British 1796 HCS pattern blade shape

Jim McDougall · 19th September 2024, 05:28 PM

I finally found the article "Cut and Thrust" by John Morgan, "Military Illustrated" June 1996, #97, pp.21-26:

Major John Gaspard LeMarchant with the 2nd Dragoon Guards, went to campaign in Flanders, and the British were allied with the Austrians and Dutch at war with the French (1793).
It is noted that the pre 1796 British heavy cavalry swords were regarded as badly balanced and cumbersome.

The Austrians observed that "...British swordplay, though most entertaining, puts me in mind of someone chopping wood".
Also noted that many British horses suffered injuries from their own riders, and the Bays surgeon noted "..some mens wounds he dressed could only have been self inflicted, indeed LeMarchant saw a dragoon captain almost sever his foot in a melee".

Later, when LeMarchant proposed a new heavy cavalry sword, he based it on the Austrian 1775 heavy cavalry sword.

The first British 1796 British heavy cavalry swords appeared in 1797, and was slightly better balanced than the standard types (probably due to longer grip?).

"..a number of variations exist, which are generally modifications to standard swords. For example, some swords are found with the hatchet tip ground to a point; this alteration is said to have originated on the eve of Waterloo when the heavy cavalry were ordered to grind the backs of their blades, presumably to penetrate the curaissiers armor".

It is noted is was not clear whether later examples were made with a spear point, but Morgan suspected some were.

I am uncertain how much longer 'later examples' would have been made, and most of the examples I have seen have year 1814 or 1815 (possible some 1816? but none I can recall).

Robson states the volume was 34,000 in early 1820s, but by 1844 reduced to 12,000. In 1845, some were converted to cutlasses, but nowhere near the 8 to 10,000 authorized.

The 1821 heavy cavalry swords were not issued until 1832, but no urgency as there were still many of the 1796s lingering until after 1835.

While I have seen some implications that there may have been several 1796s at Balaklava in 1854, that seemed impossible, but looking at these circumstances one can only wonder...perhaps not that far fetched. The 1821s were not popular and complaints of weak blades etc.

Just some perspectives, swordsmanship in British cavalry, particularly in other ranks, seemed not especially skilled overall, so perhaps accidental wounding more common than realized. With the altercation with the impaled trooper, more of a brawl involving alcohol than other.

19th September 2024, 05:28 PM	#9
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 9,948	addendum 1796 heavy cavalry swords, 2 DG I finally found the article "Cut and Thrust" by John Morgan, "Military Illustrated" June 1996, #97, pp.21-26: Major John Gaspard LeMarchant with the 2nd Dragoon Guards, went to campaign in Flanders, and the British were allied with the Austrians and Dutch at war with the French (1793). It is noted that the pre 1796 British heavy cavalry swords were regarded as badly balanced and cumbersome. The Austrians observed that "...British swordplay, though most entertaining, puts me in mind of someone chopping wood". Also noted that many British horses suffered injuries from their own riders, and the Bays surgeon noted "..some mens wounds he dressed could only have been self inflicted, indeed LeMarchant saw a dragoon captain almost sever his foot in a melee". Later, when LeMarchant proposed a new heavy cavalry sword, he based it on the Austrian 1775 heavy cavalry sword. The first British 1796 British heavy cavalry swords appeared in 1797, and was slightly better balanced than the standard types (probably due to longer grip?). "..a number of variations exist, which are generally modifications to standard swords. For example, some swords are found with the hatchet tip ground to a point; this alteration is said to have originated on the eve of Waterloo when the heavy cavalry were ordered to grind the backs of their blades, presumably to penetrate the curaissiers armor". It is noted is was not clear whether later examples were made with a spear point, but Morgan suspected some were. I am uncertain how much longer 'later examples' would have been made, and most of the examples I have seen have year 1814 or 1815 (possible some 1816? but none I can recall). Robson states the volume was 34,000 in early 1820s, but by 1844 reduced to 12,000. In 1845, some were converted to cutlasses, but nowhere near the 8 to 10,000 authorized. The 1821 heavy cavalry swords were not issued until 1832, but no urgency as there were still many of the 1796s lingering until after 1835. While I have seen some implications that there may have been several 1796s at Balaklava in 1854, that seemed impossible, but looking at these circumstances one can only wonder...perhaps not that far fetched. The 1821s were not popular and complaints of weak blades etc. Just some perspectives, swordsmanship in British cavalry, particularly in other ranks, seemed not especially skilled overall, so perhaps accidental wounding more common than realized. With the altercation with the impaled trooper, more of a brawl involving alcohol than other.