Were sabres used effectively in U.S. Civil War?

[Jim McDougall]

On the present thread discussing a M1840 cavalry sabre, the subject came up concerning just how much were these weapons actually used during the Civil War. In discussions years ago I recall some statements suggesting that these cavalry sabres were not even sharpened.

Naturally firearms had become more accurate and preferred, and references suggest that while sabre use was significant in early part of the war, its use considerably diminished later. Men were poorly trained in thier use, and the cumbersome sabres were lashed to the saddles as they were reluctantly carried on campaign.

Still, these cavalry sabres were both imported and produced in the tens of thousands for Union forces, while Confederate forces were supplied from imports, limited production in makeshift and small factories, captured Union supplies and all manner of surplus weapons.
Despite these staggering numbers of weapons known to have been produced or imported, the medical records from the war reflect incredibly few wounds from swords, actually less than 1000 instances (inclusive of all edged weapons including bayonets).

The wounds seem to have been more reflective of blunt force trauma than cutting wounds, suggesting either unsharpened or poorly maintained blades or perhaps as mentioned, poor training in swordsmanship.

I'd like to hear more on just how effectively sabres were used in combat in the Civil War, and if they werent really used, why in the world were such huge stores of them produced and imported.

It seems like Ames M1840's were all over the place when I was a kid and no cracks!! it wasn't just after the war ended!!!

All best regards,
Jim

[Dmitry]

I think you've answered your own question.
Less then 1/10 of 1% of injuries, let along casualties in CW were inflicted by a sword or a bayonet. Artillery did the job on the rest.

Cavalry saber was not a totally useless implement after all, for many a running Indian were cut down in the following decades, more so for the sport of it.

[Rick]

Jim, isn't the Sabre de rigeur for leading any sort of organised charge either on foot or horseback ?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Rick

Jim, isn't the Sabre de rigeur for leading any sort of organised charge either on foot or horseback ?

Thanks so much Rick!!! Thats an excellent point....the sabre as used by officers was indeed a symbol of authority and in signaling. In this sense it was a symbolic element of tradition. I think that was what was so poignant about the Confederate officers being allowed to keep them during and after the surrender at Appomattox, a wonderfully respectful gesture.

I guess in a way my 'question' is a bit rheotorical, but I was hoping for those informative rebuttals that might prove flaws in my statements, which simply recount notes from the published material I have seen.

As distasteful as the image noted is, and outside the scope of the Civil War focus here, I did find an interesting note claiming that soldiers were actually ordered not to sharpen thier sabres during the Indian wars as they would become lodged in the victim.
It seems odd to negate the actual purpose of the weapon, and while there were some notably despicable attacks on villages, it would seem that the sabre for combat was not particularly favored. According to H.L.Peterson ("The American Sword" , p.16) the effectiveness of the sabre was virtually useless against the guerilla type tactics used by Indian warriors, and the sabre was "...frequently left behind when cavalry took to the field".

Returning to the Civil War, and with the 'order' not to sharpen sabres of the Indian wars period, I am wondering if perhaps the minute numbers of wounds throughout the Civil War recorded from sabres might have been due to injuries not of enough magnitude to require treatment. While blunt force trauma, such as one case with severe head wound caused by skull fracture (Beller. op.cit. p.30), not cutting, it does seem dull swords were a fact.
Since the soldier referred to here was a Union soldier, and reference has been made to poor training and sword maintainance of the rank and file in Union forces, it appears that this suggests the situation was comparable among Confederate rank and file.

If only minor injuries were sustained, such as bruising etc. from sword attacks, possibly this might explain the minimal instances reported.

[Dmitry]

Most 19th century sabers I have seen were never sharpened.

[kronckew]

i read recently somewhere that the southern forces cavalry favoured the pistol and were amused at the yankee cavalry's fondness for the sabre, southern use of cavalry as screening and reconnaissance as well as pursuit of running enemies was more effective than yankee sabre charges at organised masses of troops. actual battle between mounted units was rare.

maybe the yankees didn't get much chance to use the sabres if they were driven off by gunfire before they got in range. their use of repeating carbines was also laughed at as they were a difficult item to reload while on horseback, changing pre-loaded cylinders on revolvers was a tad easier, most southern horseman would carry several revolvers, and only officers might occasionally carry a sword. (also read the large D guard bowies were fairly well hated and not very useful, and were generally 'lost' pretty quickly so they didn't have to carry the ungainly things...)

unfortunately towards the end there were just too durn many yankees.
and some bright spark started supplying them with brass cartridges for their repeaters.

[fernando]

Maybe the following constitutes an amazing addition ... or contradiction .
I was once investigating why the revolver, judging by the way holsters were made, was suspended by civil war troopers on the right side and in a inclined position, as to be drawn with the left hand.
The explanation was that, as the sabre was appointed to be the primary weapon, was to be held with the rigth hand; the revolver being a support item, was to be used by the left.
It appears that, at least theoreticaly, reliability laid on the edged weapon, in a period when firearms were already quite efective and, as discussed here, sabres were not even sharpened .
Or should we assume that the symbolism of the sabre was superior to actual survival rules?


Fernando