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

[Hotspur]

Certainly, a great many more were lost to artillery (from all fired arms) and sickness than any of the other possibilities. I mention lost because most lists touted as pertinent to weapon use simply don't relate the numbers of the dead with circumstance clearly identified, rather those recorded as wounded. Jim alludes to that a bit.

Similar discussion over the years often draw information from some more related instances, such as Shelby sharpening a back edge and von Borcke (or another) relating kills via sword blows. It must simply have been a matter of luck from my own purchases over time that do show 19th century swords in general had been sharpened. Perhaps it was simply a less European outlook and armoury outlook regarding fielding sharp swords. There have certainly been enough examples presented in these threads to show the countries better versed in military operations continued to field sharps up into the 20th century.

I am not a terribly well read student of the American Civil War, aside from pursuing family genealogy and following some of those family members. Of them, I can count to some that started as cavalry and became attached more as mounted infantry. Others continuing to be numbered as cavalry (forage, melee type stuff) during the brief campaign of Price leading a surge back through Missouri. There have been noted battles in which massed cavalry charges were somewhat successful but my opinion and readings point to much more massive logistical use as troopers as mounted infantry (on both sides).

The somewhat mythological use of southern handguns probably needs to be addressed in such discussions but Hollywood (bolstererd by these myths) will too often relate the sheer number of guns some individuals are said to have carried. The truth and personal accounts will probably relate the records of some cavalry retaining swords when available, while maybe a select few were abandoning swords entirely (although shotguns and carbines were a good argument for mounted infantry use).

I hate to draw from states such as Missouri entirely in showing the lack of arms available for southern interests and masses of entirely unarmed that responded (by the time of the battle of Willow Creek) yet the use what one brought from home was only too true up through and beyond that state and the battle of Willow Creek. I do know my paternal gggrandfather (William Alfred Cleeton) went to Oregon as a school teacher instead of disagreeing with brothers and his father (James Cleeton), whom were southern campaigners/sympathizers. As well, first cousins in the Union infantry with one dying outside Atlanta and others surviving to pension. Then there are clear family evidences of pledging to the Union. Then promptly heading off back to Clark, Perkins and Price in rallying for the south once more.

Infantry use? Surely a lot less than might be numbered as used as a primary weapon and yes, a signaling device of sorts.

So where does that all lead back to sharp or not? The generally accepted truths that the 1860s offered little use of sharps is probably pretty accurate (in the big picture) while needing to understand there are still enough sharpened swords of the period and context to say it was not entirely unknown. Some of my Missouri notes keep reminding me of Lyon parading through town with a guard of well equipped cavalrymen. here is a post from me in 2004, easier than me plowing through a mess of bookmarks again.

This is not the page I was looking for but it does show a fellow leaning on something with a similar hilt.

Germans in the Civil War: I goes to fight mit Sigel, by William Keel
http://www.ku.edu/kansas/ford/keel.html Edit for 2009 url update
http://www.skyways.org/orgs/fordco/keel.html

I'll be back. The terrible broadsword quote was something about Lyon's Hessians. OK, so it wasn't terrible broadswords (that quote was from somewhere else). Here is the page I remembered. Down a few paragraphs is the description of mounted Germans with massive swords.

Missouri In The Civil War, Chapter VI
http://www.civilwarhome.com/missouri6.htm
"He entered Springfield with a good deal of mediaeval display. His escort, which was composed of St. Louis German butchers, remarkable for their size and ferocious aspect, was mounted on powerful iron-gray horses and armed with big revolvers and massive swords, and thus accoutered dashed through the streets of the little town, which was held by…"

Also worth considering is your local history of Union recruitment and German imigrants of the time. Franz Sigel (the first link above) is an indication of what these folk were leaving behind and an insight into the politics they supported. Check out the current owners background and family history.

So, in rather convoluted theory, it is certainly possible the sword was used in the conflict. Who used it and origin of manufacture will only be answered by your research.

Good luck with this, the paths are many to the stories of that war.

Cheers

Hotspur; had ancestral first cousins fighting against each other in several battles

Almost invariably, it reads to me as the seasoned officers and troopers from other experiences (European or not) were a minority indeed when maintaining tactics and weapons other countries used into the 20th century. In another great sense, there was simply less organization in training of Union cavalry troopers for sword use vs dismounting and firing.

In other family research, the edged era of warfare does seem to have lasted in America at least up into the post 1812 period, as their militia musters show they were not meant to be carrying only powdered arms (while those firearms have been a fundamental of militia muster back to the 18th century).

A broad subject not so easily quantified.

Cheers

GC

[Hotspur]

I wanted to add that in contemporary use of cutting with swords in my own hands shows some blades much better cutters than others. On a scale of 1 to 10, I'm afraid I can't put any of the French mle 1822 variations of "typical" civil war cavalry sword as terrific and devastating slicers. Maybe more so with the momentum of a horse behind the wielder. Edge alignment more or less critical to be effective through any type of covering on the skin. Yes, I have cut with some antiques here in hand and even with a decent sword edge, it is somewhat a chore to develop the knack of good edge alignment. Yes, sharps that have appeared to have been ground that way from the start.

My back has seriously limited my cutting of the past couple of years but did manage a feeble few cuts against a rolled and wet mat last fall, one cut pretty much through (less one layer) that day but others mere hacks compared to other playful cutting swords I have. With that reproduction infantry type (fairly straight) with a 32" blade and my edge, I know it will cut quite well if I do my part but pretty horrible otherwise. Lots of draw in that to make it slice well.

How often the perfect cuts of history might have been made seem in the minority, while still noted. Uniforms themselves seem to have lent some protection. IIRC, it was a thought from Scottish broadsword play (McBane?) that mentions wetting a cloth to place under one's hat to lessen a blow/cut.
Hydrostatic armour? mebbe, I dunno.

I will defer to accounts of European actions and cutting remarks. It does seem that there was still use of sharps through the 19th century (my 1854 dragon has an edge and is a straight sword). Another related somewhere that the French mle 1822 cavalry trooper sabre was not exactly loved by many that carried it but it was a defacto promise of issue for quite a few decades (and still worn ceremoniously).

Cheers

GC, ad hoc hack

[VANDOO]

I HAVE ONLY OWNED THREE CIVIL WAR SABERS TWO WERE SHARP AND WORN AND THE OFFICERS SWORD WAS NOT. DURING THE CIVIL WAR WARRIORS MOSTLY USED THE GUN AND I AM SURE MANY IF NOT MOST CONSIDERED A LONG SWORD A NUSIENCE TO HAVE TO CARRY AROUND.
THEY WOULD HAVE HAD A HUNTING KNIFE OR BOWIE FOR ANY CLOSE FIGHTING OR SENTRY REMOVAL. THERE WERE PROBABLY A VERY FEW WHO WERE TRAINED IN THE USE OF A LONG SWORD OR LIKED USING THEM. THEY WOULD ONLY HAVE HAD OPERTUNITY TO USE THEM WHEN THEIR GUNS WERE EMPTY OR THE ENEMY WAS RUNNING AND NOT SHOOTING.
MANY UNION CALVARY TROOPS WERE ISSUED A SWORD AND REGUIRED TO CARRY THEM THOUGH THEY WERE POORLY TRAINED IN THEIR USE. THEY WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THEM A NUSIENCE BUT WOULD DO AS THEY WERE TOLD BY THE OFFICERS TO AVOID TROUBLE.
GROUND TROOPS USUALLY DIDN'T CARRY LONG SABERS ON EITHER SIDE AND MOST LIKELY WERE ISSUED BAYONETS, AT LEAST IN THE NORTH. AN OFFICER MAY HAVE CARRIED ONE BUT IT WOULD HAVE MOSTLY HAVE BEEN FOR SIGNALING A CHARGE OR AS A LAST DITCH EFFORT IF YOUR GUNS WERE EMPTY AND YOU WERE BEING OVERRUN.
IN THE SOUTH COMPARITVLY FEW WERE ISSUED AND OFTEN YOU WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN EQUIPMENT SO YOU USED WHAT YOU HAD OR COULD BUY OR BORROW.
THE NORTH BEING THE ONE WITH LARGE INDUSTRY AND A NEVER ENDING STREAM OF IMIGRANTS TO CONSCRIPT COULD SUPPLY THEIR FORCES WELL. NO DOUBT MANY OF THE LONG SWORDS MADE FOR THE CIVIL WAR WERE NEVER ISSUED OR USED AT ALL AND BECAME WAR SURPLUS. THIS MAY ACCOUNT FOR A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF THOSE FOUND NOT SHARPENED AND IN VERY GOOD SHAPE. FRANCIS BANNERMAN MADE A FORTUNE BUYING LARGE AMOUNTS OF WAR SURPLUS FROM THE WORLD OVER FOR MANY YEARS.

[ausjulius]

"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."
hmm , weird and interesting,,, i would suspect this is just a more recent myth.. or the soliders commanders were hopped up on opium or something or had little or no understand on how a sword works.. :O

but..... this all comes back to the point of your question about the american use of the sword..


first one must look at the combatants,,
before the war the u.s. military had been very small and was not an old force with any great deal of combat expereince.. much was before the 1820s almost run as private militias... working as strongmen to preserve the interests for varous regional bigwigs..

so when the war came the mjijority of men had never been in any for of military environment and proably never seen a sword in their lives or had a very good concept of its use...the had never tained in fencing or in cavilrey tactics..
by the end of the war the cavalrey forces of both sides were greater than the whole u.s. army before the war.. so you have many many men with many swords and very little or no training,,
so these men used the techniques they were familiar with , even if issued with equiptment they may not have been,
this also shows with the reluctance of both nothen and southern soliders to close in hand to hand and byonet fighting in decicive situations where such an action would have setled the confrontation and the ranges were enought that it woudl have been effective, but the soliders stuck to shooting it out,, as to someone who may have used a gun before for hunting but had only been recently trained in military tactics of the day,, it would seem totaly mad to charge when you could still shoot,,
i think most mounted troops prefered to use their guns from a distance even if the swords would have been far more effective on a freeing enemy.
as had been show well into the modern era, in the ww1 and even later...
a quick hore charge on a surprised enemy with swords is much more effective that riding up on a horse and shooting from a distance.. .. in some situations..


but i think the whole problem with the use of swords is much older than the maerican civil war... and can be seen recorded in the time of nepoleon.... where the french commanders complained the french cavalrey didnt have sharp swords or sufficient skill to use the effectivly against the russian and cossak troops they encountered,,


this gos back to two things, one point was the decline of sword use by the general population and so the sword becomes more and more a military item, and the second thing related to this is then the decline in effective technique,,
but even bugger was the decline in sharpening technique over europen in the 18th and 19th centuary..
with mechanical devices and machines peopl began to lose their ability to understand how sharpening work and how to sharpen and what is sharpened how, the average solider in england, prussia , france or the u.s. in the 1800s didnt know these things at all,, and the average armorer knew little more......
making a dangerous combination for all those edged tools livelyhoods
ive never seen one european mass produced millitary sword that was sharpened properly,
the only swords from around this time ive seen with any sharpness are some hunting hangers, and sword from the east,, turkish , russia and such.....
i remember seeing s european saber that had been modified to the form of a shashka in a museum in dagestan ,the guard was removed and a new sheath made.. the blade had so much metal removed that it was almost another blade.... showing even the inherent flaws in the blunt poorly ground european sabers.. having an angle to think for any sword,, and not even having the blade take to an edge in the factory..........

[sirupate]

I don't know how effectively they were used in a technical sense, but the Cavalry under Custer's command certainley did use their sabres, with great success against the Confederate cavalry.
I am somewhat supicious of the figures concerning bullet to knife, to canon ratio kill etc. Unless they looked at every body on the battlefield, they can surely only be a guestimate?

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by sirupate

... but the Cavalry under Custer's command certainley did use their sabres, with great success against the Union cavalry....

wow, i always knew that yankee general was rough on his own troops, but to use a sabre on them is a bit OTT.

[sirupate]

Corrected

[kronckew]

thank you, suh!

one of gen. custer's saving graces was his love for greyhounds.

The US cavalry used greyhounds as scouts to help spot Native Americans, since the greyhounds were fast enough to keep up with the horses. General George Custer reportedly always took his 22 coursing greyhounds with him when he travelled. Custer loved to nap on the parlor floor, surrounded by a sea of greyhounds. He normally coursed his hounds the day before a battle, including the day before the Battle of Little Big Horn.

my greyhounds, of course, are of a more southerly persuasion.


more in keeping with the thread, i've just been reading an account of the 'last stand', just before the battle the 7th apparently boxed up all their sabres, officers and enlisted as well, and sent them into storage, so they must not have considered them to be worth the effort of carrying. sadly for them, they also so considered them new-fangled gatling guns to be too much trouble to take with them to defeat a few measly injuns.

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by kronckew

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirupate
... but the Cavalry under Custer's command certainley did use their sabres, with great success against the Union cavalry....

wow, i always knew that yankee general was rough on his own troops, but to use a sabre on them is a bit OTT.

Always suspected Custer was a traitor.

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by kronckew

my greyhounds, of course, are of a more southerly persuasion.

Don't tell me you're going to lynch this puppy for making a mess on the Southern Cross.

[VANDOO]

BACK IN CUSTERS DAY MANY INDIAN TRIBES WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED GREYHOUNDS FAST FOOD

A VERY CUTE PUPPY BUT I AM A TERRIER KIND OF GUY

I SUSPECT MOST AMERICAN CALVARY MEN WERE NOT FOND OF THE SABRE BUT WERE REQUIRED TO CARRY THEM AND USE THEM IN SOME DRILLS. WITH LITTLE TRAINING AND THE HOPE THAT THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE TO USE THEM PERHAPS THEY NEVER BOTHERED TO SHARPEN THEM AND ONLY KEPT THEM CLEAN TO PASS INSPECTION AND MOSTLY CONSIDERED THEM AN ALMOST USLESS PART OF THEIR UNIFORM. I DOUBT THEY WERE ACTUALLY ORDERED NOT TO SHARPEN THEM BUT A POOR JOB OF SHARPENING COULD LEAD TO FAILING AN INSPECTION AND POSSIBLE PUNISHMENT.
ITS ALL CONJECTURE AS I WASN'T THERE BUT A LIKELY SECENARIO.

[kronckew]

actually, blue didn't mess on it, and anyhow, he's too well armed to argue much with...

his full name is 'bonny blue flag', and he is a southern (english) gentleman.

millie (a.k.a. 'Balto Millenium') however, is a good southern irish girl from dublin.

she however objects to being et. she did try to eat a terrierist that was trying to get fresh with her.



as for me...

my familiy is from cullman co., alabama.

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding discussion here guys, with some great perspectives and very useful information. It does seem that the Battle of Brandy Station, Virginia June 9,1863 stands as an excellent example of the effective use of the cavalry sabre in this period. I have seen references to this battle being significant in Custer's reputation, and it does appear that this particular battle was primarily a cavalry engagement. I believe that being the case would support the effective use of sabres from many of the accounts, as the figures that were predominant such as Custer and the brilliant J.E.B.Stuart, who certainly could be considered flamboyant in perceptions of themselves as modern cavaliers. This may suggest that these officers might well have insisted on a bit larger degree of emphasis on use of the sabre with their troops at this time.

From most of what has been discussed here, I am understanding that in the overall course of the war, from the beginning and through the Battle at Brandy Station, the sabre had at least nominal presence as a weapon.
It seems as if with more conscripts and volunteers joining the ranks as the consuming war dragged on, the hurried training offered less attention to these derisively regarded and cumbersome weapons, and became more of an obligatory encumbrance.

It also seems that with the amazing volume of tens of thousands of swords produced and imported, little training, reluctance to thier use, or maintainance, that these swords literally became surplus almost immediately.
This would seem to largely account for such large numbers of these swords of the Civil War remaining unsharpened, and may have led to these perceptions, that sabres were never sharpened.

In studying American swords, I have often seen the irony of the development of the U.S. M1913 "Patton" cavalry sword, often described as one of the finest cavalry swords devised, yet never used in combat. These were produced in considerable number until 1919, but the sword by then was decidedly obsolete. The last use of the cavalry sabre in combat it seems was in Luzon, in the Philippines in 1906, and the swords used were appararantly surplus sabres from the Civil War.

As Vandoo has noted, after this time, the legend of Francis Bannerman began with his monumental acquisition of military surplus, and many thousands of these swords beginning thier odyssey in the collections that became the foundation of our 'collective' hobby.

The notes mentioned on unsharpened swords are well placed, and I recall earlier discussions where British forces were devastated by the seemingly superhuman swordsmanship of the native warriors in India. Even more astounded were they when they discovered that the sabres they were using were actually discarded or captured British swords of the superceded M1796 light cavalry pattern. It was found they were sharpened razor sharp, kept well oiled and in wooden rather than steel scabbards. The secret to this fantastic swordsmanship was not primarily in skill, but in sharp blades.

All best regards,
Jim

[kronckew]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...The last use of the cavalry sabre in combat it seems was in Luzon, in the Philippines in 1906, and the swords used were appararantly surplus sabres from the Civil War...

i assume you mean the last US use, as i've read an account of a british cavalry unit in the early days of WWI that came on a unit of german lancers and charged and engaged them with the sword, and drove them off, and then pursued them until they came upon a single strand of barbed wire a farmer had erected to keep the cows out of his garden, by the time they had gotten around it the germans had escaped. appears the lancers were raw recruits and had as yet received minimal training.

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Kronckew yup I meant U.S. and I think there are probably a lot of 'last' charges depending on who's telling the story. Thats a great story about the German 'uhlans' in WWI, and indeed it seems even stranger with this truly anachronistic weapon ( then there will inevetably be the tales of the Polish lancers charging German tanks in WWII....primarily of course propoganda oriented).

Returning to the Civil War, the Union, clearly following certain European military traditions, decided to transform a couple of cavalry regiments into 'lancer' units. After the discussion already covering the miserable application of training with the sword, one can imagine the diastrous folly of this brainstorm. If I recall, I think it was Rush's lancers and I believe these were Pennsylvania units. While the use of the lance does not seem to have worked out too well, the units did serve with commensurate valor in a more conventional sense. I do not recall more detail, but the point was simply the anachronism element.

The lancer units that I believe did prove successful well into the 20th century were the famed 'Bengal Lancers' and a number of similar lancer units in the colorful native cavalry of the British Raj. I recall, as I have mentioned a number of times over the years, that I once visited an elderly British officer who had written an autobiography titled "Last of the Bengal Lancers".
He was Brigadier Francis Ingall who had served in Northwest Frontier Province in the early 1930's attached to I believe the 13th Bengal Lancers or its amalgamated counterpart. It was fantastic listening to him describe the 'hell for leather' charge on the plains in the Khyber regions, which was another of those 'last' cavalry charges (there was actually yet another I believe in Toungoo, Burma with British cavalry against Japanese in 1942).

Brigadier Ingall virtually lit up as he described this gallant charge, and showed me the huge M1912 officers cavalry sabre he had carried. In a poignant moment he glanced lovingly toward the fireplace, above which on a place of honor, was a portrait of his charger, "Eagerheart".
It was a day and a visit I will never forget.

All very best regards,
Jim

P.S. Kronckew, beautiful dogs, and the kepi looks good on ya, suh!!!

[Hotspur]

I could dig around for some old threads but they do relate some practical notes on keeping swords sharp in the 19th century. In particular, some of the older SFI threads regarding this very topic. Files issued for keeping edges sharp, being gentle during insertion in metal scabbards, not using your sword for spitting meat over the fire, stuff like that.

As to last American use of swords, one example makes me wonder a bit about this particular Patton. Also in my files are pictures of the Peking horse marines, with their nickeled baskets. There was also a note over on Blade Forums somewhere about an American officer in Viet Nam dropping from a huey with sabre in hand (I have no hard reference for that, nor the sword type). I'll see if I can dig up that Boer War sharpening image as well. Well, my files sure are in a state of mess right now but here also some Prussians sharpening on some stone steps. Ok, here are the Boer boys.

Here is the old Don Nelson Thread
http://www.swordforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5896

Jean's notes are always fun to follow.

Cheers and Happy New Year

GC

[Jim McDougall]

Outstanding Glen!!!! Your files are a virtual Smithsonian of valuable material on sword history, thank you for sharing these. Also, thank you for sharing the link to the thread from 2002, with our friends Don Nelson and Scott Bubar, both of whom we lost in 2004. They are sincerely missed, and it makes me happy that here they have joined us again for yet another discussion.

That is a truly fascinating 'Patton' and it would be great to learn more about which unit or period this was from. Also, had never heard of the Peking Horse Marines, but clearly they are using 'Pattons'! This is exactly the kind of stuff I always hope for when I post, truly key information that adds to the subject being discussed, and expanding the collective knowledge at hand.

Interesting note on the guy dropping out of a Huey in Nam with a sabre.....I would guess purely a case of props, much in the manner of Robert Duvall in character in "Apocolypse Now" wearing the U.S. cavalry brim ...after all, these were 'Air Cavalry' and there were many cases of these guys carrying the hubris in thier own personal ways.

Jean's notes are very much fun to follow, and miss him as well, hopefully one day he will be posting again, and I wish him well with matters he is handling.

All very best wishes to you and everyone for a wonderful new year!

Jim

[Hotspur]

The stenciled sword for an airborne LT name reads Morehouse. That example had been on a dealer site for a few years. I somehow don't think it belonged to David Morehouse (Psychic Warrior) but that might make sense as well because of his early military experience as the leader of an army ranger unit (later than any SE Asia activities we know of). That would be a pretty late use and attribution but the likelyhood of it being his is slim.

There is a good amount online about the horse marines and their last actions at the dawn of WWII. Seemingly serious about drilling with their Pattons and ponies, there are also other examples of later 20th century cavalry exercise. Pershing accounts of the campaign to Mexico may also relate troop use of the 1906 rebirth of the civil war light cavalry saber.

Cheers

GC

[Dmitry]

One of your pictures shows the Prussian officers sharpening the blades of their swords against the steps of the French embassy, a purely symbolic gesture.

[Lee]

A most interesting thread. Early on in my sword collecting, I was told that many of the US military swords had been deliberately blunted before being sold as surplus. Is this just an unfounded speculation?

[Dmitry]

Originally Posted by Lee

A most interesting thread. Early on in my sword collecting, I was told that many of the US military swords had been deliberately blunted before being sold as surplus. Is this just an unfounded speculation?

Not true, imho. Few were sharpened to begin with.
In fact, the only sabers to retain their razor-sharp edge en masse are the Indian tulwars.

[Jim McDougall]

"...The 'Pershing Expedition' had hardly begin its operations into Mexico when the M1913 saber was declared excess weight and placed in storage in Columbus (N.M.) ".
"The Last Bright Blades" , Joseph William Turner, 1982, p.33

Apparantly the cavalry troopers in the Philippines and during the Spanish American War carried a M1892 .38 Cal. Colt revolver and a M1860 light cavalry sabre worn on the olive drab canvas 'Mills' belts wuth ammuniition.

Turner (op.cit. p.9) also notes that by 1904, the additional cavalry regiments approved by congress in 1901, resulted in the request for manufacture of new equipment, including sabres. The "...existing supply of old Civil War sabres was found wanting and on November 7, 1904 a contract was let to the Ames Sword Co. of Chicopee, Massachusetts".

These would be the M1906 pattern swords, which were simply cosmetically changed versions of the M1860, with an iron rather than brass hilt. There are some extremely rare prototypes termed 1905-06 experimental which do have some variation, but did not become production.

While the M1913 was produced through the LF&C contract of 1918, it really never saw combat (despite certain somewhat apocryphal accounts of its presence in WWI, probably at the whim of commanding officers). Its last known use was in the shameful action against the Veterans protest in 1932, though was not actually applied despite being wielded against unarmed crowds.

It seems almost ironic that there was still a little known variation of the sword produced in 1931. It was known as the Rock Island Arsenal M2, though obviously it was never produced in any number.

The order to discontinue the use of the sabre was by order of the Adjutant General Office on April 18,1934 (474.71, 3-15-34) , and in looking at the order item # 3 simply states that sabres on hand will be stored pending further instruction ("The Rock Island Arsenal M2: Americas Last Cavalry Sabre", Lt. C.W.T. Cooper,Gun Report, Vol. XXVIII, Dec.1972, p.20).

I was hoping that perhaps here might be some note pertaining to dulling blades if such order had existed, possibly if such order existed. Since the note, pending further instructions, existed, possibly subsequent orders were issued.
In the story about General Patton, the stalwart horse soldier, where it is said, "...the saddest moment in his life came when he stood at attention, weeping, as his cavalry regiment marched past to stack thier sabres for the last time"....it seems that accounts of this event suggest that it was during WWII ("The Long Gray Line", Atkinson, p.58 ; "Blood Rites", B. Ehrenreich, p.152), and that would indicate the sabres remained in use in some cases until then.

Much as the apocryphal accounts of swords being deliberately left dull to avoid cleaving into bone in the Indian wars period, and the stories about them being left dull during the Civil War to prevent harming the soldiers themselves and thier horses, it seems doubtful they would have been dulled as put into storage..which doesnt seem to have been largely the case.
By the time of WWII, it seems most of the stores of M1913's had been sent to Australia for conversion into machetes or sent for fabrication of trench knives (known as 'Anderson stilettos' for the manufacturing firm). These were apparantly made with the blade alone, each blade sectioned into three for the dagger blades.

I would be inclined to believe that swords produced were probably not sharpened to razor edge until actually issued or in use, and that the 'factory' edge probably was relatively dull.

It really is an interesting aspect, and I'd very much like to know if anyone knows of actual orders to dull blades, also when was the Patton event when the final stacking of swords took place.

All best regards,
Jim

[celtan]

Happy New Year to all.

Jim, I have owned many and still own some, of the several types of Sabers and Swords used by the US and Spain, during the SAW and the CW. Not one of them was sharp.

BTW; no US Cavalry ever set foot on the Philippines _during_ the SAW.

AFAIK, after ther debacle at Santiago/Cavite and the destruction of Montojo's and Cervera's Fleets, there only was a mock artillery battle in Manila, a sham in order to give control of the city to US Troops rather than to Aguinaldo's rebels, whom the Spanish believed would massacre the residents. Again, AFAIK, threre were no direct confrontations between the US and Spanish Forces.

While Montojo's fleet was destroyed, Philippines passed into US Hands only after being effectively sold to the US at the Treaty Of Paris.

Perhaps they were used afterward, during the US-Philippines War ..?

Best

M



Thanks Manolo, I hadnt noticed I had interpolated the Philippines with the reference to SAW trooper.
Can you say more on which action in Luzon the reference to cavalry charge with sabre in 1906 would refer to?

Best regards,
Jim