British pipeback parabolic blade saber c. 1801

Jim McDougall · 6th December 2020, 01:54 AM

This saber is what I believe is British, and possibly one of the many variations of the M1796 stirrup hilt sabers for light cavalry of this period, and most likely for an officer.
It was featured in an article on M1796 sabers in Denmark around 20 years ago which concerned the numbers of variations in these swords.

In the 1790s, Henry Osborn of Birmingham teamed with a British cavalry officer named LeMarchant to develop the first regulation patterns for the British cavalry known as M1796.

While the blades seem to have had a number of variations, some with 'pipe back' (many of these had the stepped back yelman point), and even cases of 'yataghan' type blades, this is the only version I personally have ever seen of a 'shamshir' type blade with this pipe back . Typically the M1796 had what s known as a 'hatchet point' which was a radiused point rather than sharp tip .

Also unusual is the deeply canted hilt which is a characteristic I have only seen on certain type of shashka from the Caucusus regarded as 'Mingrelian' if memory serves.

What is known of this period of sword development in England is that numerous variations observing other sword forms from various nations were considered. Possibly the Caucasian types might have been noted?

I would be curious to know if others here have seen similar examples and thoughts on this anomaly.

Norman McCormick · 6th December 2020, 02:27 PM

Hi Jim,
I would have designated this a Flank Officers sword of the Napoleonic era rather than a cavalry sword. The curvature of the blade and the canted hilt would suggest to me that this is the more probable attribution.
My Regards,
Norman.

Jim McDougall · 6th December 2020, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Jim,
I would have designated this a Flank Officers sword of the Napoleonic era rather than a cavalry sword. The curvature of the blade and the canted hilt would suggest to me that this is the more probable attribution.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Norman,
Thank you, and that has always been a consideration given the dramatic curve of several, I think of one 1803 lionhead with such a blade. I wonder what the purpose ? might be? The Napoleonic era was such a fashion parade, especially with the 'hussar' phenomenon, and any dramatic effect seems to have been almost a contest.
'Mines curvier' ! etc.
The huge drags on the scabbard chape were for the low slung sabers to make noise as the hussar swaggered, the tall shako's for addition of height to look more formidable etc.

I cannot imagine a pragmatic reason for such curve unless perhaps more cutting surface in closer quarters?

Best
Jim

kronckew · 6th December 2020, 04:37 PM

I suspect flank officers were more likely to get into hand-to-hand combat with no time for fancy duelling, so lots of slashing at close range.

Pipe backed blades are notoriously bad cutters as the spine tends to stop any further downward progress of the cut. Surprising to see one in flank officers form. This one would also be rather useless for giving point.

Impressive tho.

Will M · 6th December 2020, 05:21 PM

I've read that pipe backed blades that cuts were hampered by the pipe back but I have not seen any real testing to confirm this. The pipe back possibly 1/4" wide and rounded may not slow the cut as much as some perceive. The blades are quite thin and can be razor sharp and you are cutting in about 1" before the pipe back would contact the target. There may be Youtube videos using such swords to evaluate cuts? Being thin blades they would be more likely to break during use.

kronckew · 6th December 2020, 08:08 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK34V1P07bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VAHQ6advQ0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK34V1P07bs

Matt does like to talk....

Info on flank officers swords: https://collections.royalarmouries.o...ative-469.html

Will M · 14th January 2021, 09:32 PM

Pipe backed swords can cut a good inch or so before contacting the pipe back. Choice targets would be the neck, head, under the arm, inner thigh etc.
I would believe that an inch deep slash in the neck would be sudfficient to kill.
I have an officers 1821p cavalry sword with original sharpening and I would not wish to be cut with it. I think only bone would slow the blade on contacting the pipe back. I don't think you need to cut deeper to disable your opponent.
Cutting off an head, arm or torso sounds fantastic but is beyond what is required.
I'd like to see period accounts that measure cut depth and who survived and what level of cut and in which locations. There are few accounts of being wounded with a bayonet so many believe there were few bayonet injuries, not the case. Bayonet wounds were mostly fatal and doctors did not waste time observing the dead, only the living.

kronckew · 15th January 2021, 11:56 AM

A disabling Wound is far more strategically important. A dead man stops using precious resources. A wounded man keeps using them without depriving the enemy of anything. It ties up about 5 men to look after, move, feed one wounded man, and they need food, equipment and housing as well.

(Historically, a badly wounded man was most likely going to die of complications and/or infection later anyway.)

6th December 2020, 01:54 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,940	British pipeback parabolic blade saber c. 1801 This saber is what I believe is British, and possibly one of the many variations of the M1796 stirrup hilt sabers for light cavalry of this period, and most likely for an officer. It was featured in an article on M1796 sabers in Denmark around 20 years ago which concerned the numbers of variations in these swords. In the 1790s, Henry Osborn of Birmingham teamed with a British cavalry officer named LeMarchant to develop the first regulation patterns for the British cavalry known as M1796. While the blades seem to have had a number of variations, some with 'pipe back' (many of these had the stepped back yelman point), and even cases of 'yataghan' type blades, this is the only version I personally have ever seen of a 'shamshir' type blade with this pipe back . Typically the M1796 had what s known as a 'hatchet point' which was a radiused point rather than sharp tip . Also unusual is the deeply canted hilt which is a characteristic I have only seen on certain type of shashka from the Caucusus regarded as 'Mingrelian' if memory serves. What is known of this period of sword development in England is that numerous variations observing other sword forms from various nations were considered. Possibly the Caucasian types might have been noted? I would be curious to know if others here have seen similar examples and thoughts on this anomaly. Attached Images Last edited by Jim McDougall; 6th December 2020 at 02:15 AM.

6th December 2020, 02:27 PM	#2
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,596	Hi Jim, I would have designated this a Flank Officers sword of the Napoleonic era rather than a cavalry sword. The curvature of the blade and the canted hilt would suggest to me that this is the more probable attribution. My Regards, Norman.

6th December 2020, 04:37 PM	#4
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,178	I suspect flank officers were more likely to get into hand-to-hand combat with no time for fancy duelling, so lots of slashing at close range. Pipe backed blades are notoriously bad cutters as the spine tends to stop any further downward progress of the cut. Surprising to see one in flank officers form. This one would also be rather useless for giving point. Impressive tho.

6th December 2020, 05:21 PM	#5
Will M Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: In the wee woods north of Napanee Ontario Posts: 391	I've read that pipe backed blades that cuts were hampered by the pipe back but I have not seen any real testing to confirm this. The pipe back possibly 1/4" wide and rounded may not slow the cut as much as some perceive. The blades are quite thin and can be razor sharp and you are cutting in about 1" before the pipe back would contact the target. There may be Youtube videos using such swords to evaluate cuts? Being thin blades they would be more likely to break during use.

6th December 2020, 08:08 PM	#6
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,178	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK34V1P07bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VAHQ6advQ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK34V1P07bs Matt does like to talk.... Info on flank officers swords: https://collections.royalarmouries.o...ative-469.html

14th January 2021, 09:32 PM	#7
Will M Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: In the wee woods north of Napanee Ontario Posts: 391	Pipe backed swords can cut a good inch or so before contacting the pipe back. Choice targets would be the neck, head, under the arm, inner thigh etc. I would believe that an inch deep slash in the neck would be sudfficient to kill. I have an officers 1821p cavalry sword with original sharpening and I would not wish to be cut with it. I think only bone would slow the blade on contacting the pipe back. I don't think you need to cut deeper to disable your opponent. Cutting off an head, arm or torso sounds fantastic but is beyond what is required. I'd like to see period accounts that measure cut depth and who survived and what level of cut and in which locations. There are few accounts of being wounded with a bayonet so many believe there were few bayonet injuries, not the case. Bayonet wounds were mostly fatal and doctors did not waste time observing the dead, only the living.

15th January 2021, 11:56 AM	#8
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,178	A disabling Wound is far more strategically important. A dead man stops using precious resources. A wounded man keeps using them without depriving the enemy of anything. It ties up about 5 men to look after, move, feed one wounded man, and they need food, equipment and housing as well. (Historically, a badly wounded man was most likely going to die of complications and/or infection later anyway.)