Swords at the Little Big Horn (Part II)

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Jeff,
I knew I could count on you to respond!!! We have always seemed to share the same interests and it was great to be able to bring up this thread on the Custer sword. It also seems that these swords have a great deal of mystery due to the legendary tales attached to them.
The sword you have posted is intriguing also, especially the Lakota tradition about its being captured at the Little Big Horn. While it is known that Custer ordered all sabres to be left at Powder River I believe, it seems that one Native American account notes that there was a single 'long knife' there, without further description. So I suppose it is possible, much as with these iconic battles including the Alamo, the mysteries will never be solved.

It is not surprising to see the Solingen blade on the M1821 British hilt which would have been quite likely in Canada, although it seems if would be regimentally marked. Many of these Solingen cavalry blades were used for U.S. sabres, especially the M1840. It also seems that there are numerous instances which illustrate Native Americans had cavalry sabres, but the use seems ceremonial and these had elaborately decorated cases, and of the examples seen, they appear to have British hilts. Since the Sioux tribes moved across the Canadian border so frequently, it would seem plausible that these swords might have come from these regions. In other cases where U.S. troops did use swords, a number of them were captured as well.

Thanks for answering Jeff and especially for sharing the photos of this sword.

All the very best,
Jim

[Jeff D]

Hi Jim,

I recently came into possession of a Little Bighorn Associates Research Review Volume VIII Fall Number 3. There is an Article by Lawrence Frost Pg 4-8. I think you may find it interesting as this appears to be where Mr Connell obtained his information.
I will quote it here;

' General Custer's famous straight saber was not buried with him. The sword was lent to the national Museum by Mrs, B. Elizabeth Custer in 1912 and was described and illustrated in National Museum Bulletin 163.

This saber, which is now a part of the Elizabeth B. Custer collection at the Custer Battlefield National Monument, is 37 inches long with a blade 1-1/2 inches wide. The weight of the saber is two pounds, eight and three-quarters ounces. The weight is emphasized because of the story Whittaker told of the use of the blade by Custer and in which "men said that hardly an arm in the service could be found strong enough to wield the blade, save Custer's alone"

Comparing Custer's blade to the light cavalry saber Model 1860 - in vogue at that time, the light cavalry saber had a 34 5/8 inch blade that was one inch wide, and weighed one pound and six ounces. This gave Custer an advantage of nearly two and one-half inches in length and a blade 50 per cent wider. The heavier Custer blade was a pound and nearly three ounces heavier than that carried by his men. In the National Museum's description of Custer's weapon it is referred to as a Spanish cavalry saber.

A year or two after the museum at the Custer Battlefield had been opened, Major Edward S. Luce permitted Colonel Brice C.W. Custer and the writer to examine the saber in detail for it was on exhibit there at the time.

This long, straight double edged weapon was indeed heavy and cumbersome to handle. I attempted the various thrusts, cuts and parries, having been accustomed to the light dueling saber used in fencing competition, and found the heavy weapon unwieldly and very tiring to the wrist. It was a cut and thrust weapon made for a powerful man.

One must remember, however, that the movements of cut and parry were quite wide in Custer's day, and the moulinet on attack was the accepted method of making a saber cut. One had to have strong wrists and shoulder muscles to accomplish this movement with any degree of security and certainty. The added weight of the blade gave it a certain authority on either attack or defense.

Using a power glass, and search as we might, there was no evidence that this weapon was a Spanish or Toledo blade as it has been described by some. The engraving on it was in Spanish, but that proves nothing. The engraving might have been in Latin or French but that is no positive association with a country. On the forte of the blade, near the hilt, were some obscure, well-worn letters that formed an incomplete word. I have since misplaced my notes but read into it "Solingen," a well-known German sword-maker. I could be wrong.

This is not the only cutting weapon Custer left to posterity. Colonel Brice C.W. Custer had two of the General's sabers. Both were the 1860 model, light cavalry saber. One blade was stamped "USA" near the hilt, and on the other side, "ACMP", with some fancy scrollwork below. Both now belong to Colonel George A. Custer III.

Colonel Charles Custer, Colonel Brice Custer's brother (both grand-nephew's of general Custer and his nearest lineal descendents), has a saber that belonged to his great-uncle Autie. It is 41 inches long, and is stamped "US--1864--A.G.M. C. ROBY, W. CHELMSFORD, MASS." The scabbard is 36 3/8 inches in length. I have not examined this saber but have seen both of Brice's.'

Mr Frost goes on to list a number of other swords with out much detail. It is interesting to note that the Roby saber was originally attributed to Autie Custer (edit: Autie was Armstrong Reed not Custer, GAC's nephew) rather than George?

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you so much Jeff! It is great to see this topic again, and I really appreciate the update. By coincidence I found some of my notes taken when I was at the Little Big Horn last summer, and was just looking them over yesterday! We must be on the same wavelength!!

It is interesting about the comments on the heft of the sword, and on the sword combat techniques of the times. The M1840 dragoon sword issued to U.S. cavalry was 'affectionately' called 'the old wristbreaker', presumably from the not always present strength required for the movements described.

It always seemed odd to me that these heavy Spanish broadsword blades were mounted on Mexican sabres in the 1820's and onward into the 19th c.

While at the museum at Little Big Horn, the curator kindly showed me the acquisition documents listing its arrival there in 1943 (the number 163 showed as well), with the next cataloguing in 1960. I wish I had been able to handle it, but it would have been complicated to access the enclosed display case.

It seems there was another case of one of these heavy Spanish colonial broadsword blades was captured in the Mexican-American war by a Texan in combat, and is now in a museum near Los Angeles. I believe the sword belonged to a Mexican officer named Colonel Najera, but that is all I can recall at the moment. This event simply supports the fact that these blades were certainly mounted on many Mexican officers swords at this time.

Thank you for posting this update Jeff!
All the best,
Jim

[Chris Evans]

Hi Jim,

Yet again a terrific and extremely informative thread!

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It is interesting about the comments on the heft of the sword, and on the sword combat techniques of the times.

Not wishing tp derail the discussion, but there is something not quite right with Lawrence Frosts comments re the weight of the sword and its usage.


Comparing Custer's blade to the light cavalry saber Model 1860 - in vogue at that time, the light cavalry saber had a 34 5/8 inch blade that was on inch wide, and weighed one pound and six ounces.

I am not familiar with the sword to which he refers, but think that it must have been a dress sword rather than a combat weapon. My Ames 1862 has a 1 wide by 33 1/2"long blade and weighs 31oz out of the sheath. All the cavalry sabres that I have seen weighed around 2Lbs, sometimes quite a bit more and sometimes a bit less, but not by much. Even the straight bladed English officers 1854 pattern sword weighs in at 1Lb 11oz, yet it was a rather light weapon.

In fact, the 1Lb 6oz weight quoted seems suspect because that is the weight of a decent dueling sabre, or a heavier than average small sword. I just cannot see how a 1"wide bladed sword could be that light.

In any event, I don't think that cavalry weapons of that era were wielded in a manner similar to that of the much lighter fencing sabres that came later from Italy and which influenced military usage in the last quarter of the 19th century

Cheers
Chris

[Jim McDougall]

Hi Chris,
Your very kind words are very much appreciated, and I am extremely grateful to Jeff for bringing this thread back to life, as well as his support with it when it first ran.
I agree that Frost's comments seem a bit misaligned, but it seems he was more a writer than an authority on weapons. While it has been some time since I've handled any of these, it does seem that the M1860 was indeed shorter and a bit lighter than the M1840, but would have had to be more substantial weightwise than he described.

The M1840 was always called the 'old wristbreaker' by the troopers of the time, and to me this was probably as much from improper means of use as it was its size and weight. It seems well known that the sword was actually more of an excess accoutrement by the 1860's and I have read that sword wounds were remarkably rare in the Civil War. It seems that in medical reports the few sword injuries reported were more blunt force trauma than the expected deep cut wounds. This was primarily because of lack of proper maintainance of the swords (lack of sharpening), and probably improper training.

The problem with the Custer sword was in its blade length it seems to me, as it was a dragoon type broadsword blade of a form intended for entirely different use than the techniques used by latter 19th century cavalrymen.It would be easy to see how a blade of such heft used contrary to its intended design would be unwieldy and seem extraordinarily heavy as a result.

I agree with your observations on the weight, and especially in noting that fencing techniques with the later popular sport weapons had little, if anything to do with the manner these military weapons were used. In England, the swords used for practice were typically obsolete cavalry sabres (such as the M1821 light cavalry sabre with bowl hilt and altered blades).
I think a classic example of the exception in American swordsmanship was General George Patton, who was indeed a brilliant fencer, favored the use of the sword, and designed what has always been considered a magnificent sword, the M1913 (known as the 'Patton' of course). These swords, though huge and heavy, actually were incredibly well balanced, and relatively easy to wield.

In true irony, these nearly perfectly designed swords came as the obsolescence of the sword had become firmly established, and these never saw combat. Strangely many of them were cut down to be used as trench knives during WWII.

Thank you again Chris, and for the excellent observations!
All very best regards,
Jim

[Jeff D]

Hi Jim and Chris,

I measured a some of my sabers a couple years ago and got these numbers:

M1840 Total length 41.75"
Blade length 36"
Width of blade at Hilt 1.25"

M1860 Total length 41"
Blade length 35.25"
Width of blade at Hilt 1"

M1872 Total length 37.5"
Blade length 32"
Width of blade at Hilt .75"

Unfortunately they are not accessable now for weighing.
John Thillman in Civil War Cavalry & Artillery Sabers on Page 23 gives the typical length for a M1860 blade as 34 1/2 to 35 inches. I think the example you had might be a little short. I will see if I can find some references to weights later tonight.

All the Best
Jeff

[Jeff D]

Hi All,

I was able to find the Regulations of 1861:

For the light Cavalry saber the weights are as follows.
Weight of the sword or saber complete (Saber and scabbard) = 3 lb. 7 oz.
Weight of finished blade= 1 lb. 6 oz.
Weight of scabbard= 1 lb 4 oz.

It appear that Mr Frost was using the finished blade weight from the regulations rather than the total saber weight which is around 2 lbs as Chris noticed (the alternate is that he was using the weight of a M1872 which would be close to his weight but not used by anyone). In any event his numbers would appear wrong, an excellent observation.

Back to the original topic, I wonder how Butterfield and Butterfield linked the Roby saber to the General rather than his civilian nephew (also killed at Little Big Horn)? I wonder if it would have fetched $32,000?

All the Best
Jeff

[Chris Evans]

Jim and Jeff,

You two are providing us with truly amazing material - Great contribution and do keep it up. It is rewarding to read the learned responses that this thread elicited from the participants.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The problem with the Custer sword was in its blade length it seems to me, as it was a dragoon type broadsword blade of a form intended for entirely different use than the techniques used by latter 19th century cavalrymen.It would be easy to see how a blade of such heft used contrary to its intended design would be unwieldy and seem extraordinarily heavy as a result.

Right on and well stated.

Cheers
Chris

[James Farrand]

Hi,
Does anyone have any further info on this saber with ACMP scrolled on it? What the ACMP stands for?

[Jim McDougall]

Hello James, and welcome to our forum!!!
It is great to see this old thread back, and over the course of several years some fantastic information was compiled and exchanged .

I must confess I am unclear on which sabre you are referring to, and hopefully myself or some of the others might be able to retrace .

Thank you again for bringing this thread back

All best regards
Jim

[Jeff D]

Originally Posted by James Farrand

Hi,
Does anyone have any further info on this saber with ACMP scrolled on it? What the ACMP stands for?

Most likely this saber was a gift from one of GAC's classmate and friend Alexander C.M. Pennington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexan...Pennington,_Jr.


Jeff