British Infantry Officers Battle Swords in the 19th C...and up to 1914

[urbanspaceman]

This information came from British surgeons attending the wounded during the Peninsular wars and stated that penetrating punctures could rarely be fully repaired and the patients died, whereas cuts, ever dismembering cuts, could be far more successfully repaired.
The conclusion I came to was if greater attention was given to stabbing then greater death could be achieved.
I have absolutely no idea what sort of weapons we are dealing with here.
ps It was my understanding that bayonets were the main reason why swords became redundant. A Brown Bess with a 20inch bayonet is a formidable weapon, but it should have been backed up with a short cutting blade; unless you are Cavalry of course and I understand it is not sufficiently understood the degree that horses were used in WW1.

[toaster5sqn]

I'm going to have to take issue with Radbound's idea that a thrust is always quicker than a thrust.

For a smallsword or rapier held in a very point forward guard this may be true, but cut and thrust swords are usually held in a more upright guard and an effective cut is made by punching the hand forward and tightening the lower fingers while rotating the wrist to snap the sword blade onto the target. No it's not a massive cleave that will lop a limb off, but you don't want to make such an over committed cut that will leave you vulnerable if you miss anyway. The quick snap cut from the wrist often targets the forearm where any slice can be debilitating in a swordfight.

By comparison a thrust from the same starting position would involve rotating the hand to bring the point on line before punching the hand forward, this meaning the hand covers exactly the same distance for a cut or a thrust.

[toaster5sqn]

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert

[urbanspaceman]

Yes, isn't that Peter's point?

[Bryce]

G'day Guys,
Some examples from my collection of 19th century sword cutlers playing with the design of cutting swords to make them better at thrusting.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Yes, isn't that Peter's point?

Hi Keith... Exactly...The streetfighter in a bar room melee has more resources to use whereas the more conventional opponent in a boxing match follows recognised set moves and responses... What was needed was a sword armed technique which incorporated those moves used in brawling...The unconventional strike, the smash to the opponents face with the pommel...thus a no rules barred open minded free fighting technique /winner takes all approach. The arguement comes in when sword style becomes the focal point or when fieldcraft ...painting the sword black appears... but its probably a smoke screen... It was all to do with the training where the emphasis was on sword fencing instead of Sword Fighting..
Regards,Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert

Hello Robert, Fencing technique was drilled home ...depending on what sort of sword was being taught...To have saved the day for The Sword...what was needed was a decision to use one technique of fencing...blended with an open fighting form where all moves were allowed. Emphasis on how to fight than on how to fence... Both schools missed out fighting and filled up their programmes with Fencing...
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Guys,
Some examples from my collection of 19th century sword cutlers playing with the design of cutting swords to make them better at thrusting.
Cheers,
Bryce

Hello Bryce, Great examples here. I think the sharp Yelman and recurve idea is a well thought out concept.
What I would suggest here is that no matter how much design was being applied on blade style; much of which ended off being part of an arguement on cutting or giving point simply evaded the issue ...and the real concept fault was on technique of training...in the melee where all moves must be allowed...although if you follow my thoughts on this it becomes more obvious that the more facilities you have on your sword ...and in your head to damage your opponent by hook or by crook... and by whatever fighting skills you can use is the essence of how things should have been applied.

My way of looking at an Officer on the battlefield would have been as a gun platform with two pistols both on lanyards plus a sword with all sharp edges and with a spearpoint and spiked pommel...and at least one fighting knife or bayonet. and a couple of grenades...and Trained to Fight not Fence.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[toaster5sqn]

Originally Posted by Peter Hudson

Hello Robert, Fencing technique was drilled home ...depending on what sort of sword was being taught...To have saved the day for The Sword...what was needed was a decision to use one technique of fencing...blended with an open fighting form where all moves were allowed. Emphasis on how to fight than on how to fence... Both schools missed out fighting and filled up their programmes with Fencing...
Regards,
Peter Hudson.

Which was Hutton's complaint in the period, and why he started studying older manuals and eventually produced his own.

Robert

[Peter Hudson]

It is baffling to me that there were two very distinctly different swords; essentially the Spike form with IBeams and designed to stab/run through targets and to solidly block incoming strikes... and the more classic Cut and Thrust typically cavalry weapon...so that logically a lesson on both swords, though different in content, could be easily added to with the required techniques to turn the concepts into fighting skills. However I have not the faintest idea why this never transpired and as we know the baby went out the window with the bathwater !!...

It goes without meaning, for example, to have Rifle range zeroing and the various range practices and classification at different ranges from 100 out to 600 yards..yet no fighting skills through field firing exercises....and sniper training in battlefield conditions. It was as if sword fencing or the training of it, had frozen its self solid!

As a matter of interest I was looking at pistols and other personal weapons used by what is now used as skills for skirmishers...used in close quarter battle drills particularly in fighting in built up areas....and that there was a large, essentially available list of pistols and even twelve bore shotgun trench clearing specialist weapons being used in WW1.so that the suggestion to return swords and carry a swagger stick seems just mind boggling!!! The plot thickens.
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

While there is similarity between Scinde Cavalry hilts, 19th C British Officers Infantry Sword hilts and the Paisley Tie Design it appears that the Cyprus tree gives the Tie Design and the Icanthus the Cavalry Hilt... both Indian designs ...and both very similar.

Both the 19thC British Infantry and The Scinde Irregular Cav hilt shapes are very very closely similar in general shape but the cut floral application is distinct in each but this does not make it any easier to unscramble, however, if something pops up to clarify this bit of the puzzle I will note it for the thread.

Meanwhile I am collecting a pipeback quillepoint Scinde Irregular Cavalry Sword in a few days and should have mastered how to use my new camera by then so illustated pictures can be seen on thread soon.. Please add your 19th C. British swords to thread and feel free to comment..

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Peter Hudson]

While the similarity between Scinde Cavalry hilts and the Paisley Tie Design it appears that the Cyprus tree gives the Tie Design and the Icanthus the Cavalry Hilt... both Indian designs ...and both very similar.
Both the 19thC British Infantry and The Scinde Irregular Cav hilt shapes are very very closely similar the floral application is distinct in each however this does not make it any easier to unscramble...but if something pops up to clarify this bit of the puzzle I will note it for the thread. Meanwhile I am collecting a pipeback quillepoint Scinde Irregular Cavalry Sword in a few days and should have mastered how to use my new camera by then so illustated pictures can be seen on thread soon.. Please add your 19th C. swords to thread and feel free to comment..


Regards,
Peter Hudson.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by toaster5sqn

My finale point on the cut vs thrust is always the report of an encounter between a French cuirassier and a dragoon of the Scots greys at Waterloo.

They charged each other and the Frenchman gave point and ran the Scotsman through. The Scotsman realizing he had taken a mortal wound rose up in his stirrups and brought his sword down on the Frenchman's head with such violence that both helmet and skull where split asunder. And they both fell dead upon the field!

Here we see equally deadly results from both forms of attack, however if the cut had landed first the Frenchman would have had no reply. Equally the Frenchman was without defence since his attack had left his weapon stuck, if only briefly, in his opponent. And should the cut have landed upon the Frenchman's wrist before his point went home then the Frenchman would have been one of those survivors of the "less deadly" cut that made it to the hospital and lived. But the cut would have been a winning one by any measure of military effectiveness.

The only worthwhile answer to the debate is that cut and thrust both have their place in a swordfight and a swordsman who has recourse to both has more options than one who must rely only upon one or the other.

Robert

A Scots Grey 1796 disc hilt from Waterloo. Heavy and deadly.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

A Scots Grey 1796 disc hilt from Waterloo. Heavy and deadly.

This is a misconception, the weight of the 1796 Pattern heavy cavalry troopers sword is about on par with many cavalry sabres of the time.

About a hundred to one hundred, fifty grams heavier than the 1796 Pattern light cavalry troopers, but lighter by the same amount to the French An XI light cavalry sabre and nearly three hundred grams lighter than the AN XIII Sabre of the line.

[Bryce]

As a matter of interest I was looking at pistols and other personal weapons used by what is now used as skills for skirmishers...used in close quarter battle drills particularly in fighting in built up areas....and that there was a large, essentially available list of pistols and even twelve bore shotgun trench clearing specialist weapons being used in WW1.so that the suggestion to return swords and carry a swagger stick seems just mind boggling!!! The plot thickens.
Peter Hudson.

Peter I think you just answered your main question yourself. This is the real reason for the demise of the sword. Any of these are a much better weapon and much easier to carry than a sword.
Cheers,
Bryce

[Will M]

Officers were a snipers target, wearing a sword was like waving a red flag. I can't recall the reference to this, there was a British officer wearing his sword engaging a German soldier, but as he got to him he decided to kick him in the groin. He said something like it was not in the best military tradition but quite effective.

[Peter Hudson]

Originally Posted by Bryce

Peter I think you just answered your main question yourself. This is the real reason for the demise of the sword. Any of these are a much better weapon and much easier to carry than a sword.
Cheers,
Bryce

Yes I know what you mean; But its 2025...in 1914 they didnt have 20/20 hindsight...Arguably the greatest military technical and tactical mind was Jacob...of Jacobs Horse... inventor of probably the the best 12 bore shotgun ever invented...and with an incredible pair of rifled barrels that could send its bullets down range 2 kilometers...accurately...and who had developed a form of Cavalry based tactics fighting not in uniform but by blending in... in civilian clothes masquerading as civilian caravans through deserts and mountains...Thinking out of the box was his great strength...so with some luck he could have managed the disaster of 1914... Sadly it wasnt to be as he died before his special gun could complete its trials...however trench warfare did invent an excelllent WW1 trench shotgun and pistol design moved at pace. However I stick to my guns on this as clearly it was a mess if not an outright disgrace and Officers in the battlefield deserved a sharper better action plan than send your swords home and carry your swaggerstick instead.
Peter Hudson.
ps. However ...I need a new camera as my old one is kaput!...and I need to rattle on and get .some pictures of 19th C British Infantry Officers Swords ...anyone else is invited to send it theirs .I am sure there are lots.

[Jim McDougall]

John Jacob designed the double barrel cavalry carbine in 1854, but it was apparently somehow destined for South Africa. That same year, through requests for supply from the Malabar Police in India, these went there instead. They ended up issued to the 12th Lancers who were posted to Madras.

The East India Company acquiring these with Jacob designing the unusual sword bayonet which was to be attached to these. The EIC contracted with S Swinburne & son to produce these. While an interesting concept, it was apparently found these were more effective as short swords than with the use in bayonet manner.

While the bayonet in less cumbersome design remained effective, later sword types were shorter and better suited for use at the end of a rifle. Infantry continued with the bayonet instead of the sword, while cavalry still maintained the sword for some time.

I agree with Peter, if more attention was paid to innovative officers who understood the requirements and more effective application of tactics and weaponry in accord with the circumstances in which they were to be employed, far more effective results would have resulted. There are countless records of military blunders and disastrous outcomes which came from narrow minded adherence to misguided rules and regulations. Situations are dynamic and volatile, and not 'one size fits all'.

[Bryce]

Here is Osborn and Gunby's attempt to produce a serious cut and thrust blade. Known to collectors as the "Osborn and Gunby blade".
Cheers,
Bryce

[Tim Simmons]

Some really super swords being shown in this thread.

[Peter Hudson]

Hello Tim , I quite agree , in fact these exhibits are the best I have ever seen including the weapon being studied which when fired ...ranged at 2,000 yards must have been incredible.

Regards,
Peter Hudson.

To which I add;
A British, Jacob’s Double Barrel Rifle Carbine, From The Early British Raj. Period. In fact the weapon I speak of was an experimental version and rather a special one off piece but it was very similar and I thought to include the write up...

The gun is the very inspiration for the famous Military Jacob's Rifle, used by the Scinde Irregular Force, Jacob’s Rifles, in the early 1850's, and this was commissioned for an officer of the regiment.

A writer of the period described shooting a rifle of this form:
“The recoil is by no means pleasant. Jacob recommended a powder charge of some 2 drams 68 grains of gunpowder! This rifle does not seem to have any advantages at sporting ranges; but for military purposes it has been strongly recommended. Especially in reference to the explosive shells which are used with it. The shells require a short stout barrel, and cannot be used with a long thin one, like the Enfield still, Enfield-style rifles were actually manufactured with Jacob rifling, and seemed relatively popular. For killing large animals, like the elephant or rhinoceros, they are particularly qualified; and I should strongly recommend elephant hunters to examine the merits of this rifle. This rifle was made to accompany the howdah pistol as the big game hunting rifle to be equally at home on foot, on horseback or while standing in a howdah on one's elephant. But also for perfect use in Indian irregular cavalry by gentlemen officers.

The Jacob's rifle was designed by General Jacobs of the Honourable East India Co. who was so admired and respected by all who knew him, for his intelligence and skill of command, he had a city named after him, in modern day Pakistan, called Jacobabad. He had spent 25 years improving rifled firearms, carrying on experiments unrivalled even by public bodies. A range of 200 yards sufficed in cantonments, but at Jacobabad he had to go into the desert to set up butts at a range of 2000 yards. He went for a four grooved rifle and had numerous experimental guns manufactured in London by the leading gunsmith George Daw and completely at his expense. Jacob, like Joseph Whitworth, was renowned not only as a soldier but as a mathematician, and his rifle was as unconventional as its designer. Rather than using a small .45 caliber bore Jacob stayed with more conventional .57-58 caliber (Bill Adams theorizes that this would allow use of standard service ammo in a pinch). In any case his rifle used four deep grooves and a conical bullet with corresponding lugs. Though unusual the Jacob's rifle, precision made in London by master gunsmiths like George Daw, quickly gained a reputation for accuracy at extended ranges. They appealed in in particular to wealthy aristocratic scientists like Lord Kelvin, who swore by his. Jacob wanted to build a cannon on the same pattern, but died early at age 45.
A few Jacob’s were used during the American Civil War, and those were privately owned, usually by men able to afford the best. There is one account of one of Berdan’s men using one (the chaplain, Lorenzo Barber), who kept one barrel of his double rifle loaded with buckshot and the other with ball.

Jacob's Rifles was a regiment founded by Brigadier John Jacob CB in 1858. Better known as the commandant of the Sind Horse and Jacob's Horse, and the founder of Jacobabad, the regiment of rifles he founded soon gained an excellent reputation. It became after partition part of the Pakistani Army, whereas Jacob's Horse was assigned to the Indian Army. A number of his relatives and descendants served in the Regiment, notably Field Marshal Sir Claud Jacob, Lieutenant-Colonel John Jacob and Brigadier Arthur Legrand Jacob, Claud's brother.

As commander of the Scinde Irregular Horse, Jacob had become increasingly frustrated with the inferior weapons issued to his Indian cavalrymen. Being a wealthy man, he spent many years and much money on developing the perfect weapon for his 'sowars'. He eventually produced the rifle that bears his name. It could be sighted to 2000 yards
(1 830m), and fire explosive bullets designed to destroy artillery limbers. It also sported a 30 inch (76,2cm) bayonet based on the Scottish claymore.

Jacob was an opinionated man who chose to ignore changing trends in firearm development, and he adopted a pattern of rifling that was both obsolete and troublesome. Nevertheless, his influence was such that during the Mutiny he was permitted to arm a new regiment with his design of carbine. It was named Jacob's Rifles.

Orders for the manufacture of the carbine and bayonet were placed in Britain, and all was set for its demonstration when Jacob died. In the hope the East India Company would honour the order, production continued for a little over a year.

[Peter Hudson]

More detail here..https://www.royalartillerymuseum.com...-sword-bayonet
Peter Hudson.