Pen is mightier than the sword

[katana]

The gladius was the main weapon of one of the greatest military machines of history....the Roman empire. Incidentally, 'gladius' was also Roman slang for the 'male appendage' (hence the title). The effective technique of lines of Roman Centurions advancing with a 'shield wall' and slashing oncoming opponents with their short swords was effectively a giant killing lawn mower....with the enemy playing the part of the grass

This sword was re-introduced as a side arm as the French foot artillery short sword of 1816 and the later variants including the US 1832 model. Now, this 'later' sword type was not well liked or was extremely effective in combat and was known by the French as the coupe choux (cabbage cutter). It ended up being used mainly as a machete for cutting wood, cutting brush and creating trails.

It seems that the 'pen pushers' dictated the decision to issue the sword to the troops on a misguided belief that 'if it worked so well for the Romans ....' but failed to understand that the weapon 'matched' the tactics.
To me, it seems that the design changes to regulation swords were influenced more by government 'officials' than by military considerations. In an ethnographic environment the evolution of weapons tends to be driven by 'what's better', adopting improvements from enemy weapons and better technology.
So was this case.......what other swords were supposedly replaced by improved patterns...that on the battle field were in fact worse.

All comments gratefully received

Kind Regards David

[Hotspur]

This sword was re-introduced as a side arm as the French foot artillery short sword of 1816 and the later variants including the US 1832 model. Now, this 'later' sword type was not well liked or was extremely effective in combat and was known by the French as the coupe choux (cabbage cutter). It ended up being used mainly as a machete for cutting wood, cutting brush and creating trails.

Wasn't the purpose and role intended exactly that. There is somewhere reference in either WWI or WWII asking once again for a cq weapon but the short swords of the worlds military did continue field what were basically fascine knives through at least WWI. Then there are any number of bolo and later smachet. Obviously, the falchions and other lighter artillery and engineer swords were more plentiful but many nations ended up with one version or another at some point in their development. Grips varied but the fish scale grips were for the purpose of aiding grip, as were the more common simple concentric grooves. For a big ding donger of a blade, there was the oddity known to the Welch Fusilliers sword of a crowbar.

www.rwfmuseum.org.uk/nb.html

Aside from not just the two later French blade types (1816&1831) they seemed to be popular in the cutlass or artillery role in Confederate America. Examples ranging from very coarse to southern copies of the Ames 1841 cutlass. Those more similar to the French 1831 infantry sleeker leaf blade. Heck, even the British had a go and imported many "1855 Land Transport" single edge (but variants show up) swords.

A rather odd one turned up on Sunny Tampa's list a couple of years ago and was probably in the theatrical or fraternal vein. Hollywood had a go as well.

Cheers

GC

[fearn]

So far as I know, the pen is mightier than the sword, but only if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp. (Courtesy Sir T Pratchett).

[Rick]

We try to leave the schoolboy humor in the cloakroom .....

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Rick

We try to leave the schoolboy humor in the cloakroom .....

Sure thing.
Thread title edited.

[Jim McDougall]

Hi David,
Just to return to your original topic, which is really a great one for discussion. I know exactly what you mean with your original title but I wanted to get on board with the course you wanted to set about the disconnected development of regulation patterns.

The sword you chose as an illustration (the cabbage cutter) was a great one, and really shows the 'looks good on paper' syndrome. Sort of reminds me of the old one, 'definition of a camel" a horse designed by a committee'!

With regulation military swords, often there was much more concern with 'fashion' than effectiveness toward the end of the 18th century, and France by then was in its neo-classic stage. The French Revolution carried forth many allusions to the ancients in its themes and particularly Roman subjects, so the later adoption of the 'gladius' atavistically in military setting is hardly surprising. At least they did not have the troops start wearing togas!

The close ties to France after the American Revolution in many respects led to following thier lead in military fashion, and many of the U.S. military swords and elements of uniform followed French military fashion. Here again, the patently decorative 'gladius' type weapon was adopted for the artillery officers in 1833, and indeed later found its way into Confederate use by the time of the Civil War. The bizarre similarity to to ancient Roman swords in at least one instance presented an interesting conundrum to a 'would be' archaeologist a number of years ago, I believe it was in the New York area.
One of these was dug up inadvertantly, and in a news item declared to be evidence of Romans in America from ancient times!!!! Pretty sure his chagrin must have proven unbearable soon thereafter.


Despite the colorful portrayals of sabre waving charges during the Civil War, in actuality swords were seldom really used, and commonly not even sharpened. Naturally there were exceptions in degree with certain officers in flamboyant circumstances, but with rank and file troops, these were mostly a traditionally dictated encumbrance. In medical terms in references I have seen over the years, it is noted that of the remarkably few sword related wounds seen, most were blunt force trauma, further suggesting less than sharp blades. In addition, most troops were poorly trained in sword excercise, which is one of the leading reasons why the M1840 heavy cavalry sabre was nicknamed 'the old wristbreaker'. It was actually a very effective sabre, if used properly, however if not....indeed could result in painful repercussions.

Another unfortunate experiment in trying to adopt the use of anachronistic weaponry a'la European style by Union troops were the few units of cavalry assigned to become lancer units. This was largely disastrous, and the men were from most accounts far more dangerous to each other than to a potential enemy combatant. Again, Im sure there are opposing perspectives (which Id love to hear!) but what I read was as noted. As far as use of the lance in North America, its use by American Indian warriors and Spanish lanceros was tremendously effective (one of the most remarkable events of Californio lancers being at the Battle of San Pasqual during the Mexican War).

With the British, one of the greatest advances in the development of effective regulation swords was with LeMarchant, a brilliant young cavalry officer who proposed what became the first officially recognized military pattern cavalry swords in 1796. Though the heavy cavalry sword was ill received, the light cavalry sabre proved to be one of the most effective sabres known, and despite being superceded by other patterns subsequently, remained in use throughout the 19th and even into the 20th century. For cavalry swords, it was always the battle of cut vs. thrust and the never ending quest for the universal sword that could effectively deliver both.
By the time the issue was 'resolved' (with M1908 British and M1913 'Patton' US swords) the sword was for all intents and purposes obsolete. The M1908 British swords were actually used though, while the 'Pattons' never saw combat.

As always, I hope these notes will add perspective and possibly even more discussion. Thanks for posting the topic David!

All best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Hi Jim,
Very interesting and rather wise reasoning on the theme of swords anachronism, as opposed to the period in which 'right swords were used in right hands', a binomial in which the gladius appears to be one of the more charismatic examples.
On the other hand, the climax of the gladius in the hands of Romans was itself an ascension of this sword, as having being copied from other peoples and adapted and regulated to their (Roman) tactical needs.
That's why they candidly called it Gladius Hispaniensis, as having faced it in the hands of Iberians and Celts, when they fought them in the Iberian Peninsula, which they called Hispania.
Actualy it appears that a common Roman practice was, like with the gladius, adopting and improving foreigner weapons.
... Not meaning at all that such practice is a demerit.

[katana]

Thank you Gentlemen for your replies

Hi GC ,
thank you for the pictures and references.I am not certain, but I think some infantry units were also equiped with this sword. However, as an artillary sword I still think, assuming that its combat effectiveness was not paramount, a machete would have been a much better option to clear 'brush' etc. The 'gadius' in this situation was neither combat effective or really that good at cutting foilage. Artillary positions were often main targets of any strategic offensive. Often with the intention of over-running a position and gaining control of the cannon ....and then using it to bombard the original 'owners'. This often meant soldiers would eventually end up fighting 'up close and personal' either defending/attacking the cannon position. After all, the quicker a cannon position is taken the better ...and a stand-off position with defenders and attackers exchanging volleys of lead would allow the cannon to be still used against your troops or alternatively give the defenders time to 'spike' the cannon, making it inoperative.

Hi Jim ,
excellent summary. Even though the sword was 'superceded' by firearms, it still had its place as a back-up weapon. Obviously with the very slow reloading times of early firearms ...bayonets were introduced, effectively making your musket a spear, previously the musket was employed as a club. In this situation, I personally would prefer to be armed with a good sword, it would be easier to parry the thrust of a bayonet. The only down side is the fact that the musket becomes an incumberance ...unless you can 'sling' it over your shoulder.

Never the less, I believe any weapon....even a back-up weapon should be the best design that 'fits' the style of combat. Feedback from the battle field should have dictated the evolution of sword design but, it seems that bureaucrats had other considerations ....cost, etc. Perhaps there was even arrogance that 'we are better..irrispective of the weapons we use'

Interestingly you mentioned the LC1796 (one of my favorite 'pattern' swords.....one day I hope to have one....but I digress ) After watching a documentary it was mentioned that the French were abhored by the wounds inflicted by this sabre. Apparently though, many of the wounds were not lethal....whereas the French 'thrusting' swords, were on balance more likely to kill, rather than wound. Perhaps, this started the 'thinking' that newer British pattern swords should be designed with the 'thrust' in mind...over the 'cut' ?

My other 'concern' of Regulation pattern swords is that fundermentally they would be identical. Blade length, hilt size etc. This would mean that a sword was not necessarily suited to an individual, making it less effective. If we look at the Tulwar, for instance......it is a sword that is easily recognised (pattern ?) but, the differing weight, blade size etc varies enormously. I appreciate that from an armies point of view the cost of variations would be prohibative, especially with 'mass production' of one type of blade which by comparision would be relatively cheap. But the military regulations prohihibiting personal modification seems shortsighted as often soldiers in India (away from government officials) made un-official mods that were 'tolerated locally'.

Hi 'Nando ,
you're right the Romans were indeed very good at adopting 'weapon technology' but, this also helps my point. Millitary input would have inflenced these 'adoptions' not 'back office pen pushers' that 'plagued' later Nations.

Originally Posted by fearn

So far as I know, the pen is mightier than the sword, but only if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp. (Courtesy Sir T Pratchett).

Hi Fearn ,
great author, great line......but I still wouldn't take a fountain pen to a knife fight ....no matter how small the blades are.....think I'll follow Sean Connory's (Untouchables) advice....I'd take a gun

Kind Regards David

[aiontay]

If I remember correctly, the Roman short sword was primarily a thrusting/stabbing weapon and recruits spent a lot of time training with extra heavy wooden swords and shields on wooden posts to develop their technique. In addition the Romans wore body armor and frequently enjoyed tactical and technological advantages over their opponents. I don't think any of these things held true for the artillery guys issued a faux Roman short sword. No wonder it didn't work too well for them.

[fearn]

Hi Aiontay,

I think we underestimate how good a gladius was as a generic sword. I've been trying to find the old video from Albion Arms showing a someone using a gladius (among other swords) to do tameshigiri mat cutting. The gladius cut every bit as well as a wakizashi, on the upstroke as well as the downstroke. The Albion arms sword was considered an accurate reproduction, so it's a good demonstration.

Sadly, I can't find the video. Anyone else seen it?

F

[A Senefelder]

Fearn, as I recall that was Jason Dingledine cutting in the video when he still worked there if i'm thinking of the same one. I've swung Albion's various gladii on one of my visits and theres no missing that the gladius was a powerfull cutter. I haven't seen the video around in a while. I'll try to remember to ask Mike, thier sales guy, if they still have it around tommorow.

[aiontay]

I'm sure it was a good cutter. I suspect though that it was the training and tactics that made it even better. I just think the artillery guys were handed a sword that frankly they didn't know how to use by people that thought it looked cool rather than really thought through if it was the best weapon for the job at hand.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks David, and the sword was of course typically a back up weapon in the case of infantry ranks and artillery if emplacement was overrun. In the case of cavalry, the charge with the sabre was characteristically de riguer even into the 20th century with Great Britain and Europe (a great book on this subject is "Charge to Glory", James Lunt). I remember years ago talking with a British brigadier who led one of the last cavalry charges in India in plains in the Northwest Frontier about 1932. Best of all was handling the M1912 officers cavalry sword he wielded in that charge, and in a place of honor over his fireplace was a portrait of his horse.

The M1796 was indeed criticized by Napoleon and his marshals for the terrible wounds these sabres caused, and absolutely right, the French did favor 'giving point' as thrusts were usually fatal, encouraging the British to try to find an effective sword for both, beginning with the M1821/29 cavalry sabres. The M1796 was developed by then Captain Gaspard LeMarchant of the British cavalry ,see "Scientific Soldier", cannot recall author but biography of him and his study of the swords he considered to arrive at the chosen form which included tulwar, shamshir and other sabre types. If you read Robson, Wilkinson and some of the books on these military swords, it is amazing how much empirical study as well as field results from actual campaigns became intensely studied. There are a number of interesting prototypes for various patterns which actually did vary in blade length later in the 19th century though.
LeMarchant was truly a cavalry soldiers voice toward developing these swords, and was killed in a cavalry charge in Spain in the Napoleonic campaigns.

Very good point about regulation swords and thier being somewhat difficult in corresponding to other ranks troops with varying physical size as these were purchased en masse and issued indiscriminately without corresponding size considerations in most of the cases. With officers of course thier swords were custom order and privately acquired so you will often see dramatic variations in size.

Naturally in colonial or campaign circumstances, as in any field situation away from the 'parade ground' environment, men will use whatever best suits the need and as required and opportunity allows.


All the best,
Jim

[fearn]

Originally Posted by aiontay

I'm sure it was a good cutter. I suspect though that it was the training and tactics that made it even better. I just think the artillery guys were handed a sword that frankly they didn't know how to use by people that thought it looked cool rather than really thought through if it was the best weapon for the job at hand.

While I honestly don't think much of the artillery swords for various reasons (I'm not fond of metal handles, for one thing), I don't think they were intrinsically a bad idea.

Short swords were used by everyone from the hoplites to the legions for a variety of types of warfare, over a variety of terrains, for about 700 years, give or take, and they were generally side arms for people who used something else as a first weapon. Versions were carried by gladiators and by civilians.

Someone with a classical education would know this. They probably did not have a good idea of what would make a good short sword (archeology being in its infancy at that point, they'd have to depend on Trajan's column and similar artworks for designs), but when they were casting around for a good side weapon for their foot soldiers, they could do much worse than copying classical short swords.

Best,

F

[katana]

Hi Fearn,
agreed the short 'gladius' type swords are totally functional ...but only in certain environments/situations. One of the reasons why short swords were the common form in antiquity were due to forging/casting limitations. Once these metalurgical problems were 'ironed out' swords became longer increasing their reach and due to the mechanics of leverage etc the impact wound more devestating. With the longer swords Cavalry were much more effective. Swordsman facing opponents with the longer sword also found they were disadvantaged......generally. Of course confined spaces such as dense woodland, ship decks etc the opposite is true (situation/environment).

It seems that the short swords issued to the Artillery and some infantry were inaffective as a true weapon (back-up) when they were better (?) as an agricultural tool and regulary used as one. I have one in my collection ...it is very 'business-like'...but matched against longer swords and bayonet charges it has little chance.

My question revolves around the idea that the input of government 'pen pushers' had too much influence in a number of 'regulation millitary' swords....where other factors seem more important than suitabillity.

Are there any other ill conceived 'patterns'

Regards David

[fearn]

Hi David,

I'm not sure I've ever seen one, but I know that Burton railed against the "yataghan-bayonets" of the French in the 19th Century. In theory it sounds like a horrible design. In practice, I don't know.

Similarly, a saw-backed bayonet is kind of missing the point. The teeth will catch on anything you stab it into, so either it's not a functional bayonet or not a good saw.

Best,

F

[Billman]

I am no expert on weapons (edge tools in general and billhooks in particular are my area of expertise), but the armies of northern Europe until the end of the 19th century or even up to WW1 were often issued with fascine knives that were a short multi-purpose sword - they were used for cutting fodder for horses, wood for shelters and firewood and could double as weapon if needed... They were the 'Woodsman's Pal' of their era... Some did have a saw back so they could be used on heavier wood.....

They were later replaced with a version that was more like a billhook - the fascine knife of the american revolutionary army, and the tool of WWI machine gunners and pioneer corps (sappers) of the armies on both sides...

See also: http://www.swordforum.com/forums/sho...aschinenmesser and http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/sh...ife-Circa-date

For more images, see also: http://www.militaria-datenbank.com/s...?t\u003d135386 and
http://www.militaria-datenbank.com/s...?t\u003d134975 (via http://www.militaria-fundforum.com/s...74&language=en)

And even more from the Swiss army at: http://theswissriflesdotcommessagebo...com/topic/2409


Faskinkniv (Swedish/Danish) or faschinenmesser (German) of 1777 (brass handle), 1810 (sawback) and 1848 (wooden handle):