I'm surprised that Matt didn't say it was because sabers were bigger, thicker, stiffer and had greater stamina and delivered more vigorous and satisfying penetration.
Keep in mind that some people prefer deeper penetration over width of penetration. The most satisfying penetration would optimally have both, but to handle such a sword properly would require strong posture, proper point alignment and minimal resistance through the target.
Some additional points: Having the best of both worlds (width _and_ depth of penetration) would also finish off the opponent faster but more importantly, it would be more incapacitating. Another advantage would be the demoralization of members of the opponents team. The sight of such massive penetration and the sounds their team member's cries would surely deter many of them.
I don't really care that much about swords, just that I love it when someone is so obsessively enthusiastic about something like this guy is about melee weapons, that itself makes the topic interesting
I imagine the basket hilted broadsword stayed popular in Scotland for the same reason. Big heavy blade that can stand up to a bayonet equipped infantryman.
I think a sabre is more intuitive to use, especially under life and death pressure. Hacking, slashing and punching are actions that seem to come more naturally than fine subtle technique. Smash the enemy, don't poke him.
ปีที่แล้ว +17
that is big truth. Even when under pressure and without sufficient training, your animal instict can kick in and you can swing sabre hard enough to always do some damage or scare enemy. With stabby swords, their use is but more nuanced and requires more focus, training and finesse.
@@blacklight4720because the Gladius is primarily a stabbing weapon. I don’t agree with the previous commenter though. Legionnaires were highly trained and the pro of instinctual behaviour wouldn’t have played a role in any of their decisions.
@@a1175779 the roman gladius is a short sword though stabbing with a short sword would have been as much intuitive as stabbing with a dagger, which again could have been intuitively figured out from uppercut, hook & jab - how an random guy could throw a punch (not counting reverse grip stabs) a longer blade like a rapier, or even a two-handed blade like a longsword, on the other hand, does requires more finesse & focus to maneuver its tip into the target
Don’t forget that up until 1786 British and other European officers also carried a spontoon polearm, both as a badge of rank and to assist in signalling to their men. If you’re walking around with a 6ft polearm, you’re going to want to keep any additional sidearms as light and unobtrusive as possible. For this, hunting hangers and smallswords make a lot of sense.
@@bryanreed1328 At first, during the early-mid 18th century, Sergeants had Halberds while Officers had Spontoons. Later only Sergeants carried polearms.
By the mid 18th century is was normal for sergeants to carry muskets when on actual campaign and company level officers to not carry polearms and in some cases, most commonly in light infantry carry muskets like the men. Polearms for company officers and sergeants is something that makes perfect sense in peacetime and looks good. but is less practical in the field.
@@thomasbaagaard On the British side, the American Revolution marked the end of the spontoon for officers. They were found to be too cumbersome for the kind of terrain and forest they were fighting in. It was even remarked upon in the reports how the returning officers stood at review without their spontoons. This is when the 1786 regulation came in dropping it in favor of a straight bladed sword (blade 31 inches long and no less than 1 inch wide, with hilt to match the buttons of the uniform).
I think a point that often gets overlooked is that in the 18th century officers from Lieutenant to Captain in European armies were expected to perform their duties a polearm of some description such as a spontoon. It's well attested to in the American Revolutionary War too. I would feel very confident fighting off someone rudely trying to interrupt my business with thrusts from a bayonet or cuts from hanger when armed with a spontoon. It's when carrying a polearm started falling out of fashion for officers that naturally we see sabres start to predominate.
Fantastic subject! I’m reminded of Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin series. In the novels Royal Navy Captain Jack Aubrey was described as favoring a Cavalry sabre when fighting boarding actions.
I'd guess that cavalry had greater social standing, plus sabres caused incapacitating wounds sooner (stabby won't stop an opponent soon enough), and the sabre allows a follow-through to a new opponent when a stabby gets stuck for a short while.
Cavalry used both, thrust and cut weapons depending on the time and country. The French cuirassiers and dragoons, arguably the best heavy cavalry in Western Europe of the time used a heavy thrust sword that was a poor cutter. The light cavalry, who’s role was scouting, shoot and scoot, mobile artillery, or baggage train guards were the ones who typically used the curved sabres. Lancers of course used the lance and curved sabre. Going back further in time, Eastern European cavalry used the lance, the estoc (a sword that was more lance than sword) and the sabre.
@@BlueandGilt indeed, hence perhaps copying the light cavalry, as the heavy's sword was not as well suited to melee (as opposed to charge). Giving some of the panache of cavalry appearance whilst retaining or enhancing combat ability.
id love to see more videos on how you teach the use of saber/ spadroon and if you have changed what or how you teach over time as well as what is the difference between someone that is competent vs a master/
Would the fact that an officer would not know what environment he will be using his sword in when he leaves on campaign be a big factor. He would have to consider fighting in a large melee in an open field, a skirmish in a woods, being ambushed and taking part in seiges and storming fortifications ( and a lot more scenarios, and lots of different weather and lighting conditions). So he may he face a number of different weapons, in a number of differnet environments in a number of different scenarios. So surely the versatility of the weapon be very important.
I would love to see a video on why shields don't appear to be used in early musket warfare. I have to imagine that steel-on-hardwood would make an effective shield wall from behind which riflemen could shoot? Particularly in the days of two armies standing there facing each other.
Muskets are two handed weapons. Since you can't use a musket and a shield at the same time, armies probably opted for more firepower. In addition, the shield had already been mostly gone from the battlefield for a good while by the Napoleonic era as pikes had dominated before arquebuses came into play.
@@Vergilius78 Do pikes cancel shields? I thought that the pike/spear with shield wall in front was a 'thing' pretty much always. And that's what I had in mind - different people holding the shields than who are firing the muskets.
@alexparadi, you thought like some successful commanders in history. I cannot remember for sure if it was a Swedish king/general who armed his units as a mix of pike and musket or if it was in the Balkens (maybe both). Whoever it was changed how cavalry was used at the time, pikemen held them off whilst the muskets killed them off.
@Vergilius spot on as well. Armour got better and better and polearms used in 2 hands became the best option in combat. Hence less shield use. But it didn't go completely. A Spanish king had units of pike, musket and sword+shield men. Muskets killed those out of reach Pikes held off and killed as combat was joined and then these sword and shield guys defended and fought between/underneath the pikes where guys were sneaking under with close combat weapons
As Matt says British soldiers fought less sophisticated enamies, i.e shield carrying opponents in South Africa, Afghanistan and India. Enough so that new ways of using sabres were required. Hutton and Maffey taught how to use an infantryman sabre, (shorter than cavalry sabre) in the style of 16th century side sword ( modern term) which was a cut and thrust form, control space with cuts whilst dishing out lethal accurate thrusts (and cuts), aimed at small gaps in the armour, mid battle during the chaos of combat. (Matt has a couple videos about this). Anyone who believes thrusts don't stop an opponent dead in his tracks haven't had a sword rammed in your fencing mask as you are stepping forward. Those early Italian masters who got it down on paper were also teaching polearms, long swords, sword and shield etc so their sword style had to be able to fight against them on the battlefield.
I personally think id rather stick with a spardoon or backsword as im not the biggest fan of curved blades, i don't think the additional cutting coefficient is really worth it over the simplicity and versatility of a straight blade
Remember that European Fencing is three types of weapons; the Foil/Rapir, saber, and Epee. The foil was originally a rapir with a tip welded to it so it would not injure the opponent. I own a 17th century Foil, in fact it is the thick base that would have been used in the battle field, and not for in town defense, or dueling, the thinner based. A short sword, could be made many different ways, from tipped. like the rapir, to single edged, like the saber, to the double edged like many types of the broadsword. Some also had effective weight and/strength to defend against muskets and other longer weapons. I would not take a rapir into battle, but there were many that did. In fact one of the Kings of England was killed by a rapir in battle, by getting the rip between the plates of the heavier armor, and thrusting it into him. This was the only way to use a rapir against plate mail, as it was not strong enough to puncture the metal, although it could get through chain and leather as well as clothing. A short sword has many advantages, in that it is faster, and more agile to longer or heavier weapons. With the American Indians, they used the axe which was both lighter than the European equivalent and gave the same advantage. All weapons have pluses and minuses, and looking at them with the overly broad view you have, is not based in overall reality. A longer sword gives you reach, but is slower. Both longer and shorter swords can parry most weapons, but remember there wear some longer swords that were very thin and not able to parry many weapons as well.
There was, I'm told, also an element of glamour associated with carrying sabers, thanks to the cavalry, and a lot of officers who weren't assigned sabers as part of their gear would strut around headquarters with them anyway. But I'd love to hear more from your perspective about "hangers," one of these days: I've always liked these kinds of one-edged, utilitarian tool/swords, which sound like what I'd have preferred as a backup weapon myself.
The French categorized the Sabre as any type of blade onto a Sabre hilt. It's the hilt in France that determined if it's a Sabre or not. You can have a triangular Smallsword blade on a Sabre hilt and it's a Sabre. England categorized I think Sabers by the blade type. A curved blade of some kind. The French also had curved swords too. The Briquet. The English would call a Briquet potentially a Hanger. Because it's short. Saber is English. Sabre is French. The French also had the 1822 Light Cavalry Sabre as well. Which was curved. That's why you see straight swords categorized as a Sabre. Because it's on a Sabre hilt. If all I had was a Smallsword and my opponent has a musket I could use my left hand to grab the rifle and then thrust with the Smallsword. They have their hands full. I have a free hand. I would not block with a Smallsword. I'd evade. Then thrust. Evasion of a blade is a better option than trying to block it.
Yeah, you can be incredibly impressive organised in an official duel with a small sword/rapier type weapon against a single opponent, especially when its a kind of nimble dance in a reasonably wide, flat, open area. Battlefields *aren't* optimal dueling locales, however. They're loud, smokey, muddy, full of enemies, and occasionally on fire. What I love about this is the slow, steady evolution over time from the nimble duelist archetype - the sword you *want* to be seen with - through to the practical, foreign-lookin' curved blade, the weapon of a common rascal. More or less at the same time that Britain (especially) and Europe (in general) are moving from a not-quite-feudal society towards a modern-day democracy. Whatever works best will win out. =)
Welllll..... It's likely best not to become too much of a Middle East-o-phile just yet. Curved swords were known long before European military aristocracies and Middle Eastern military aristocricies began to "rub elbows" on battlefields to any great extent.. Th ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites, Amorites, Moabites, Persians, Israelites, Greeks, Celt-Iberians, Roman's, Phoenicians, etc, etc, etc. All knew how to fabricate curved swords, daggers, and knives. At first, from bronze...then iron...then steel. So too did the ancient Chinese. And a lot of the military practices and technological advances that the Middle East and Europe took up and ran with all the way into the 19th century? Disseminated out of China. And that chain of dissemination didn't just begin or end with China. Sometimes , technological or military developments would originate in China....and make its way West to Europe and/or into the Middle East....to be FURTHUR developed and refined....then make their way BACK to China to either be utilized, get even furthur refined,...or? Get totally forgotten about because the Chinese or later...the Mongols would examine these things, compare it to what they already had, then maybe toss it aside, deciding that they weren't any better or didn't work as "advertised". So the premise that the Middle East was THE harbinger of development for the West? Isn't exactly based on solidity. Both West, Middle East, and Far East were at various times melting points and boiling cauldrons for multitudes of various races and cultures. Each developing, using, trading, and spreading technological developments and military developments. Such is and has always been the way of migratory, fluidic, humanity.
@@ravenrise320 - The US marine corp literally uses a Mameluke scimitar in their ceremonies, and western colonial armies exactly copied Persian, Arab, and Indian Talwar/Pulwar/Shamshir/Scimitar designs. Not only that, but the exact style you find in colonial Europe were those that many eastern empires were using before the mongol invasion. It’s not being a “Middle East-o-Phile”, it’s a fact.
@@RevRaptor898 Ottoman Forging and Damascus steel. We could do this all day. Europe didn’t invent the curved blade, all evidence collectively agrees it wasn’t just and eastern thing, but was adopted by Europe after Europeans would lost hand to hand combat engagements to a better weapon design. You’re coping.
Matt, you should do a few videos on A&E's series for Horatio Hornblower. Would love to see British historian analyze a story about an up and coming young man in the British navy during the early 19th century.
The question shouldn't be which weapon is better, but which weapon you're better with. I'm decent enough with a sabre, but if I get into a fight with a particularly skilled smallsworder, I'm probably going to end up with some extra holes where I didn't want them.
An interesting followup to this would something on the last fighting swords of 1890 to 1913. My understanding is that everyone decided that slashing an opponent usually didn't disable him because of heavy woolen tunics, etc, so all the European powers when to long straight swords for thrusting. The last was the "Patton" cavalry saber M1913. Of course, the Maxim gun was being released at that time and swords became an anachronism, but that final evolution of swords across western armies is rarely talked about.
Its hard to understate when reading period texts, journals etc the impact of the "elan" of the Hussar during the period. To wit the fashion was 'set' for Sabre usage anyway. The spadroon point would seem to suggest that it would have been a good choice. However the ability to skirmish with a sabre was clearly advantageous as well as fashionable - in period receiving a good cut might be enough to enable you to 'retire' form the field of battle with valour intact, a scar to show and your courage proven and this too may have worked in the favour of the sabre. In context Id like to see sabre drills vs spear/bayonet vs spadroon spear/bayonet the weight differences seem negligible so fashion (which can be downplayed) and the true hand to hand nature of battlefield melee I think favoured the Sabre. Indeed the cross cut with sabre would suggest a lot of utility against a bayonet thrust?
The cutting edge of a curved blade also digs deeper into the cloth and the flesh of an opponent than the cutting edge of a straight weapon, with blows of a similar force. This is due to the angle of the cut and the slashing motion of the edge while in contact. A well-sharpened saber can cut a limb right off, and definitely desolidify a head. Cavalry officers had sabers earlier because of their defensive advantage, while on the saddle, through parrying with an arc of protection. But the cutting aspect was also an advantage known from the age of scimitars. Cavalry wounds with sabers were horrific, often across the face.
As a professional warhound on this modern age I would argue that a modern make sabre would still have merit in a CQB environment of today's combat in a few circumstances especially if one is wearing ballistic rated armour
I'm glad that you mentioned the comparison between the saber and the smallsword, because I was wondering about that. I am a bit surprised that they are evenly matched, as I would have expected an advantage to the saber. But I think you are correct that most of the time, an officer might be fighting someone with a very different piece of equipment than another officer with a sword. At any rate, the saber looks much cooler than the smallsword! There might have been a bit of a style thing going on, especially since the curved wide blade resembles the Egyptian and Middle Eastern blades?
Very interesting. Having handled several 1803 pattern sabres I can only say I wouldn't want to be up against an opponent with a cavalry sabre. The two are worlds apart. Indeed the 1803p was only marginally better than smallsword I suspect, especially given woolen clothing etc.
When I think of sabres I think of cavalry. Could there have been an element of keeping up with the Joneses with infantry officers wanting kit like the cavalry were using?
Wellington's Light Bobs carried sword bayonets which were longer than the traditional bayonet and attached them to their rifles at the order of 'Fix Swords!' Cuirassiers didn't like them at all.
Matt, please, could you possibly take into account that sabre, especially as a horse weapon in 16th century Hungary, Poland, Muskovite tsardom and the Steppe, long before your ancestor began to experiment with the dussack/hanger?
An officer’s saber being utilized as a weapon against enemy personnel had a pretty short window in history, probably 1800-1850 at the most. By the American Civil War, edged weapon wounds inflicted by swords in pitched battle were essentially unheard of, save for maybe a few anecdotal instances.
In France at least, you may had that officers in the napoleonic era have changed. They are not anymore trained from childhood to use a small sword. They come from the ranks and a saber may be easier to master.
Matt, now that you've talked about sabers vs. things like small swords and spadroons, what about why some or many infantry officers adopted cavalry savers over regulation swords with similar builds to cavalry sabers but with straight blades. Was it just fashion or was there a particular reason some infantry officers preferred a curved cavalry sword over a straight bladed infantry sword?
I'm pretty sure that Napoleon's and Nelson's foray into Egypt and the others into indo-persia has a lot to do with the sudden popularity of sabers. It's not that officers suddenly became less gentlemanly so they stoped using the small word in favor of a more grounded fighting mans saber. It's just what became extremely prestigious and fashionable to wear was an 'orientale' saber, like a Mameluke sword, as more of a fashion statement, to be seen as the gentlemen adventure solider, it has an air mystique...but as it goes, eventually they stared to put a western spin on it....and the 18th centaury military saber is born. I find it hard to believe the reason is so utilitarian and practical, that officers had to get of their asses and after frolicing in on the sidelines, while the common soldiery were doing the fighting , in the later 18th centaury they had to actually use their weapons, so they diched the "fancy dulling sword" for a fighting mans sword. additionally if officers wearing small sword as a side weapon were such big dandies who never actually fought, why were Spontoons and similar polearms used in the early 18th centaury by infantry officers?
Why didn't officers ever carry a short spear into battle? You can get it made light and super fancy (could be used one or two handed on horseback or on foot), you can point with it, it's faster than a musket + bayonet with a reach advantage over swords.
A fight in a battle is not a duel. What most officers will be trying to do is stay alive, not to kill the enemy as the immediate objective. The sabre can be flailed about keeping the naughty people away from you whist the small sword/spadroon leaves me open to enemies other than the nasty man you are poking with a sharp stick.
I suppose that links to two facts. First - that cavalry was using mainly sabers through the age, so they just take up the blades that was already there, rather then find something new. Second - curved saber blade is arguably better against people with no armor, but rather heavy clothing, belts etc.
Not yet reached the end, but I'm going to guess that one reason is, that, although sticking 6" of steel into someone's torso is going to kill them *it will take a while*. Sticking someone with a lethal wound isn't very satisfying if they also stick you. Aim has to be to disable people more than kill them.
The more I hear about smallswords, the more it feels like it was such a specialized weapon for a specific purpose and culture that it didn't actually have much use outside of that context (civilian dueling). Is this unfair to the smallsword? If the saber is as good as the smallsword even in a duel (which is what it is for), is there practically any reason at all to use one apart from fashian (and I guess maybe ease of wear)?
"Is this unfair to the smallsword?" Yes. Because the idea that smallsword only went up against smallswords is a lie that I'm surprised Matt still kind of peddles. Between the 1680's 1740's the smallsword was carried in daily wear by certain classes and it was not only a duelling weapon but a *self defence weapon too*. You see, the manuals up to 1740's have techniques of smallsword vs sabre, smallsword vs rapiers, smallsword vs staves, smallsword vs knives, smallsword vs pikes, and in one manuals case, -smallsword vs flail!. It was common for smallsword to be involved in all manner of back-alley altercations. But after 1740's smallswords start to be being carried less and quite frankly either used for just for leisure or duels, which is where this misconception that it only fought other smallswords comes in. In the later manuals many of the "smallsword vs (X-weapon)" techniques, disappear and smallswords tend to only to be used for duels (and sometimes not even then,,, pistols) But otherwise Matts points stand: In a military campaign you simply need something more robust with a bit of heft. The questions is not why the smallsword was supplanted by the sabre, but why its took so long for it to be supplanted.
A master swordsman with a small sword hardly stands a chance against someone with basic bayonet training, even burying a small sword through their heart won't keep the other guys forward momentum from stabbing you, too
Bottom line - the choices made to transition from small swords to sabres were rational decisions by people who knew what they were fighting with and against, even if the 'why' of that fighting might have been more difficult to fully understand.
One would imagine that a smallsword might not have enough stopping power either? On a battlefield with people worked up and flooded with adrenaline, poking a tiny and very dangerous hole in them might not stop them _right now_.
It's also worth mentioning that in a tight melee a saber can deliver an effective draw- or pushcut against a hand or neck at much closer distances than a smallsword. You see the same design considerations on naval swords.
There probably was a cultural component for this shift as, in the 19th century, common soldiers gradually started being seen not as ruffians and riff-raff only good to be bossed around, but as protectors of the realm. Brandon F did an episode on this a while ago, I recommend it. Part of the change meant that Officers (especially Junior Officers, directly leading their men) wanted to set a personal example of bravery, leadership, and sharing the risks with their men, which meant equipping more similar, combat-worthy weapons, rather than symbolic weapons designed as a status symbol to separate them from the common soldier.
Is makes a ton of sense to me from a human psychology perspective. We're talking about a span of several decades here, meaning we've got "generations" of officers - and what younger generation of the upper class *hasn't* decided to distinguish themselves from their stuffy, gentile predecessors by affecting the rugged panache of the everyman?
I think it could also be in some small degree a fashion statement. The Mameluke sabres / Ottoman Kilij and similar were becoming really popular in Western Europe around the turn of the 1800's and the success of Hussar regiments which typically used sabres was making them the most admired/respected units in many armies. In other words, sabres were cool! Edit: As you mentioned in the video, the smallsword was the mark of an officer and to some degree a fashion statement more than a tool of war. The cultural popularity of the sabre could have served some of the same purpose!
I really think you nailed it at 11:23 in your video, a dead opponent 30 seconds from now does not mean that your opponent is still not a lethal threat immediately. This is where saber really outshines smallsword, as it has the ability to inflict immeditatly debilitating hits to a opponent that take them out of the fight, unlike smallsword.
Indeed. It's not intended for duels or 1:1 fighting. It's intended to keep you alive in a melee. A lethal stab that is effective at killing a single opponent is no good if you're unprotected whilst you're recovering from stabbing them, and get killed by their comrades. A slash that doesn't kill, but discourages or wounds is better if you can recover as the press of fighting probably means that both of you are likely to then have to consider new threats.
@jeffantonson2304 I am not sure. I have studied the military in the American South West, and Infantry avoided horses when they could for logistical reasons. Horses needed grain, water, and silage . Plus, they couldn't be driven for extended periods of time. Essentially, cavalry was a sprinter while Infantry was a marathon runner.
@@Malignard You are wrong - officers needed to move around quickly to assess the situations and issue commands (and to flee battle to fight another day). Officer on foot would be totally ineffective.
@@Kamamura2 except that most officers did not need to get somewhere in a hurry. They only needed to command their company. And that was normally done on foot. Generalizing about 200 years of warfare you can generally say that company level officers (when part of a battalion+ force) did not have horses and battalion level officers and above did.
This is a solid video. I appreciate that you note how the smallsword is an effective weapon in unarmored single combat. While I consider rapiers, longer one-handed blades like George Silver's "short sword," & longswords as superior for that purpose, the smallsword surpasses all other sidearms in 1v1 efficiency. At a weight of around a pound & a convenient moderate length, you get a weapon that can hold its own against any other sidearm. One little quibble is that the firearms of the period could weigh a bit more than 8-9lbs, especially with a bayonet attached. Some pushed passed 11lbs. 8-9lbs is also rather heavier than most extant pollaxes, the majority of which fall into the 5-7lb range. There are far more surviving two-handed swords in the 8-9lb range than there are surviving pollaxes.
As an experienced hiker, normally I'm a huge proponent of the lightest equipment possible. Wars and battles are rare, melee combat is even more rare. But something about the smallsword and spadroon has always brothered me and I'd rather carry any almost other one handed sword. I'm shocked they weren't entirely confined to rear echelon officers after word of their very first encounter with bayonets got out.
Probably part of the reason for that is that Aubrey is a big, strong man who would be a natural fit for a bigger, heavier weapon. His counterpart, Stephen Maturin, is described as a deadly duelist with a fencing foil, however.
I think main reason is necessity to fight multiple opponents at same time. Thrusting has big problem. After you got good hit into enemy body fisrt you need to pull out the sword and again stub. That's in situation with multiple opponents is death. While sabre can give good cut and allow you to continue atack and cut again and again keeping other opponents at least away. And seeing whide sabre flying in front of your face for ordinary soldiers is more terrifiing than a "aristocratic toothpick" which will take time to pull out if it will not get stuck between ribs.
im surprised saber + parry dagger wasn't a common load out they work so well together. a daggers lighter and takes up less space, then a buckler with the option to catch n bind the weapon, as well as deflect. if it becomes a really tight grapple in a trench the dagger fits that tight space.
@@stevenmike1878 shield kr buckler takes a lot of place, inconvenient and very visible and can cause questions about standard outfit. Plus size and weight of normal rondal is very heavy. At least it doesn't stop musket. I think two pistols with sabre are better in close combat. About dagger. Dagger is for thrust sabre for cut. Try to drow circle with one hand and at the same time a square with another hand)
It's easy for us to lose sight of how different officers and regular troops were in the past. Today, at least in the West, even people who have only been in for a year or two are considered "professionals". In addition to the practical reasons you pointed out here, I think this period is the start of the societal shift around this idea.
Very interesting as usual. I would imagine that junior officers half expecting to need to fight would choose a sabre. Close Quarters Combat back then could be a messy, tangled affair with multiple opponents and comrades in a small area, a thrust sword is too limited - with a sabre or hanger you can get a half hit and do damage, push and pull cut, stab, use the extra weight and whack them with the back of the blade - no style points but effective.
I kinda love how when firearms were introduces into widespread warfare, swords(specifically slashing focused swords)went from situation at best to the prefered melee sidearm
I wondered if it had anything to do with Sabres being the weapon of the dashing cavalryman, and that becoming more fashionable than the infantry officer's smallsword. I have no evidence for this (perhaps those more knowledgable can mention evidence for or against) but i have the impression that gentlemanly duelling leaned more towards sabre, either because returning cavalry officers were familiar with it, or because they were more exciting and desirable to imitate in high society than foot officers.
Could the switch to sabers occur as infantry officers on horseback may’ve had to defend themselves against charging cavalry armed with sabers? That was after all the golden age of cavalry, so to speak. I would think that a thrusting weapon such as a small sword is far less effective, if used in fighting on horseback against a saber-armed cavalryman specifically. Just a theory.
“Because they are heavier” makes sense. But why curved instead of straight ? Broadswords are heavy AND thrust easier. They could have just simplified the basket hilt. But didn’t. Why ???
I'm surprised that Matt didn't say it was because sabers were bigger, thicker, stiffer and had greater stamina and delivered more vigorous and satisfying penetration.
Keep in mind that some people prefer deeper penetration over width of penetration. The most satisfying penetration would optimally have both, but to handle such a sword properly would require strong posture, proper point alignment and minimal resistance through the target.
On the other hand, some people are packing daggers. It’s not the size it’s where you put it.
A one word answer would leave it a very short video
Some additional points:
Having the best of both worlds (width _and_ depth of penetration) would also finish off the opponent faster but more importantly, it would be more incapacitating. Another advantage would be the demoralization of members of the opponents team. The sight of such massive penetration and the sounds their team member's cries would surely deter many of them.
@@victorro8760 Would it fill the enemy with feelings of inadequacy causing them to flee the field suffering terribly from "Sabre Envy"?
I don't really care that much about swords, just that I love it when someone is so obsessively enthusiastic about something like this guy is about melee weapons, that itself makes the topic interesting
That's actually the trait of a good learner. It's not the info you search for but you can get into it for the sake of knowledge.
I imagine the basket hilted broadsword stayed popular in Scotland for the same reason. Big heavy blade that can stand up to a bayonet equipped infantryman.
I think a sabre is more intuitive to use, especially under life and death pressure. Hacking, slashing and punching are actions that seem to come more naturally than fine subtle technique. Smash the enemy, don't poke him.
that is big truth. Even when under pressure and without sufficient training, your animal instict can kick in and you can swing sabre hard enough to always do some damage or scare enemy. With stabby swords, their use is but more nuanced and requires more focus, training and finesse.
The Romans would bid to differ
@@a1175779Why would they?
@@blacklight4720because the Gladius is primarily a stabbing weapon.
I don’t agree with the previous commenter though. Legionnaires were highly trained and the pro of instinctual behaviour wouldn’t have played a role in any of their decisions.
@@a1175779 the roman gladius is a short sword though
stabbing with a short sword would have been as much intuitive as stabbing with a dagger,
which again could have been intuitively figured out from uppercut, hook & jab - how an random guy could throw a punch (not counting reverse grip stabs)
a longer blade like a rapier, or even a two-handed blade like a longsword, on the other hand, does requires more finesse & focus to maneuver its tip into the target
Don’t forget that up until 1786 British and other European officers also carried a spontoon polearm, both as a badge of rank and to assist in signalling to their men. If you’re walking around with a 6ft polearm, you’re going to want to keep any additional sidearms as light and unobtrusive as possible. For this, hunting hangers and smallswords make a lot of sense.
Thought that was for Sergeants
@@bryanreed1328 At first, during the early-mid 18th century, Sergeants had Halberds while Officers had Spontoons. Later only Sergeants carried polearms.
By the mid 18th century is was normal for sergeants to carry muskets when on actual campaign and company level officers to not carry polearms and in some cases, most commonly in light infantry carry muskets like the men.
Polearms for company officers and sergeants is something that makes perfect sense in peacetime and looks good. but is less practical in the field.
@@thomasbaagaard On the British side, the American Revolution marked the end of the spontoon for officers. They were found to be too cumbersome for the kind of terrain and forest they were fighting in. It was even remarked upon in the reports how the returning officers stood at review without their spontoons. This is when the 1786 regulation came in dropping it in favor of a straight bladed sword (blade 31 inches long and no less than 1 inch wide, with hilt to match the buttons of the uniform).
I think a point that often gets overlooked is that in the 18th century officers from Lieutenant to Captain in European armies were expected to perform their duties a polearm of some description such as a spontoon. It's well attested to in the American Revolutionary War too. I would feel very confident fighting off someone rudely trying to interrupt my business with thrusts from a bayonet or cuts from hanger when armed with a spontoon.
It's when carrying a polearm started falling out of fashion for officers that naturally we see sabres start to predominate.
Fantastic subject! I’m reminded of Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin series. In the novels Royal Navy Captain Jack Aubrey was described as favoring a Cavalry sabre when fighting boarding actions.
Hello !
Interesting as usual, especially for those of us who use napoleonic sabers in our HEMA courses :)
Fantastic video,mate. Very informative and interesting to listen to. Awesome t-shirt.
I'd guess that cavalry had greater social standing, plus sabres caused incapacitating wounds sooner (stabby won't stop an opponent soon enough), and the sabre allows a follow-through to a new opponent when a stabby gets stuck for a short while.
Cavalry used both, thrust and cut weapons depending on the time and country. The French cuirassiers and dragoons, arguably the best heavy cavalry in Western Europe of the time used a heavy thrust sword that was a poor cutter. The light cavalry, who’s role was scouting, shoot and scoot, mobile artillery, or baggage train guards were the ones who typically used the curved sabres. Lancers of course used the lance and curved sabre. Going back further in time, Eastern European cavalry used the lance, the estoc (a sword that was more lance than sword) and the sabre.
@@BlueandGilt indeed, hence perhaps copying the light cavalry, as the heavy's sword was not as well suited to melee (as opposed to charge). Giving some of the panache of cavalry appearance whilst retaining or enhancing combat ability.
Now that you mention it, my fencing Epee has a very similar design to a small sword, both in “blade” and hilt
Again, very interesting. Thanks Mr. Easton!⚔️
id love to see more videos on how you teach the use of saber/ spadroon and if you have changed what or how you teach over time as well as what is the difference between someone that is competent vs a master/
Would the fact that an officer would not know what environment he will be using his sword in when he leaves on campaign be a big factor. He would have to consider fighting in a large melee in an open field, a skirmish in a woods, being ambushed and taking part in seiges and storming fortifications ( and a lot more scenarios, and lots of different weather and lighting conditions). So he may he face a number of different weapons, in a number of differnet environments in a number of different scenarios.
So surely the versatility of the weapon be very important.
Good discussion Matt! Thank you for sharing
I would love to see a video on why shields don't appear to be used in early musket warfare. I have to imagine that steel-on-hardwood would make an effective shield wall from behind which riflemen could shoot? Particularly in the days of two armies standing there facing each other.
Muskets are two handed weapons. Since you can't use a musket and a shield at the same time, armies probably opted for more firepower. In addition, the shield had already been mostly gone from the battlefield for a good while by the Napoleonic era as pikes had dominated before arquebuses came into play.
@@Vergilius78 Do pikes cancel shields? I thought that the pike/spear with shield wall in front was a 'thing' pretty much always.
And that's what I had in mind - different people holding the shields than who are firing the muskets.
@alexparadi, you thought like some successful commanders in history. I cannot remember for sure if it was a Swedish king/general who armed his units as a mix of pike and musket or if it was in the Balkens (maybe both). Whoever it was changed how cavalry was used at the time, pikemen held them off whilst the muskets killed them off.
@Vergilius spot on as well. Armour got better and better and polearms used in 2 hands became the best option in combat. Hence less shield use. But it didn't go completely. A Spanish king had units of pike, musket and sword+shield men. Muskets killed those out of reach Pikes held off and killed as combat was joined and then these sword and shield guys defended and fought between/underneath the pikes where guys were sneaking under with close combat weapons
As Matt says British soldiers fought less sophisticated enamies, i.e shield carrying opponents in South Africa, Afghanistan and India. Enough so that new ways of using sabres were required. Hutton and Maffey taught how to use an infantryman sabre, (shorter than cavalry sabre) in the style of 16th century side sword ( modern term) which was a cut and thrust form, control space with cuts whilst dishing out lethal accurate thrusts (and cuts), aimed at small gaps in the armour, mid battle during the chaos of combat. (Matt has a couple videos about this). Anyone who believes thrusts don't stop an opponent dead in his tracks haven't had a sword rammed in your fencing mask as you are stepping forward. Those early Italian masters who got it down on paper were also teaching polearms, long swords, sword and shield etc so their sword style had to be able to fight against them on the battlefield.
I personally think id rather stick with a spardoon or backsword as im not the biggest fan of curved blades, i don't think the additional cutting coefficient is really worth it over the simplicity and versatility of a straight blade
🍻Your videos are a wonderful combination of academic and practical information.
Remember that European Fencing is three types of weapons; the Foil/Rapir, saber, and Epee. The foil was originally a rapir with a tip welded to it so it would not injure the opponent. I own a 17th century Foil, in fact it is the thick base that would have been used in the battle field, and not for in town defense, or dueling, the thinner based. A short sword, could be made many different ways, from tipped. like the rapir, to single edged, like the saber, to the double edged like many types of the broadsword. Some also had effective weight and/strength to defend against muskets and other longer weapons. I would not take a rapir into battle, but there were many that did. In fact one of the Kings of England was killed by a rapir in battle, by getting the rip between the plates of the heavier armor, and thrusting it into him. This was the only way to use a rapir against plate mail, as it was not strong enough to puncture the metal, although it could get through chain and leather as well as clothing. A short sword has many advantages, in that it is faster, and more agile to longer or heavier weapons. With the American Indians, they used the axe which was both lighter than the European equivalent and gave the same advantage. All weapons have pluses and minuses, and looking at them with the overly broad view you have, is not based in overall reality. A longer sword gives you reach, but is slower. Both longer and shorter swords can parry most weapons, but remember there wear some longer swords that were very thin and not able to parry many weapons as well.
There was, I'm told, also an element of glamour associated with carrying sabers, thanks to the cavalry, and a lot of officers who weren't assigned sabers as part of their gear would strut around headquarters with them anyway.
But I'd love to hear more from your perspective about "hangers," one of these days: I've always liked these kinds of one-edged, utilitarian tool/swords, which sound like what I'd have preferred as a backup weapon myself.
The French categorized the Sabre as any type of blade onto a Sabre hilt. It's the hilt in France that determined if it's a Sabre or not.
You can have a triangular Smallsword blade on a Sabre hilt and it's a Sabre.
England categorized I think Sabers by the blade type. A curved blade of some kind.
The French also had curved swords too. The Briquet. The English would call a Briquet potentially a Hanger. Because it's short.
Saber is English.
Sabre is French.
The French also had the 1822 Light Cavalry Sabre as well. Which was curved.
That's why you see straight swords categorized as a Sabre. Because it's on a Sabre hilt.
If all I had was a Smallsword and my opponent has a musket I could use my left hand to grab the rifle and then thrust with the Smallsword. They have their hands full. I have a free hand. I would not block with a Smallsword. I'd evade. Then thrust. Evasion of a blade is a better option than trying to block it.
Love the t-shirt!
Thank you for the video ⚔️
Yeah, you can be incredibly impressive organised in an official duel with a small sword/rapier type weapon against a single opponent, especially when its a kind of nimble dance in a reasonably wide, flat, open area.
Battlefields *aren't* optimal dueling locales, however. They're loud, smokey, muddy, full of enemies, and occasionally on fire.
What I love about this is the slow, steady evolution over time from the nimble duelist archetype - the sword you *want* to be seen with - through to the practical, foreign-lookin' curved blade, the weapon of a common rascal. More or less at the same time that Britain (especially) and Europe (in general) are moving from a not-quite-feudal society towards a modern-day democracy. Whatever works best will win out. =)
Nice T-shirt Matt
The influence of eastern Islamic armies on western military advancement is amazing.
Goes back a hell of a long way, Iranian folks introduced the West to “knightly” heavy cavalry
Welllll.....
It's likely best not to become too much of a Middle East-o-phile just yet.
Curved swords were known long before European military aristocracies and Middle Eastern military aristocricies began to "rub elbows" on battlefields to any great extent..
Th ancient Egyptians, Assyrians, Hittites, Amorites, Moabites, Persians, Israelites, Greeks, Celt-Iberians, Roman's, Phoenicians, etc, etc, etc.
All knew how to fabricate curved swords, daggers, and knives.
At first, from bronze...then iron...then steel.
So too did the ancient Chinese.
And a lot of the military practices and technological advances that the Middle East and Europe took up and ran with all the way into the 19th century?
Disseminated out of China.
And that chain of dissemination didn't just begin or end with China.
Sometimes , technological or military developments would originate in China....and make its way West to Europe and/or into the Middle East....to be FURTHUR developed and refined....then make their way BACK to China to either be utilized, get even furthur refined,...or?
Get totally forgotten about because the Chinese or later...the Mongols would examine these things, compare it to what they already had, then maybe toss it aside, deciding that they weren't any better or didn't work as "advertised".
So the premise that the Middle East was THE harbinger of development for the West?
Isn't exactly based on solidity.
Both West, Middle East, and Far East were at various times melting points and boiling cauldrons for multitudes of various races and cultures.
Each developing, using, trading, and spreading technological developments and military developments.
Such is and has always been the way of migratory, fluidic, humanity.
@@ravenrise320 - The US marine corp literally uses a Mameluke scimitar in their ceremonies, and western colonial armies exactly copied Persian, Arab, and Indian Talwar/Pulwar/Shamshir/Scimitar designs. Not only that, but the exact style you find in colonial Europe were those that many eastern empires were using before the mongol invasion.
It’s not being a “Middle East-o-Phile”, it’s a fact.
@@Carl007Jr Also a fact a lot of Talwar had European made blades. Advancement always goes both ways.
@@RevRaptor898 Ottoman Forging and Damascus steel. We could do this all day. Europe didn’t invent the curved blade, all evidence collectively agrees it wasn’t just and eastern thing, but was adopted by Europe after Europeans would lost hand to hand combat engagements to a better weapon design. You’re coping.
Matt, you should do a few videos on A&E's series for Horatio Hornblower. Would love to see British historian analyze a story about an up and coming young man in the British navy during the early 19th century.
It can do a variety of tasks well probably. Cheers Matt
The question shouldn't be which weapon is better, but which weapon you're better with. I'm decent enough with a sabre, but if I get into a fight with a particularly skilled smallsworder, I'm probably going to end up with some extra holes where I didn't want them.
IT'S BECAUSE THEY WERE EASIER TO USE!
Aw man, I wanted to make that joke :c
Grrrr
An interesting followup to this would something on the last fighting swords of 1890 to 1913. My understanding is that everyone decided that slashing an opponent usually didn't disable him because of heavy woolen tunics, etc, so all the European powers when to long straight swords for thrusting. The last was the "Patton" cavalry saber M1913. Of course, the Maxim gun was being released at that time and swords became an anachronism, but that final evolution of swords across western armies is rarely talked about.
I would surely prefer a saber on a field of battle over a spadroon or smallsword. Cheers Matt!
Discuss the 3000 y/o sword from Bavaria, Matt!
Have you seen those warriors from Hammerfell? They've got curved swords, CURVED... SWORDS!
Its hard to understate when reading period texts, journals etc the impact of the "elan" of the Hussar during the period. To wit the fashion was 'set' for Sabre usage anyway. The spadroon point would seem to suggest that it would have been a good choice. However the ability to skirmish with a sabre was clearly advantageous as well as fashionable - in period receiving a good cut might be enough to enable you to 'retire' form the field of battle with valour intact, a scar to show and your courage proven and this too may have worked in the favour of the sabre. In context Id like to see sabre drills vs spear/bayonet vs spadroon spear/bayonet the weight differences seem negligible so fashion (which can be downplayed) and the true hand to hand nature of battlefield melee I think favoured the Sabre. Indeed the cross cut with sabre would suggest a lot of utility against a bayonet thrust?
The cutting edge of a curved blade also digs deeper into the cloth and the flesh of an opponent than the cutting edge of a straight weapon, with blows of a similar force. This is due to the angle of the cut and the slashing motion of the edge while in contact. A well-sharpened saber can cut a limb right off, and definitely desolidify a head. Cavalry officers had sabers earlier because of their defensive advantage, while on the saddle, through parrying with an arc of protection. But the cutting aspect was also an advantage known from the age of scimitars. Cavalry wounds with sabers were horrific, often across the face.
As a professional warhound on this modern age I would argue that a modern make sabre would still have merit in a CQB environment of today's combat in a few circumstances especially if one is wearing ballistic rated armour
Matt I GOt A REQUESt !
Would you please do video on non regulation officer's swords during the Indian Mutiny
Is there a drinking game where you take a drink whenever Matt says essentially.
I'm glad that you mentioned the comparison between the saber and the smallsword, because I was wondering about that. I am a bit surprised that they are evenly matched, as I would have expected an advantage to the saber. But I think you are correct that most of the time, an officer might be fighting someone with a very different piece of equipment than another officer with a sword.
At any rate, the saber looks much cooler than the smallsword! There might have been a bit of a style thing going on, especially since the curved wide blade resembles the Egyptian and Middle Eastern blades?
That and carrying the odd fancy sword kinda makes you a priority target I'd imagine.
Very interesting. Having handled several 1803 pattern sabres I can only say I wouldn't want to be up against an opponent with a cavalry sabre. The two are worlds apart.
Indeed the 1803p was only marginally better than smallsword I suspect, especially given woolen clothing etc.
When I think of sabres I think of cavalry. Could there have been an element of keeping up with the Joneses with infantry officers wanting kit like the cavalry were using?
Wellington's Light Bobs carried sword bayonets which were longer than the traditional bayonet and attached them to their rifles at the order of 'Fix Swords!' Cuirassiers didn't like them at all.
Matt, please, could you possibly take into account that sabre, especially as a horse weapon in 16th century Hungary, Poland, Muskovite tsardom and the Steppe, long before your ancestor began to experiment with the dussack/hanger?
how much the size of the curved saber sword
Nice t-shirt. :)
An officer’s saber being utilized as a weapon against enemy personnel had a pretty short window in history, probably 1800-1850 at the most. By the American Civil War, edged weapon wounds inflicted by swords in pitched battle were essentially unheard of, save for maybe a few anecdotal instances.
In France at least, you may had that officers in the napoleonic era have changed. They are not anymore trained from childhood to use a small sword. They come from the ranks and a saber may be easier to master.
Sabre was also probably better for crowd control in the situations you mentioned.
Choppety chop CHOP!!
Slashity slash SHASH!!
Matt, now that you've talked about sabers vs. things like small swords and spadroons, what about why some or many infantry officers adopted cavalry savers over regulation swords with similar builds to cavalry sabers but with straight blades. Was it just fashion or was there a particular reason some infantry officers preferred a curved cavalry sword over a straight bladed infantry sword?
Sabers just look damned good, and the rule of cool trumps all others. Then again, a basket hilted claymore does look quite fine as well...
Curved sword scabbards don't drag on the ground so much when walking.
So the crux of this is that you only carried a short sword or spadroon if you were a bit of a ponce and prone to flouncing about like a French duke.
For western Europe , but not in central eastern Europe where the sabre was the dueling weapon of choise right thru to the 20th century.
Matt , never knew you liked Alice In Chains you legend 😀
Holy shit. Swords and AIC.
Am I wrong?
Have I run too far to get home?
Can you talk about a a fantasy wepon ive made up,
A mace that turns into a morning star
Pitched battles are more waterproof than the unpitched ones.
I'm pretty sure that Napoleon's and Nelson's foray into Egypt and the others into indo-persia has a lot to do with the sudden popularity of sabers.
It's not that officers suddenly became less gentlemanly so they stoped using the small word in favor of a more grounded fighting mans saber.
It's just what became extremely prestigious and fashionable to wear was an 'orientale' saber, like a Mameluke sword, as more of a fashion statement, to be seen as the gentlemen adventure solider, it has an air mystique...but as it goes, eventually they stared to put a western spin on it....and the 18th centaury military saber is born.
I find it hard to believe the reason is so utilitarian and practical, that officers had to get of their asses and after frolicing in on the sidelines, while the common soldiery were doing the fighting , in the later 18th centaury they had to actually use their weapons, so they diched the "fancy dulling sword" for a fighting mans sword.
additionally if officers wearing small sword as a side weapon were such big dandies who never actually fought, why were Spontoons and similar polearms used in the early 18th centaury by infantry officers?
I could imagine parrying one bayonet... then getting stuck by the opponent's buddy.
So perhaps the superior weapon is a friend at arms.
How much would a sabre cost me ?
Why didn't officers ever carry a short spear into battle? You can get it made light and super fancy (could be used one or two handed on horseback or on foot), you can point with it, it's faster than a musket + bayonet with a reach advantage over swords.
A spear has to be carried. You can't wear it like a sword. Having both hands free whenever you like is an underrated advantage.
A fight in a battle is not a duel. What most officers will be trying to do is stay alive, not to kill the enemy as the immediate objective. The sabre can be flailed about keeping the naughty people away from you whist the small sword/spadroon leaves me open to enemies other than the nasty man you are poking with a sharp stick.
Captain Richard Sharpe esq approves.
Those swords were easily to defend because they were mainly used for slashing either across the body or over head
I find it surprising the backsword or broadsword wasn't prefered over the saber
I suppose that links to two facts. First - that cavalry was using mainly sabers through the age, so they just take up the blades that was already there, rather then find something new.
Second - curved saber blade is arguably better against people with no armor, but rather heavy clothing, belts etc.
Maybe it's the lighting? Suddenly I'm seeing YODA.
Never heard or read the term "spadroon" before.
This man has never, in his entire life, been concise into the point.
Not yet reached the end, but I'm going to guess that one reason is, that, although sticking 6" of steel into someone's torso is going to kill them *it will take a while*. Sticking someone with a lethal wound isn't very satisfying if they also stick you.
Aim has to be to disable people more than kill them.
Interesting - watching you wave the sabre across your body, it became apparent that the sabre 'defends' a greater area of the body.
The more I hear about smallswords, the more it feels like it was such a specialized weapon for a specific purpose and culture that it didn't actually have much use outside of that context (civilian dueling). Is this unfair to the smallsword? If the saber is as good as the smallsword even in a duel (which is what it is for), is there practically any reason at all to use one apart from fashian (and I guess maybe ease of wear)?
"Is this unfair to the smallsword?" Yes. Because the idea that smallsword only went up against smallswords is a lie that I'm surprised Matt still kind of peddles. Between the 1680's 1740's the smallsword was carried in daily wear by certain classes and it was not only a duelling weapon but a *self defence weapon too*. You see, the manuals up to 1740's have techniques of smallsword vs sabre, smallsword vs rapiers, smallsword vs staves, smallsword vs knives, smallsword vs pikes, and in one manuals case, -smallsword vs flail!. It was common for smallsword to be involved in all manner of back-alley altercations. But after 1740's smallswords start to be being carried less and quite frankly either used for just for leisure or duels, which is where this misconception that it only fought other smallswords comes in. In the later manuals many of the "smallsword vs (X-weapon)" techniques, disappear and smallswords tend to only to be used for duels (and sometimes not even then,,, pistols) But otherwise Matts points stand: In a military campaign you simply need something more robust with a bit of heft. The questions is not why the smallsword was supplanted by the sabre, but why its took so long for it to be supplanted.
I kinda wonder how flexible sabers are.
A master swordsman with a small sword hardly stands a chance against someone with basic bayonet training, even burying a small sword through their heart won't keep the other guys forward momentum from stabbing you, too
Uuuhhh.. Alice in Chains. Great band, Sir.
nice shirt
People are soft...I say we bring back Prussian Sabre schools
Bottom line - the choices made to transition from small swords to sabres were rational decisions by people who knew what they were fighting with and against, even if the 'why' of that fighting might have been more difficult to fully understand.
One would imagine that a smallsword might not have enough stopping power either? On a battlefield with people worked up and flooded with adrenaline, poking a tiny and very dangerous hole in them might not stop them _right now_.
verily, they join to dispatch the rooster
It's also worth mentioning that in a tight melee a saber can deliver an effective draw- or pushcut against a hand or neck at much closer distances than a smallsword. You see the same design considerations on naval swords.
Or - you can punch them in the face with it.
On the other hand a straight sword like a smallsword or spadroon is better at pointing at things.
Mameluke forever
There probably was a cultural component for this shift as, in the 19th century, common soldiers gradually started being seen not as ruffians and riff-raff only good to be bossed around, but as protectors of the realm. Brandon F did an episode on this a while ago, I recommend it. Part of the change meant that Officers (especially Junior Officers, directly leading their men) wanted to set a personal example of bravery, leadership, and sharing the risks with their men, which meant equipping more similar, combat-worthy weapons, rather than symbolic weapons designed as a status symbol to separate them from the common soldier.
Is makes a ton of sense to me from a human psychology perspective. We're talking about a span of several decades here, meaning we've got "generations" of officers - and what younger generation of the upper class *hasn't* decided to distinguish themselves from their stuffy, gentile predecessors by affecting the rugged panache of the everyman?
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute!
But it's "Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot"
I think it could also be in some small degree a fashion statement. The Mameluke sabres / Ottoman Kilij and similar were becoming really popular in Western Europe around the turn of the 1800's and the success of Hussar regiments which typically used sabres was making them the most admired/respected units in many armies.
In other words, sabres were cool!
Edit: As you mentioned in the video, the smallsword was the mark of an officer and to some degree a fashion statement more than a tool of war. The cultural popularity of the sabre could have served some of the same purpose!
I really think you nailed it at 11:23 in your video, a dead opponent 30 seconds from now does not mean that your opponent is still not a lethal threat immediately. This is where saber really outshines smallsword, as it has the ability to inflict immeditatly debilitating hits to a opponent that take them out of the fight, unlike smallsword.
Indeed. It's not intended for duels or 1:1 fighting. It's intended to keep you alive in a melee. A lethal stab that is effective at killing a single opponent is no good if you're unprotected whilst you're recovering from stabbing them, and get killed by their comrades.
A slash that doesn't kill, but discourages or wounds is better if you can recover as the press of fighting probably means that both of you are likely to then have to consider new threats.
Having served as a Light Infantry Officer I can see that a small sword would be very attractive after a twenty mile forced march.
Didn't the infantry officers of the period ride to the battle on horseback?
@jeffantonson2304 I am not sure. I have studied the military in the American South West, and Infantry avoided horses when they could for logistical reasons. Horses needed grain, water, and silage . Plus, they couldn't be driven for extended periods of time. Essentially, cavalry was a sprinter while Infantry was a marathon runner.
@@Malignard You are wrong - officers needed to move around quickly to assess the situations and issue commands (and to flee battle to fight another day). Officer on foot would be totally ineffective.
@@Kamamura2 except that most officers did not need to get somewhere in a hurry. They only needed to command their company. And that was normally done on foot.
Generalizing about 200 years of warfare you can generally say that company level officers (when part of a battalion+ force) did not have horses and battalion level officers and above did.
“””light””” infantry (at least modern ones) are honestly the one of the biggest military oxymorons, especially with a 90+ pound rucksack
This is a solid video. I appreciate that you note how the smallsword is an effective weapon in unarmored single combat. While I consider rapiers, longer one-handed blades like George Silver's "short sword," & longswords as superior for that purpose, the smallsword surpasses all other sidearms in 1v1 efficiency. At a weight of around a pound & a convenient moderate length, you get a weapon that can hold its own against any other sidearm.
One little quibble is that the firearms of the period could weigh a bit more than 8-9lbs, especially with a bayonet attached. Some pushed passed 11lbs. 8-9lbs is also rather heavier than most extant pollaxes, the majority of which fall into the 5-7lb range. There are far more surviving two-handed swords in the 8-9lb range than there are surviving pollaxes.
As an experienced hiker, normally I'm a huge proponent of the lightest equipment possible. Wars and battles are rare, melee combat is even more rare. But something about the smallsword and spadroon has always brothered me and I'd rather carry any almost other one handed sword. I'm shocked they weren't entirely confined to rear echelon officers after word of their very first encounter with bayonets got out.
Patrick O'Brian, who was obsessed with historical accuracy, had Aubrey carry a heavy cavalry saber in boarding actions, during the Napoleonic wars.
I wouldn’t say obsessed, but he was very historically accurate.
On second thought, you’re right. It was close to obsession.
Probably part of the reason for that is that Aubrey is a big, strong man who would be a natural fit for a bigger, heavier weapon. His counterpart, Stephen Maturin, is described as a deadly duelist with a fencing foil, however.
@@Vergilius78 Whatever you do, don't insult the Irish around Dr. Maturin.
I used to own a Napoleonic cavalry saber and it was almost 3 feet long. I feel it would be rather cumbersome in a shipboard melee.
@@gordonwood1594 yes, could be. I can see why some would prefer it as well though.
I think main reason is necessity to fight multiple opponents at same time. Thrusting has big problem. After you got good hit into enemy body fisrt you need to pull out the sword and again stub. That's in situation with multiple opponents is death. While sabre can give good cut and allow you to continue atack and cut again and again keeping other opponents at least away. And seeing whide sabre flying in front of your face for ordinary soldiers is more terrifiing than a "aristocratic toothpick" which will take time to pull out if it will not get stuck between ribs.
im surprised saber + parry dagger wasn't a common load out they work so well together. a daggers lighter and takes up less space, then a buckler with the option to catch n bind the weapon, as well as deflect. if it becomes a really tight grapple in a trench the dagger fits that tight space.
@@stevenmike1878 shield kr buckler takes a lot of place, inconvenient and very visible and can cause questions about standard outfit. Plus size and weight of normal rondal is very heavy. At least it doesn't stop musket. I think two pistols with sabre are better in close combat. About dagger. Dagger is for thrust sabre for cut. Try to drow circle with one hand and at the same time a square with another hand)
It's easy for us to lose sight of how different officers and regular troops were in the past. Today, at least in the West, even people who have only been in for a year or two are considered "professionals". In addition to the practical reasons you pointed out here, I think this period is the start of the societal shift around this idea.
Very interesting as usual.
I would imagine that junior officers half expecting to need to fight would choose a sabre.
Close Quarters Combat back then could be a messy, tangled affair with multiple opponents and comrades in a small area, a thrust sword is too limited - with a sabre or hanger you can get a half hit and do damage, push and pull cut, stab, use the extra weight and whack them with the back of the blade - no style points but effective.
I like your Alice in Chains shirt. They are one of my favorite bands.
I kinda love how when firearms were introduces into widespread warfare, swords(specifically slashing focused swords)went from situation at best to the prefered melee sidearm
@chriswaters2327 eventually and starting with infantry
I wondered if it had anything to do with Sabres being the weapon of the dashing cavalryman, and that becoming more fashionable than the infantry officer's smallsword. I have no evidence for this (perhaps those more knowledgable can mention evidence for or against) but i have the impression that gentlemanly duelling leaned more towards sabre, either because returning cavalry officers were familiar with it, or because they were more exciting and desirable to imitate in high society than foot officers.
Imagine trying to parry a clubbed musket with a smallsword lol.
Did the standard uniform material change in any way during that time? Did the enemy uniforms?
Could the switch to sabers occur as infantry officers on horseback may’ve had to defend themselves against charging cavalry armed with sabers? That was after all the golden age of cavalry, so to speak. I would think that a thrusting weapon such as a small sword is far less effective, if used in fighting on horseback against a saber-armed cavalryman specifically. Just a theory.
As a martial artist not really a swordsman i would prefer the speed of attacks and attacking angles you could make with the sabre.
“Because they are heavier” makes sense. But why curved instead of straight ? Broadswords are heavy AND thrust easier. They could have just simplified the basket hilt. But didn’t. Why ???
Darwinian, Small sword users don't survive to pass on their bad habits and choices.