curved blades having a higher score (for swings at least) than straight blades?
Also, probably weapons balance towards the top such as Axe must be harder to land a hit I imagine
And what about swing vs thrust, say for a long sword, can we compare these in terms of how easy it is to hit a target with it?
My money is on the Rapier being the king here, then swinging swords with curved blades, then straight blades (though, not sure if swing and thrust are as easy), then two-handed heavy ones like polearm and two-handed axes, and finally really heavy-on-the-top weapons like two-handed hammers and such..
_Context Intensifies._
I've handled one of these made by K + C. Lethally fast in the point. Far more agile than my rapier. I would fence counter point with this weapon. Quick stabs to unprotected hand, forearm & face. Easy to feint a cut & transition to a thrust. Cuts to wrist, face & neck would be effective.
Strangely I had mine in hand yesterday and I have gone from not really liking it to converting over to it being a good sword.
As others have mentioned, it's a short rapier to a certain degree but I can't help wondering how much better it might handle with an extended weighted pommel.
Stabbing is far more lethal than cuts.
It is, but also much more risky. It is a tradeoff.
Stabbing is pretty good at getting into the soft, squishy bits that people need to live, even through some armor, and it also causes victims to go into shock more readily than cuts and slashes would. But if you don't have a stopper that keeps the blade from over-penetrating, such as on winged spears, I wouldn't recommend thrusts outside of strictly one-versus-one duels; if you stab too deeply, the poor sod you impaled is going to take your sword with him as he drops, and the torsion may just snap the blade entirely.
In the battlefields of the early-twentieth-century, this means you are now unarmed against the friends of the guy you just shanked, all of whom will have bayonets, rifles, shovels, trench clubs, or swords of their own, and probably some combination of the above. Also, the sword just screams out "I'm in charge here, chaps! Fire at me if you dare!"
@@anthonylamonica8301 Also people don't die as quickly as in the movies; the poor sod you impaled is now within range, most likely still armed, very pissed of, and most likely with enough fight left in him to return the favor.....
@@edzejandehaan9265 True, though that also depends on where you managed to stab the guy, and how much adrenaline he happens to be running off of at the time. Nick the aorta, for example, or the main abdominal artery, and the drop in blood pressure will be so instantaneous that they really won't be fighting back all that much.
@@anthonylamonica8301 Ah, but he doesn't need "that much", he just needs a split second, he's already in your face, your weapon is disabled, he is deadly wounded on a battle field, what do you think his adrenalin level is?
No, I don't like those odds at all....
Excellent presentation
Haven’t watched the video yet but can I hazard a guess at the answer?
A: it depends on the context?
Done 'n' dusted in less than 9 mins!! Who are you and what've you done with the real Matt?!? ;-)
Is this *gasps dramatically* a good spadroon? I know the period is a little too late but a reasonably light primarily thrusting weapon with a bit of cutting ability and decent hand protection sounds to me like what a spadroon should be...
Absolutely, spadroon with excellent hand protection.
Wow Matt speaks for 8 mins, concise and speaking VERY fast (thank god for subtitles!) :-)
I've never had the chance to handle one, but except possibly from the unbalanced guard, that looks like a pretty solid and sensible design. In fact, you basically don't lose anything meaningful with that toledo blade, but you gain extra blade resilience and stiffness. I would call it an improved, "engineered" design over what's just a traditional design. People often value tradition for the sake of it, with no reasonable argument, and this blade design surely itched their conservativeness. Regarding the guard, considering the progress made in firearms when this sabre was adopted, it makes sense to emphasize a comfortable wear for the officer, be it at the slight expense of handling characteristics. I'm quite chauvinistic, but given the choice, I'd replace a French 1882 infantry officer saber by a British 1897 any day without a second thought (since the 1882 also has a straight grip that I'm not fond of anyway, but the blade is much worse, and the guard is a joke).
The original French Model 1882 is actually a good and functional weapon (apart from the guard, I give you that). I have one that was issued to my g-grandfather when he was field commissioned in WW I (Belgian 19th Regiment of the Line, I proudly say) and the thing was made for business. As a thrusting weapon, the blade is totally adequate. However, the later and present M 1882's are indeed only good for hanging on the wall.
@@sergelecluse0001 - I have two original 1882, and one non-regulation but apparently tolerated 1845-82 (the hilt of a 1845 on the blade of a 82). All are pre-WW1, and there is still variations. With such a rustic blade design, mostly created for ease of manufacture, it doesn't take much to have a significant effect on mass distribution and handling characteristics. Out of the three blades, two are quite nice, the third is a bit sluggish. Usable, but sluggish.
The problem with the 1882 is that you really don't have any cutting capacity, and given this design trait, a hollow triangular (smallsword/Préval) or something like the Lebel bayonet is much better. The general concept behind the 1882 blade has been copied from some Qama/Kindjal, which have a thinner and much wider blade, that are rather well designed cut&thrust short swords (or large daggers). But as a de facto pure thrusting blade, it's quite suboptimal, as it tries to retain edges that are bound to be useless by design.
The Toledo blade of the 1897 presented here makes more sense, as it retains some cutting ability. You don't expect to cleave skulls and lop off limbs, but at least the cross section lends itself to a reasonable edge bevel angle.
It’s clearly a weapon made by committee, and that’s fine. Just like a camel is a horse made by committee, doesn’t make it a bad thing.
It wasn't actually. See the linked article :-)
My only point of contention would be the blunt first half of the blade. I would have to have to dump the sword and scramble for a knife because someone gets past my guard (which can easily happen in a chaotic melee) and the portion of the blade against their body is the blunt edge. To answer your earlier question you make in the video, other than the spear, what all of those fighting blades you mentioned have that this thing doesn't is the ability to be used in very close quarters combat and grappling. They're nearly all essentially long daggers and are just at home nearer the guard/hilt as they are at the business end.
Could you do a video about the 1895 sword exercise manual? I gather it generate a fair bit of controversy at the time. Thanks.
Hey Matt, I saw you in this months BBC History magazine!
I know it would have been unreasonable to mass-produce at the time, but with modern tech you could have the inside (thumbside) half of a cup guard flush under the outside (backhand) cup and have it pop out around the hand with a switch-blade-like spring mechanism when you press a button with the thumb. Although if it got wet and grimy it might not work correctly, so it might backfire in actual war and leave you with a doubly-heavy backhand guard.
From 1892 on, didn’t every new British fighting weapon become thrust centric? I was going to say excluding firearms, but they are actually thrust weapons taken to extreme. But really what I mean is the 1892, 95, 97, the 1907 bayonet, the 1908 & 12 sabres, then the no.4’s pig sticker and obviously the FS dagger. Not a cutter between them.
Not quite, there was the 1896 cavalry officer's sword, the 1896 mountain artillery sword, various Indian service sabres, the 1899 pattern cavalry sword, the 1905 sergeant's sabre etc :-)
Now that swords are really only a dress item, I would have thought that it would look far better for the troopers/officers to be wearing the slightly curved (and possibly possessing a slightly wider range of functionality) 1821 pattern. These are MUCH better looking IMO. In fact, Matt. How about doing a proper functionality test; one on one, the 1821 pattern versus the 1897 pattern. Testing all aspects of usage - cut v thrust etc. I'd love to see the results of that. Maybe do a straw poll as well amongst your Hema group or whatever to see which they think is the best looking of the two?
'Tis a silly question. I think the real question would be; Why were all not made in the "piquet" variation? As few, if any ever saw actual military combat. Drunken quarrels, and many a rattling and waving indeed. Alas, a mere belt hanger, outmoded and deadly of course; but it's true nature; a facisimile (edited for politeness)... dangling participle...but military weapon? hardly. What do I know though, I am but a lowly subscriber, and huge fan. Keep'em coming my good man!
I got to handle an 1897 of the kind made for the South African army the other day. It was super comfy in the hand and moved like a dream.
The 1796 infantry sword was considered bad. The 1897 was considered bad.
I see a pattern here.
So is the 1998 sword bad ?
@@MrSam1er They realized that in time so they never made a 1998 pattern. Although some say that the 1998 pattern is a wallhanger.
have you always had the falx in the background?
Could you compare it to it's predecessor? I am interested if you think what they gave up in the cut was worth what they gained I the thrust.
Hello,
have you any informations where technical drawing/blueprints for this sword were aviable? I´d like to ask swordsmaker to forge replica usable for historical/scenic fencing. Thanks for any informations.
I think by 1897 it important to remember that its mostly a badge of office , if the officer has to kill someone they are more likely to order there men to use there guns and if that fails then there gun and only resort to the sword if the guns are disabled
I wonder how hard/easy it is to cut through thicker clothing with this type of blade. I have a feeling that despite the fact that you can cut with it, the "cutting potential" would force you to aim at exposed skin. Especially during winter when winter clothing is involved making it in practice a thrusting sword only. Although I imagine that cold environment wasn't something that the British had to worry about and thrusting would be preferable to deal with thick multilayered clothing anyway.
Yes, I agree that it stands little chance of cutting through layered clothing. Though remember that this sword was carried in parts of the Empire where the potential opponents didn't wear a lot of clothing.
By 1897 any sword is of limited combat value even in colonial wars, best to just shoot them with your .454! Someone needs to go to Sandhurst to study the level of training in swordmanship required at the time. Just because you are required to wear one does not mean you have any skill in using it. But, it is a nice looking weapon and that matters when cutting Wedding Cake.
Would this design be good for half swording?
Hey Matt! I was wondering if you knew about sword usage in the great war, obviously cavalry in the early war used swords but what about the infantry? Were swords used in the trenches? could make an interesting video topic.
7:22 But the primary purpose of this sword (now) is to be a ceremonial object.
Since this is a mass produced weapon (not in the millions but at least in the low thousands) it makes perfect sense for it to be right handed most of the people using it are right as they are the majority. While most left handers are so used to using right handed implements like scissors using a right handed sword isn't a major problem. I'm left handed but I always use scissors or a Tin Opener with my right hand as left handed scissors etc are usually more expensive pretty badly made. Even today the UK infantry rifle is right hand only as I know it only a little bit extra to make the weapon be both left and right handed in a war when your mass producing something and issuing it out on a large scale it's just not worth it as it also complicates the logistics train and us left handers are so used to doing things with our right that it's not an issue it might just take an extra hour of training I know I never had any issues shooting right handed when I was in the military. Even if they were a private purchase it doesn't really make economic sense for the shop to have both as only 1 in 10 of the customers would be left handed
billinColorado
I love your page I would like to see some videos on tulwars since been watching you i have really started like them. I have antique I found in a junk store and what a cutter plus the hilt design is amazing love to see some stuff on the design history and distribution British empire. lived this video
Cool video! My *ideal sword* would have a bit more cutting capacity, but I'd be more than happy defending myself with an 1897, I think. On guard asymmetry, have you seen many special-order swords with symmetrical guards?
What is a late Victorian British officer's primary weapon? The men under his command! 1897 is well into the era of mass-produced metallic cartridges and the weapons that fired them - at this time the Lee-Metford bolt-action for the ranks, and a variety of personal-purchase revolvers (and a few new semi-automatic pistols for early adopters!) for the officers. Swords were becoming more symbolic of an officer's rank, and thus less important as combat weapons by this time. Consider the battle of Omdurman in 1898 - a young Winston Churchill, attached to the 21st lancers (who had missed so many of the Victorian little colonial wars the army's nickname for them was 'thou shalt not kill'!) made a cavalry charge not with sword or lance, but with his brand-new Mauser C96 'broomhandle' semi-auto pistol - which in the excitement of the charge had forgotten to fire!
By the 2nd Boer War officers discovered that Boers armed with Mauser rifle were all too quick to shoot the fellows with swords and they were largely discarded in combat - so the design and utility of swords was really diminished by the time these swords were adopted.
Any opinions on the 1899 cavalry sabre?
How is it compared to the contemporary Swedish Sabel m/1893 that you reviewed recently?
I do wonder if rapier like thrusting swords came to be preferred, in part at least, because by the 1890s if you had to use a sword it would most likely be against someone with a rifle and bayonet, in which case trying to get in close enough to strike with the edge could be rather risky. Better to go point to point in that case?
Beautiful sword, as much as I enjoy a little more cut-oriented swords, it fulfills a role, described perfectly by Matt (thrust through thick clothing, incapacitate exposed fleshy bits and parry heavy weapons). I’d be more than happy to be given one of those to defend myself
A cut-oriented sword that is designed to be easy to carry? I might look into an Edo era katana or a sidesword if I feel it’s too weaboo.
@@martytu20 or a nice kriegsmesser ;)
M F I said easy to carry, not a measuring contest.
Ok then, a single handed messer 🤷🏻♂️
I have Indian chilanum dagger 16th century old
If you make left-hand side of that guard ticker and heavier, would that make it more balansed and symmetrical?
It is what it is. I almost pulled the trigger on one once upon a time even though I preferred the 1845 pattern hilt with saber blade the 1897's were a bit more affordable and usually in better condition due to age and higher abundance iirc. Still wish I did though as I don't think I've ever handled any 19th cen British swords.
What's with the big circle at the base of the blade on the left side?
was the thrust invented before the cut?
Just because it has imperfections (or compromises in the case of the guard), doesn't automatically make it rubbish. Sure, I think most people expect the entire edge to be sharpened but I see Matt's point that if you aren't cutting with the lower portion of the blade, it doesn't necessarily need to be sharp. And if think it's garbage just because it's a dedicated thrusting sword instead of being a good balance between cutting and thrusting, I would argue it's an indication of military doctrine of the time. Need another example, just look at bayonets over the years and see how they change. Personally I'm not a fan of spike bayonets but that's just me. For their time, they were what militaries thought were best.
Could you please do a video about the fencing system that was used with this pattern of thrusting sword, comparing it with the earlier system used with cut and thrust sabres if you have the time?
Personally, I think it should be sharpened at the forte to truly be a sword (or at least 3/4 the length), it may be a decent fighting weapon, the point of a sword compared to other weapons is that there should be more edge, even if there is a thrust focus. And yes, I prefer edged smallswords compared to the triangular ones as well. In reference to estocs, koncerz, and the like I class as hilted short spears/lances.
Great stuff! On a different topic. Any chance on a Matt point of view of Destreza?
I sure as hell hope not, the US basically stole the design for like sixty years
Good video. You've explained it perfectly. Though for me the guard is completely rubish. I hate unsimetrical guards. Can't talk for all but I like to be able to switch my sword between hands in combat and the more unsimetrical it is the harder if not imposible.
I mean the Mauser C96 came out a year earlier.
I infer that the real complaint is that that is not a good *general purpose* sword because it's not optimized for cutting.
Taking the opposite tack, is there such a thing as an optimal general purpose sword, from any country or culture? If not, how would you design such a sword?
Gladius?
@@_XR40_ We all know that Mr. Easton is a saber man... though he's lately been taken with some Chinese swords, and has considerable respect for other types of sword.
And yes, context maters- who will the sword be used against, what type of sword/shield/armor/skills do they have, what's the fighting environment like (room to swing etc.)?
My question is more about mot knowing that context- what kind of sword would you want for any situation?
Good video!
Is there a military cut and thrust sword with a symmetrical steel guard that you can't be stabbed through, and which also has this nice grip? I basically only know what I've learned from your videos in regards to military sabers and I may very well not remember correctly, but I'm under the impression that this kind of grip only came later, when blades tended to be more thrust-centric and guards were often asymmetric.
why was the ricasso so long?
In 1897 for infantry officer sword was just an item of the uniform, its quality doesn't matter
Review on modern/old Italian stiletto knifes daggers?
Hi Matt 🤺
It is an officers sword so it’s really just for sticking in the backs of soldiers who challenge orders.
We wouldn’t want them to put too much thought into a weapon used as such.
Officers use their men to fight the enemy and their sidearm to protect themselves from their own men.
That is why officers carry comparatively ineffective weapons such as pistols and dull crappy swords.
Knowing why an officer has a weapon is reason to give him one he will think twice about using.
I think you hit on it as maybe regulations, but don't officers make/buy their own sword? Why couldn't an officer buy a left handed version? Were they not allowed?
So, basically it’s a long hand-held bayonet with a guard. Pretty much what an infantry sword should be!
Make the Kingston arms sidesword review!
Honestly can't see anything wrong with that sword (as a regulation weapon)
I prefer meatier sabres but if I had to use this I wouldn't complain
you would if all of your enemies had better/beefier swords :D
That's because you never carried days on end a "meatier" sabre... you are forced to go onward or bad things will happen so the lighter the better in that regard, and it still does the trick
@@22ndaccountduetocensorship57 i would agree with you if in 1897 swords were the only weapons and would be long wars which none of them is true also weapons with a tougher blade isn't weight even marginally more
@@maszkalman3676 when I say meatier sabre I mean something like a 1796 light infantry sabre,
And that's from a HEMA perspective not a day to day military point of view
@@Matt_PunchEnthusiast_Morris ahh i see :D but for military purpsoes tougher the better...
What type of sword are these late period swords ? Rapiers ? Sabers ? An amalgamation of those ?
I think it's considered a sabre, but clarification from Matt would be great.
It's a sword. In British definition it is not a sabre (it's not primarily for cutting and not curved).
Stick 'em with the pointy end. Gets the job done.
"it's a point piece of metal"
perfect, looks a good weapon to me
If you can't cut down a small tree with it, it is just a short handled spear, or a long dirk, but rubbish as a sword. Piercing is important, but only half the story. You need it to be able to lop off an opponent's hand at the elbow or foot at the knee.
That is the Cut and Thrust of it...
The first question that needs to be asked is what was the sword for?
Strangely enough, an infsntry officer’s sword was NOT for fighting. Officers were not expected to get into fights. Their job was to direct the actions of their men. Their sword was a symbol of their offer statusand a device for pointing with. As such, the 1897 pattern sword was perfect for the task.
also really good at pointing at things like were the enemy are
@@jonsouth1545
"Their sword was a symbol of their offer statusand a device for pointing with"
Fifth sentence of my post, with the poor spelling and everything.
By the dawn of the 20th century it seems unlikely that anyone seriously expected an infantry officer to use his sword as an actual combat weapon. I'd imagine it was little more that a badge of rank at that point.
You'd think that, but the British Army actually had to issue a direct order in 1915 to ban officers from carrying their swords into battle as they were losing too many to sniper fire drawn by all these conspicuous swords hanging off their belts or being waved to encourage their men. However it is also important to note that Army Order 68 only applied to the European Theatre and that in more remote colonial theatres, swords were more likely to be used where resources were limited and the enemy lacked modern firepower.
I own a1897 Infantry and a 1796 light cavalry sword.and a cold steel repro 1796. Yeah I know this is off topic but if I had a bunch of ... Zombies or QAnon Commandos busting into my home I would go to the 1796 every time even over high quality Katanas. The 1796 was a the high point of British sword.
Indeed, I own several 1796 LCS's and love them all, but, for combat unmounted I prefer the 1803 if you want to cut, or the 1821 which is cut and thrust and nimble.
What you would probably love is the 1796 LCS bladed sabre for Indian Native Horse which reintroduced the lovely blade but with increased hand protection and also a wooden scabbard to keep the edge sharp.
I believe Mr Easton has made a video on them.