why sabre ?

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

tom hyle · 26th March 2005, 05:01 PM

The documents probably do still exist somewhere. I remember seeing a reprint of the US Army memo on why they were discontinuing swords; they had an ideal weight for a soldier to carry, and it was sword or shovel; so that wasn't a directly fighting reason at all! My impression concerning the matter is that the idea of the superiority of the thrust and of what they called "scientific fencing" was a heavily dogmatized idea with the European over-culture (still is, too); I do not feel it was accurate/true, but it was a cultural level belief. One imagines lightness to be a consideration as well, but that's just a guess.
A wounded enemy can still be dangerous, but as I've said previously, primarily if he has a puncture wound; a good slash will often/usually sever muscles and actually mechanically disable someone. We've had this discussion at length before; slash vs. thrust; won't someone who can please link it?

25th March 2005, 02:05 PM	#2
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	#1
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	#3
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	#4
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	#5
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	#6
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	#7
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

26th March 2005, 05:01 PM	#8
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	The documents probably do still exist somewhere. I remember seeing a reprint of the US Army memo on why they were discontinuing swords; they had an ideal weight for a soldier to carry, and it was sword or shovel; so that wasn't a directly fighting reason at all! My impression concerning the matter is that the idea of the superiority of the thrust and of what they called "scientific fencing" was a heavily dogmatized idea with the European over-culture (still is, too); I do not feel it was accurate/true, but it was a cultural level belief. One imagines lightness to be a consideration as well, but that's just a guess. A wounded enemy can still be dangerous, but as I've said previously, primarily if he has a puncture wound; a good slash will often/usually sever muscles and actually mechanically disable someone. We've had this discussion at length before; slash vs. thrust; won't someone who can please link it?