Smallsword Duelling

[mariusgmioc]

Hello Jim,

I must observe that "coup de Jarnac" was initially referring to a very skillful and/or unexpected strike, as Jarnac has won the duel by delivering a very skillful blow to his opponent (as far as I remember, it was a blow taught to him by an Italian swords master). Since that blow was previously not known in France, it became named after him.

The negative connotation "coup de Jarnac" we have today appeared later, probably because the exact background context was forgotten.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by mariusgmioc

Hello Jim,

I must observe that "coup de Jarnac" was initially referring to a very skillful and/or unexpected strike, as Jarnac has won the duel by delivering a very skillful blow to his opponent (as far as I remember, it was a blow taught to him by an Italian swords master). Since that blow was previously not known in France, it became named after him.

The negative connotation "coup de Jarnac" may have today appeared later, probably because the exact background context was forgotten.

As with most sword 'lore', things fall out of context or become contrived to embellish or 'explain' various matters or items. In the duel noted here, Jarnac used a strike behind the knee which partially disabled his opponent who was a far more advanced swordsman. When he continued, to Jarnac's dismay, he struck again in the same manner on the other leg. The man fell to the ground in a heap, and according to 'code' he was to yield and Jarnac would in turn offer mercy. He implored the man to yield but he would not, and Jarnac would not finish him. The victims wounds were dressed, but outraged, he tore away his dressings and bled to death. Still the event remained infamous.

Literature often describes the 'botte segret' (the secret thrust) which fencers and duelists are claimed to possess, the move which is indefensible. But such things are perhaps somewhat romanticized. As once told by a fencing master, if such thrusts were being taught, they would hardly be 'secret'.

[urbanspaceman]

Quote Jim: "Regarding the M1796 swords, there was a cavalry officers version with hilt like small sword and heavy straight blade, but these were dress swords. Apparently some officers took them to the Peninsula and considered them worthless in combat."

Hi Jim. Yes, I was referring to the Infantry Officer's sword as this allowed for both cut and thrust.
Do you know why they were regarded as worthless?

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Urbanspaceman,
This post should be of some interest http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=1796 A lot of the officers swords tended to have light decorative blades great for show but not so great in combat on the other hand the N.C.O.'s version does have a blade and general construction that is much more suitable for fighting.
My Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Urbanspaceman,
This post should be of some interest http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=1796 A lot of the officers swords tended to have light decorative blades great for show but not so great in combat on the other hand the N.C.O.'s version does have a blade and general construction that is much more suitable for fighting.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Norman,
We crossed posts. After 1786, the infantry basically ceased wearing swords, except for officers and NCO's. As I had noted, infantry officers were not expected to enter into direct fighting, but to 'direct their forces'. The NCOs however were part of the fighting element, and as such continued wearing swords. This is why the notable basket hilts used by the 42nd (Black Watch) when turned in c. 1783, remained worn by NCOs.

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

This is why the notable basket hilts used by the 42nd (Black Watch) when turned in c. 1783, remained worn by NCOs.

Hi Jim,
I digress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJS_8kRX_ig https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjH4XoY3zJY

My Regards,
Norman.

[Jim McDougall]

Very nice digression Norman!!!!
A glass of Drambuie up!!!!

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by urbanspaceman

Quote Jim: "Regarding the M1796 swords, there was a cavalry officers version with hilt like small sword and heavy straight blade, but these were dress swords. Apparently some officers took them to the Peninsula and considered them worthless in combat."

Hi Jim. Yes, I was referring to the Infantry Officer's sword as this allowed for both cut and thrust.
Do you know why they were regarded as worthless?

I did not realize you indeed meant the M1786 infantry officer, and I had to retrace what I recalled from reading passim quite some time ago. I had somehow interpolate the shell guard M1796 cavalry officers sword, which was intended to be worn dismounted, and apparently as a dress sword.
It had the same basic straight 'spadroon' blade of the infantry swords.
(Robson, "Swords of the British Army" 1975, p.67, pl. 59)

Re: the 1786 infantry officers sword:

In Robson, (op. cit. p. 106), "...the pattern 1786 sword was clearly intended as a fighting weapon and its blade was not ill adapted for the purpose. However its hilt was extremely flimsy and gave only minimal protection for the hand".

These were basically official issues of the c. 1780s 'spadroons' whose blades as previously discussed were a well adapted blade for cut and thrust both.
Apparently the use of the 1786 had no 'live trial' until outbreak of war with France in 1793. It is there that use in the early campaigns brought attention to these deficiencies.

p.108 (Robson, op.cit.) re: the introduction of the M1796 infantry officers sword as a result of trying to resolve the issues of the '1786'.
"...as a fighting weapon this sword was scarcely any improvement on its predecessor, the shells gave slightly better protection to hand", but the flimsy elements were still very fragile.

Here Robson notes, as I had suggested, "...infantry officers swords were really NOT intended for serious hand to hand fighting, but even so, the M1796 was among the least satisfactory of its kind and regarded with contempt by most of its wearers". (p.108, op.cit.).

So it seems that my observation refers to the infantry model 1796 (but the 1786 as well as it appears both did see use in the campaigns in degree), and the cavalry version was a dress sword which probably did not see use on campaign.

As far as I recall, in various sources 'passim', in the constant debate (which raged through the 18th, 19th into 20th century) over cut vs. thrust, the remarks I have seen were mostly toward cavalry combat, and in comments noting the deadly result of the thrust. In the Napoleonic campaigns, as I had mentioned previously, the cuirisseurs used heavy, straight blade swords and as heavy cavalry were the initial shock forces. The light cavalry were also were admonished to 'give point' with the high tierce downward thrust of the saber.

Years ago I did a study on what I have always termed 'the Austrian notch', which was a deliberate notch on sword blades near the point which I first noticed in Wagner (1967) on Austrian swords. It was claimed this was intended to 'worsen' the wound by the author, but while making sense on the straight thrusting swords.......why on a saber????
The notch, despite long research, was never satisfactorily explained, despite many contacts with East European museums, authorities, fencing institutes etc., however I did find, 'the notch' was on some French cavalry sabers of the period (1750s-1820).