British pipeback parabolic blade saber c. 1801

[kronckew]

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]

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]

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

[Hotspur]

A side note in nomenclature. British models were prefixed with a p. p1796, etc. I'll let the gods debate the scope of flank officer swords but my understanding is that the term accommodates both the less curved and more curved blades, p1796 type hilts and the later 1803 hilts. I am now curious how the term "flank officer" was coined and used by the British army, or indeed if it is a more modern affectation.

That is a really early looking pipe back. I thought that those blades in England arose in the 1820s.

Cheers
GC

[Will M]

I did see Matts video on these after posting here. I could not find any cutting videos with this blade type.
The Royal Armouries have some good swords but I find many listed have no photos, typically described as the ones I would like to see.

[Bryce]

G'day Jim,
That is a very interesting sword. I haven't come across that combination of canted hilt and pipe-back blade before. Normally these canted hilts are associated with flat, unfullered blades. I have two of these, one maker marked to a tailor Maullin and Co and owned by an artillery officer and the other brass hilted example by Osborn and Gunby. Both of mine have 69cm blades. How long is your blade?

I have done a bit of research on the earliest British pipe-back swords and the earliest dateable ones I have found are circa 1798-1800. By 1815 they were very common for officer's swords. The earlier ones tend to have very fine cutting edges. Looking at your photos, your example appears to have a very pronounced secondary bevel on the cutting edge, indicating a heavier blade.? To me this probably dates it closer to 1820 than 1810.

I think this style of sword could have been carried by an officer of just about any branch of the army ie infantry, cavalry or artillery.

Cheers,
Bryce

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Jim,


I think this style of sword could have been carried by an officer of just about any branch of the army ie infantry, cavalry or artillery.

Cheers,
Bryce

Hi,
I would suspect there is indeed merit in this. Styles seem to have been somewhat fluid in some cases although the more flamboyant curves appear to be particularly associated with those blades attributed to 'flank officers'.
Regards,
Norman.

P.S. Jim, it might be helpful to know the length of the blade.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Bryce

G'day Jim,
That is a very interesting sword. I haven't come across that combination of canted hilt and pipe-back blade before. Normally these canted hilts are associated with flat, unfullered blades. I have two of these, one maker marked to a tailor Maullin and Co and owned by an artillery officer and the other brass hilted example by Osborn and Gunby. Both of mine have 69cm blades. How long is your blade?

I have done a bit of research on the earliest British pipe-back swords and the earliest dateable ones I have found are circa 1798-1800. By 1815 they were very common for officer's swords. The earlier ones tend to have very fine cutting edges. Looking at your photos, your example appears to have a very pronounced secondary bevel on the cutting edge, indicating a heavier blade.? To me this probably dates it closer to 1820 than 1810.

I think this style of sword could have been carried by an officer of just about any branch of the army ie infantry, cavalry or artillery.

Cheers,
Bryce

These are great examples Bryce. It seems the hilts look slightly canted, and again, something to 'flank' company favor it seems. I am unclear on exactly what the 'flank' company designation entails, but it seems that on the M1803 examples there is a horn device which is used to identify them as such.
Perhaps this might explain the purpose of these units?

[Will M]

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]

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.)

[M ELEY]

Excellent point, Wayne, and exactly the type of thought process involved with naval fighting/boarding parties. Why kill if you can just take the fight out of them. Just as a surrendered ship was worth more whole than shot to pieces, wounded men can be ransomed or prisoner exchange, might die later of wounds, etc. I'm in the medical field (15 years as a paramedic and 16 as a nurse) and I've seen lots of wounds. Just because a pipeback might only slash an inch or so deep, that is easily enough to lacerate a liver, sever an artery, crack a skull, etc. Just sayin'-

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

...I'm in the medical field (15 years as a paramedic and 16 as a nurse) and I've seen lots of wounds. Just because a pipeback might only slash an inch or so deep, that is easily enough to lacerate a liver, sever an artery, crack a skull, etc. Just sayin'-

I've always wondered how many people in the US cavalry vs. Native American wars of the 19c would have been saved if they'd been issued mail shirts, which DO stop arrows, especially from horse bows, swords & knives, tomahawks such as used by their opponents. they'd do a good job for pipeback sabres too! Especially if they used nice modern steel alloys and all-welded rings.