A strongly curved Flank Officer's sword

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Well one thing we may repute as certain; arcuate blades in such manner, wherever its fashion started, had no frontier limits. British had them, Spanish had them, Portuguese had them and, so it seems, the Russians also had a go at it.
Look at the example below; judging by its relative dimensions, its bow must be close from the 20 cms.
However apart from this exponential specimen, parabolic blades must have seen field use. We should not forget that, the blow applied by curved sabres wasn't necessarily the thrust but also the slash in that, the blade would describe a short and rapid semi circle, its arch intensifying the cutting effect; so says Eduardo Nobre in his book "As Armas e os Barões", where he adds that, the blade curvature could be at times so exaggerated that, when the soldier raised his armed arm up to his (left) shoulder, the sabre point would touch his opposite shoulder.


.

Very well explained, and of course we know curved blades were indeed used in combat situations, extremely much so with the light cavalry which evolved from 'Oriental' styled tactics of Turks, Caucasians, Cossacks, East Europeans etc. The most notable effect of the sabre was the 'draw cut' which as described extended the point of contact in the cut.I am not sure if I am expressing that properly as my understanding of physics and mathematics is pretty dismal.


However, this very extreme example well illustrates the limitations of effectiveness with a curved blade. There seems like little hope for a cut to follow the line of this dramatic curve. It also always amazes me at how these could be effectively put into and withdrawn from the scabbard. Even the similarly curved Ottoman sabre has a slot at the throat to permit these actions.


I am beginning as well to wonder at the use of the mathematical term parabolic to describe these blades, and now I seem to recall I dragged that term out of Burton from one of his descriptions years ago. In looking at the term further and in the graph attached, it does not seem accurate and hope I did not misconstrue its use. It does not seem to be used in other references that I have seen.


Turning to the scabbard question, again with officers it would seem to have been a matter of preference. Obviously the rank and file had iron scabbards (but earlier lined with wood) which they finally realized horribly dulled the blades.

I suppose that concerning military 'fashion' it is well to consider just how nonsensical the uniforms were, with the Napoleonic era being a good illustration. The tall and uncomfortable shakos, especially the bearskin one of the Scots Greys, which they complained were full of lice. The colorful uniforms, while brillant in pageantry but terribly impractical.
Given all of this, certainly there may have been instances of officers taking all manner of their chosen weaponry, and perhaps included such sabres as these examples.

With the artwork which depicts these often famed battles, the element of artistic license is always looming and contested. Many depictions were done in a range of time after the events, using accounts taken from those present. A good example is the beautiful painting by Lady Butler of the charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo, "Scotland Forever". This stirring and wonderful depiction (one of my favorites) however, is considerably away from what really occurred there that day.

In other instances, with British swords there were paintings made of the uniforms of the units which of course included the hangers worn by the infantry. The types worn had been in use for some time, but because of the dates of the paintings the hangers became known as 'patterns' of the respective years.

Basically we cannot say broadly whether or not these unusual and often dramatic sabres were actually used in combat and in what degree. We cannot say unequivocably whether leather or metal scabbards were used in accord with dress or battle, as in many cases battle was obviously a 'dress up' occasion.

The use of multiple weapons in combat did not include variations of the same arm for different purposes, particularly the sword. While in earlier times of course there was the estoc or tuck (a larger thrusting sword) worn under the saddle for dismounted combat, while the sabre was for mounted use, and war hammer, bow and arrows etc. (Rembrandt's "Polish Rider).....such a panapoly of arms was not used in military forces of the times we discuss.

Many officers did not consider the 'business of fighting' their place, and simply regarded their duty was to direct their troops, and in that regard the sword became a device of signal and direction. Though movies often portray officers as waving their sabres as they lead into battle, that was not always the case. Obviously many did, and those we chose to serve as exemplars.
In such cases of 'directing' officers, clearly a handsome and notable sword would be well placed.

[fernando]

Call it mathematics, geometry ... whatever.
The sword smith, whether an engineer or a village illiterate (like me) ought to thoroughly negotiate these (call them perfect) round lines; specially if there is no slot at the scabbard throat to compensate for those (call them imperfect) ones.
I take it that there are ancient practical methods to resolve these issues without any scholarship, though. Something like building an aqueduct without ending up with the water stopping to run half way to its end; do you know the trick ?
But i digress .


.

[Jim McDougall]

Exactly! Geometry, math whatever, and not sure if my engineering skills'(?) are up to the aqueduct thing. But the thing is, this incredible curve and this scabbard seem to me to be daunting...…..this ain't exactly 'quick draw' !!
I think of the horsemen in the Caucusus, and that they wore their shashkas with blade up, so that the sabre as withdrawn would go directly to the slashing draw cut. in one sweep.

Regardless, in field 'innovation' men could pretty much make anything work as best as it could. The main axiom in consideration is that there are really no hard and fast rules set for these matters, and the intrigue is in studying the variations and incidental cases.

[kronckew]

Romans also lined their aqueducts with concrete of a much better grade than we use. it was waterproof, and even could set under water. They also could make water run up hill without pumps*! Concrete (and stone) is crap in tension, so they always designed their buildings so concrete was never in tension. Our 'modern' re-enforced concrete usually only lasts a few decades, water seeps in and rusts the rebar. rust takes up more room than steel, so internal pressures crack the concrete, and it eventually fails. The Parthenon in Rome has been around for a couple millenia, it's huge concrete dome has NO rebar, and we'd struggle to duplicate it and it's life even now.

They were quite aware that too steep an incline of the duct was as bad as too shallow. Too shallow, not enough flow, too steep and water velocity for the desired flow rate can increase pressures in directional changes. The water effectively jamming or blowing out the system. They also covered the ducting to prevent evaporation. They also tunnelled through rock from both sides, usually meeting with very little offset (but not always!)

*- http://www.romanaqueducts.info/pictu...pen/siphon.htm

p.s.- Fernandos example could use a wheel on the chape drag

[Richard G]

To return to the fashionable aspect - I think we need to consider the number of volunteer and militia units there were in the UK during the Napoleonic wars. Their purpose was home defence in the event of an invasion and a certain amount of internal peace-keeping. They were not expected to be sent abroad. For most of the wars these out-numbered the regular army.
My point is that officering these units was a patriotic and fashionable thing to do, not even requiring military experience, and without the fear of imminent combat there was ample opportunity for flamboyance and a peacockery.
Regards
Richard

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Richard G

To return to the fashionable aspect - I think we need to consider the number of volunteer and militia units there were in the UK during the Napoleonic wars. Their purpose was home defence in the event of an invasion and a certain amount of internal peace-keeping. They were not expected to be sent abroad. For most of the wars these out-numbered the regular army.
My point is that officering these units was a patriotic and fashionable thing to do, not even requiring military experience, and without the fear of imminent combat there was ample opportunity for flamboyance and a peacockery.
Regards
Richard

Well noted Richard...…….most of these guys were high end gentry, and all manner of well heeled station. It seems a lot like the 'hunting sword' theme of court and dress swords, a lot of embellishment and fashion in hilts, blades and scabbards. All about impression and status. Kinda the 'Beau Brummel' syndrome I guess