why sabre ?

tom hyle · 25th March 2005, 07:16 AM

Haven't read all the replies cause I'm about to go to sleep (or try), and it's been a while since I've answered this question. First, a curved blade cuts better, because it starts the cut at a single point, and also because if backleaning (true or Tartaric sabre if you will) it draws itself through the cut as a natural effect of its shape moving thru flesh; sorry, my linguistic ability is down at the moment. This automatically gives you the increased cutting power and greater ease in withdrawal of a sliding cut; this especially helps you keep holding the sword when you cut someone your horse is running past. Also, when backleaning, it has the strength of the edge bevel angle it has, but the cutting power of a finer angle (Burton explains this well). Try to flex a highly curved blade over your knee (one sharp on the convex edge, if at all; don't cut your knee or hands!

); what happens? It tries to turn to make the force distribute across the width, rather than the thickness; this makes it stronger against this kind of force, encountered primarily in parrying and in withdrawing the blade from wounds, and also tends to help turn its spine into a parry; a usually favoured method popularly known from Japan, but actually seen in Europe, PI, N Africa, etc. Also, when backleaning, the around the shield backhand thrust; this is often a neglected point; the "West" seems to have come to think of the shield as a fashion accessory or something. Give me a sheild and a machete and a smallsword is a joke. BTW, those straight things are not sabres. I know they called them that; that's military/beaurocratic organization for ya; put it in a category we already have

they're really more a type of smallsword, or to put it differently, a spear built like a sword. A real sabre is for cutting. Top of the head for youse, anyway; maybe more later when I come back and read yours. One other thing no-one's brought up now, but contradicts a popular misconception that we've discussed before, and that seems somewhat related; serated swords do cut better, and have at least one other advantage, as well. yes, I can tell you why, but I'm tired right now; search the old forum; I've explained it there. As for straight double-edged sword? It is Jack of all trades, master of none. A compromise weapon; a backcurved sword slashes and back-hand-thrusts better, a forward curved sword chops and for-hand-hrusts better, but the straight double-edger can do it all to some degree, and though it's certainly not much at the backhand thrust, it does pack a nasty backhand cut that can be used around behind the opponant's shield. Also, you get a spare sharp edge you can flip the sword to (if it hasn't a knucklebow) for those long battles where it gets dull; seriously, one reads this in old European accounts, and it makes good sense.

sirupate · 25th March 2005, 07:54 AM

The sabre when used in recorded duels against the premier thrusting sword the epee, came out on top. The attributed reason for this was that the sabre had the ability to do a greater variety of ripostes.
The British cavalry opted for a thrusting sword in 1903, which was finally approved by King EdwardVII in 1908 (who would have preferred the British cavalry to be using a Sabre).
The idea behind it was sound in principle and when practising against melons (the traditional British Cavalry method) it worked very well, however when charging and thrusting with the 1908 pattern against a real opponent the stress on the shoulder on retraction was immense, and led to people being dragged of their horses and doing untold damage to their shoulders.
Give me a sabre or katana any day

Cheers Simon

tom hyle · 25th March 2005, 02:05 PM

Ariel, Why do we ever disagree?

very salient point, too, vis a vis the deadliness of thrusts that death is not the idea; disabling can be as good or better.

ariel · 25th March 2005, 08:59 PM

Tom,
Not a trace of disagreement here: disable the opponent and move forward.
That is, BTW, why the Japanese used small caliber firearms : wounded soldier attracts help (they are wounded in turn) and for each wounded soldier the military has to use another 3 people in the back (transporting, medical, rehab etc)

sirupate · 26th March 2005, 07:56 AM

Another great theory, but a wounded enemy can still kill you, easilly

Rivkin · 26th March 2005, 04:07 PM

Actually the same theory is behind M16 and 220 caliber - it's not a weapon to kill, but to wound.

The problem rises when you are confronted by fanatics or someone on drugs - even wounded they'll just keep fighting.

sirupate · 26th March 2005, 04:22 PM

Hello Rivkin,

That is the theory indeed along with the fleshets that were used, and as you say a wounded enemy can still fight

Cheers Simon

Jens Nordlunde · 26th March 2005, 04:33 PM

I think the discussion it very interesting, and it keeps coming up with different intervals.

What makes me wonder is, why the generals, or whoever decided to change the blade types did so, at the time they were in use, they knew the strength and the weakness in both types of blade. Are there not notes somewhere from the time, in which the problem is discussed, so that we, from the notes, can learn which arguments were used for the change?

I agree that a curves sword sounds more logic for the cavalry, but as the costs, changing the swords must have been rather high, there must have been a good reason for the change.

Jens

25th March 2005, 07:16 AM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Haven't read all the replies cause I'm about to go to sleep (or try), and it's been a while since I've answered this question. First, a curved blade cuts better, because it starts the cut at a single point, and also because if backleaning (true or Tartaric sabre if you will) it draws itself through the cut as a natural effect of its shape moving thru flesh; sorry, my linguistic ability is down at the moment. This automatically gives you the increased cutting power and greater ease in withdrawal of a sliding cut; this especially helps you keep holding the sword when you cut someone your horse is running past. Also, when backleaning, it has the strength of the edge bevel angle it has, but the cutting power of a finer angle (Burton explains this well). Try to flex a highly curved blade over your knee (one sharp on the convex edge, if at all; don't cut your knee or hands! ); what happens? It tries to turn to make the force distribute across the width, rather than the thickness; this makes it stronger against this kind of force, encountered primarily in parrying and in withdrawing the blade from wounds, and also tends to help turn its spine into a parry; a usually favoured method popularly known from Japan, but actually seen in Europe, PI, N Africa, etc. Also, when backleaning, the around the shield backhand thrust; this is often a neglected point; the "West" seems to have come to think of the shield as a fashion accessory or something. Give me a sheild and a machete and a smallsword is a joke. BTW, those straight things are not sabres. I know they called them that; that's military/beaurocratic organization for ya; put it in a category we already have they're really more a type of smallsword, or to put it differently, a spear built like a sword. A real sabre is for cutting. Top of the head for youse, anyway; maybe more later when I come back and read yours. One other thing no-one's brought up now, but contradicts a popular misconception that we've discussed before, and that seems somewhat related; serated swords do cut better, and have at least one other advantage, as well. yes, I can tell you why, but I'm tired right now; search the old forum; I've explained it there. As for straight double-edged sword? It is Jack of all trades, master of none. A compromise weapon; a backcurved sword slashes and back-hand-thrusts better, a forward curved sword chops and for-hand-hrusts better, but the straight double-edger can do it all to some degree, and though it's certainly not much at the backhand thrust, it does pack a nasty backhand cut that can be used around behind the opponant's shield. Also, you get a spare sharp edge you can flip the sword to (if it hasn't a knucklebow) for those long battles where it gets dull; seriously, one reads this in old European accounts, and it makes good sense. Last edited by tom hyle; 25th March 2005 at 07:30 AM.

25th March 2005, 02:05 PM	#3
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	I read 'em Ariel, Why do we ever disagree? very salient point, too, vis a vis the deadliness of thrusts that death is not the idea; disabling can be as good or better.

25th March 2005, 07:54 AM	#2
sirupate Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England Posts: 373	The sabre when used in recorded duels against the premier thrusting sword the epee, came out on top. The attributed reason for this was that the sabre had the ability to do a greater variety of ripostes. The British cavalry opted for a thrusting sword in 1903, which was finally approved by King EdwardVII in 1908 (who would have preferred the British cavalry to be using a Sabre). The idea behind it was sound in principle and when practising against melons (the traditional British Cavalry method) it worked very well, however when charging and thrusting with the 1908 pattern against a real opponent the stress on the shoulder on retraction was immense, and led to people being dragged of their horses and doing untold damage to their shoulders. Give me a sabre or katana any day Cheers Simon

25th March 2005, 08:59 PM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Tom, Not a trace of disagreement here: disable the opponent and move forward. That is, BTW, why the Japanese used small caliber firearms : wounded soldier attracts help (they are wounded in turn) and for each wounded soldier the military has to use another 3 people in the back (transporting, medical, rehab etc)

26th March 2005, 07:56 AM	#5
sirupate Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England Posts: 373	Another great theory, but a wounded enemy can still kill you, easilly

26th March 2005, 04:07 PM	#6
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	Actually the same theory is behind M16 and 220 caliber - it's not a weapon to kill, but to wound. The problem rises when you are confronted by fanatics or someone on drugs - even wounded they'll just keep fighting.

26th March 2005, 04:22 PM	#7
sirupate Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: England Posts: 373	Hello Rivkin, That is the theory indeed along with the fleshets that were used, and as you say a wounded enemy can still fight Cheers Simon

26th March 2005, 04:33 PM	#8
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	I think the discussion it very interesting, and it keeps coming up with different intervals. What makes me wonder is, why the generals, or whoever decided to change the blade types did so, at the time they were in use, they knew the strength and the weakness in both types of blade. Are there not notes somewhere from the time, in which the problem is discussed, so that we, from the notes, can learn which arguments were used for the change? I agree that a curves sword sounds more logic for the cavalry, but as the costs, changing the swords must have been rather high, there must have been a good reason for the change. Jens