Thank you Gentlemen for your replies
Hi GC
,
thank you for the pictures and references.I am not certain, but I think some infantry units were also equiped with this sword. However, as an artillary sword I still think, assuming that its combat effectiveness was not paramount, a machete would have been a much better option to clear 'brush' etc. The 'gadius' in this situation was neither combat effective or really that good at cutting foilage. Artillary positions were often main targets of any strategic offensive. Often with the intention of over-running a position and gaining control of the cannon ....and then using it to bombard the original 'owners'. This often meant soldiers would eventually end up fighting 'up close and personal' either defending/attacking the cannon position. After all, the quicker a cannon position is taken the better ...and a stand-off position with defenders and attackers exchanging volleys of lead would allow the cannon to be still used against your troops or alternatively give the defenders time to 'spike' the cannon, making it inoperative.
Hi Jim
,
excellent summary. Even though the sword was 'superceded' by firearms, it still had its place as a back-up weapon. Obviously with the very slow reloading times of early firearms ...bayonets were introduced, effectively making your musket a spear, previously the musket was employed as a club. In this situation, I personally would prefer to be armed with a good sword, it would be easier to parry the thrust of a bayonet. The only down side is the fact that the musket becomes an incumberance ...unless you can 'sling' it over your shoulder.
Never the less, I believe any weapon....even a back-up weapon should be the best design that 'fits' the style of combat. Feedback from the battle field should have dictated the evolution of sword design but, it seems that bureaucrats had other considerations ....cost, etc. Perhaps there was even arrogance that 'we are better..irrispective of the weapons we use'
Interestingly you mentioned the LC1796 (one of my favorite 'pattern' swords.....one day I hope to have one....but I digress
) After watching a documentary it was mentioned that the French were abhored by the wounds inflicted by this sabre. Apparently though, many of the wounds were not lethal....whereas the French 'thrusting' swords, were on balance more likely to kill, rather than wound. Perhaps, this started the 'thinking' that newer British pattern swords should be designed with the 'thrust' in mind...over the 'cut' ?
My other 'concern' of Regulation pattern swords is that fundermentally they would be identical. Blade length, hilt size etc. This would mean that a sword was not necessarily suited to an individual, making it less effective. If we look at the Tulwar, for instance......it is a sword that is easily recognised (pattern ?) but, the differing weight, blade size etc varies enormously. I appreciate that from an armies point of view the cost of variations would be prohibative, especially with 'mass production' of one type of blade which by comparision would be relatively cheap. But the military regulations prohihibiting personal modification seems shortsighted as often soldiers in India (away from government officials) made un-official mods that were 'tolerated locally'.
Hi 'Nando
,
you're right the Romans were indeed very good at adopting 'weapon technology' but, this also helps my point. Millitary input would have inflenced these 'adoptions' not 'back office pen pushers' that 'plagued' later Nations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fearn
So far as I know, the pen is mightier than the sword, but only if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp. (Courtesy Sir T Pratchett).
|
Hi Fearn
,
great author, great line......but I still wouldn't take a fountain pen to a knife fight ....no matter how small the blades are.....think I'll follow Sean Connory's (Untouchables) advice....I'd take a gun
Kind Regards David