why sabre ?

tom hyle · 27th March 2005, 09:15 PM

Thanks for the elucidations, gentlemen.

Jim McDougall · 27th March 2005, 11:00 PM

Rivkin,
Thank you for the added material on the use of the kindjhal, especially in duelling which would emphasize the recognition of such codes. It seems the kindjhal occurs in a wide range of sizes and most carry the mail piercing point which of course suggests this is a thrusting weapon. It seems the slashing moves were restricted largely to duelling if I understand correctly.

"I know how to use a dagger-
I was born in the Caucusus."
-Alexander Pushkin

* Pushkin was killed in his passion for duelling.

While the discussion of cut vs. thrust in the sword remains clearly a subjective issue, it seems that the recognition of honor and codes is very much philosophical and would likely be overlooked in the heat of combat for obvious reasons. I recalled notes from many years ago in a narrative on the Crimean War where "...one trooper complained as he was having a severe head wound dressed, that in combat with a Russian he had just given him a 'cut five' (body cut) when the 'damned fool' had never guarded at all, but hit him on the head!". Clearly the Russian opponent had no regard whatsoever for the proper following of the British sword exercises

I think one of the best books for understanding the psychological and philosophical elements of battle would be John Keegans "Face of Battle" (1976) where many of these issues are dealt with most interestingly.

I think that the intensity of combat with sheer volume and variables in violent flux would all but negate any concept of controlled conduct in such respects, and human nature would prevail. A degree of decor would return as the intensity subsided, such as is noted after the charge at Balaklava and scattered survivors moved about, several wounded British survivors were approached by Cossack lancers, who simply halfheartedly poked at them, then rode away.

I really appreciate your adding the perspective on this. Thank you.
Best regards,
Jim

Rivkin · 27th March 2005, 11:47 PM

No combat is needed - to avoid any discussions on the board I'll not say anything, but to see the other side of caucasian "traditions" it's enough to google for "circassians armenians genocide". 1915 or 1916 can be added.

Most of the code of honor attributes were either entirely theoretical or were observed over a very short period of time (and usually by certain tribes). On the other hand many caucasian units had a nasty habit of practising cuts on local peasants.

To my original question I actually wondered more on advantages of palash vs. sabre, rather than epee vs. sabre.

The latter discussion I believe is well represented in the archives, the first one is almost untouched (taking in mind that palash is a thrust and cut weapon).

ariel · 28th March 2005, 12:34 AM

Sometimes in the beginning of the second milennium the European knights faced Central Asian warriors, Turks, Tatars etc.
The European chivalrous style of combat involved heavy lance and straight sword, both essentially thrusting weapons of heavy cavalry. The "Asians" used lightning attacks of the light cavalry, showers of arrows directed primarily against horses and quick slashes of the curved sabers against poorly defended and often retreating infantry.
I would guess that the khights were so impressed (or shocked!) that they have gradually adopted the "Asian" style of combat as well as their weapons. Polish and Hungarian hussars, with their closest contact withe the Turks and the Tatars, became the first and the best European light cavalrymen and the French even called their hussar sabers "a la hongroise" (Hungarian style). The very word Uhlan is Tatar in origin.
So, I do not think there were any scientific studies of the matter: the change in tactics determined the choice of a weapon.
And, Jim, despite Pushkin's bragging about Caucasian kinjals, he was killed by a pistol.... And by a Frenchman, to boot...

Jim McDougall · 28th March 2005, 01:03 AM

Ariel,
Pretty ironic huh!!

Whats that old saying about bringing a knife to a gunfight? I know ,I know , it was a pistol duel!
Interesting notes on the development of light cavalry. Always thought that subject was extremely fascinating and my earliest collecting focused on cavalry sabres.
Best regards,
Jim

27th March 2005, 09:15 PM	#1
tom hyle Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Houston, TX, USA Posts: 1,254	Thanks for the elucidations, gentlemen.

27th March 2005, 11:00 PM	#2
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Rivkin, Thank you for the added material on the use of the kindjhal, especially in duelling which would emphasize the recognition of such codes. It seems the kindjhal occurs in a wide range of sizes and most carry the mail piercing point which of course suggests this is a thrusting weapon. It seems the slashing moves were restricted largely to duelling if I understand correctly. "I know how to use a dagger- I was born in the Caucusus." -Alexander Pushkin * Pushkin was killed in his passion for duelling. While the discussion of cut vs. thrust in the sword remains clearly a subjective issue, it seems that the recognition of honor and codes is very much philosophical and would likely be overlooked in the heat of combat for obvious reasons. I recalled notes from many years ago in a narrative on the Crimean War where "...one trooper complained as he was having a severe head wound dressed, that in combat with a Russian he had just given him a 'cut five' (body cut) when the 'damned fool' had never guarded at all, but hit him on the head!". Clearly the Russian opponent had no regard whatsoever for the proper following of the British sword exercises I think one of the best books for understanding the psychological and philosophical elements of battle would be John Keegans "Face of Battle" (1976) where many of these issues are dealt with most interestingly. I think that the intensity of combat with sheer volume and variables in violent flux would all but negate any concept of controlled conduct in such respects, and human nature would prevail. A degree of decor would return as the intensity subsided, such as is noted after the charge at Balaklava and scattered survivors moved about, several wounded British survivors were approached by Cossack lancers, who simply halfheartedly poked at them, then rode away. I really appreciate your adding the perspective on this. Thank you. Best regards, Jim

27th March 2005, 11:47 PM	#3
Rivkin Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 655	No combat is needed - to avoid any discussions on the board I'll not say anything, but to see the other side of caucasian "traditions" it's enough to google for "circassians armenians genocide". 1915 or 1916 can be added. Most of the code of honor attributes were either entirely theoretical or were observed over a very short period of time (and usually by certain tribes). On the other hand many caucasian units had a nasty habit of practising cuts on local peasants. To my original question I actually wondered more on advantages of palash vs. sabre, rather than epee vs. sabre. The latter discussion I believe is well represented in the archives, the first one is almost untouched (taking in mind that palash is a thrust and cut weapon).

28th March 2005, 12:34 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Sometimes in the beginning of the second milennium the European knights faced Central Asian warriors, Turks, Tatars etc. The European chivalrous style of combat involved heavy lance and straight sword, both essentially thrusting weapons of heavy cavalry. The "Asians" used lightning attacks of the light cavalry, showers of arrows directed primarily against horses and quick slashes of the curved sabers against poorly defended and often retreating infantry. I would guess that the khights were so impressed (or shocked!) that they have gradually adopted the "Asian" style of combat as well as their weapons. Polish and Hungarian hussars, with their closest contact withe the Turks and the Tatars, became the first and the best European light cavalrymen and the French even called their hussar sabers "a la hongroise" (Hungarian style). The very word Uhlan is Tatar in origin. So, I do not think there were any scientific studies of the matter: the change in tactics determined the choice of a weapon. And, Jim, despite Pushkin's bragging about Caucasian kinjals, he was killed by a pistol.... And by a Frenchman, to boot...

28th March 2005, 01:03 AM	#5
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,192	Ariel, Pretty ironic huh!! Whats that old saying about bringing a knife to a gunfight? I know ,I know , it was a pistol duel! Interesting notes on the development of light cavalry. Always thought that subject was extremely fascinating and my earliest collecting focused on cavalry sabres. Best regards, Jim