Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 18th September 2024, 01:34 AM   #1
Radboud
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 261
Default

My two pennies on this topic.

1. Accidents happen and people die in the most random of events. This is just one of Murphy's laws. It's not inconceivable that a trooper practicing drills with sword drawn, falls from his horse and hits his head against his sword hilt. With the flat disk guard of the 1796 HC, a blow from the edge would have been nasty!

2. Officer swords at the time were private purchase and it would have been a personal choice to modify the blade (or order one with a spear point).

3. Officers had multiple uniforms at the time; undress for military exercises and battle, dress for parade and functions and full dress for when on formal functions. Often this ment a different sword for each uniform. While the evidence is thin, it is broadly accepted that the dress sword for officers of the heavy cavalry was a double edged spadroon with a boatshell guard. with some cutting capacity, this sword was best suited to thrust based attacks.

4. The removal of the langets; my understanding was that were rather fragile and had a habbit of breaking off, so it is possible the other was removed to balance it out. I have seen examples of swords with a single langet remaining.

On a side note, the 1821 regulations for the British lancers specifically mention three different swords for undress, dress and full dress. The last two being mameluke sabres with a steel scabbard and a valvet covered scabbard respectively.

Because posts are best with pictures:

1796 Pattern HC troopers sword:
Name:  1796 Pattern Heavy Cavalry Sword 08.jpg
Views: 1511
Size:  37.2 KB

1796 Pattern HC officers undress:
Name:  1796 Heavy Cavalry Officers Undress Sword 04.jpg
Views: 1519
Size:  395.7 KB

1796 Pattern HC Officers dress:
Name:  1796 Heavy Cavalry Officers Dress Sword 01.jpg
Views: 1529
Size:  52.8 KB
The leather scabbard could mean that this was for full dress, or that it was worn by a general officer who were also known to use this hilt.

And to show that Georgians liked to be difficult and throw the odd spanner into our nice modern categories:
1796 Pattern HC Officers dress with family broadsword blade:
Name:  1796 HC Dress with Andrea Ferara Blade 37.jpg
Views: 1659
Size:  50.7 KB
Radboud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2024, 11:32 AM   #2
Triarii
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Bristol
Posts: 113
Default

The man falling from his horse, actually an 18th LD, using an LCS:
Attached Images
 
Triarii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2024, 02:56 PM   #3
Triarii
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Bristol
Posts: 113
Default

https://www.google.co.uk/books/editi...mQvrEvTVLCumLA

From "The trial of Major William Gordon of the 2nd DG, for the murder of George Gregory (on 25 March 1814 at the 'Vill of Ramsgate'), a private in the same regiment, at the Guildhall, Sandwich on April 15, 1814, as taken by a short-hand writer".
A summary:
Major Gordon was on foot for the altercation with a mounted trooper who was alleged to be drunk, he drew the troopers own sword, hit the horse with the flat and then according to witnesses, 'gave the point at the man' (this phrase is repeated in the testimony and questioning) and according to the charge inflicted a wound in Gregory's left side one inch wide and six inches deep, 'near the last rib'. (The doctor testifies that the wound was 14 inches deep).
Some describe the troopers horse as 'linging' (dropping) and turning towards the major who already had the sword pointed and were surprised that it did much damage. Others, notably the Rutland Militia soldiers present, disagreed about the horse moving, though the Q&A indicates some animosity towards the DG officer.
Interestingly, the Corporal with Gregory didn't have his sword with him as 'it was at headquarters [of the regiment in Deal] to be ground'.
They then discuss that the troopers sword - handed to another officer in the court - was "much sharper than cavalry swords usually are" because it had "been ground for foreign service" the day before. "They are not allowed to be sharp, excepting on particular occasions."
The key point is that the jury are directed to examine the troopers sword and told "The Gentlemen of the jury will observe that one sword is sharpened along the edge as well as at the point." and "having not only been sharpened, considerably reduced at the point."

He was found guilty of manslaughter and fined £50.
Triarii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18th September 2024, 09:02 PM   #4
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,946
Default

This is amazing stuff guys!
Fascinating to see events reported in real time accounts.
With the situation with the 2nd DG officer and trooper, this was hardly a 'duel'

In these times, there was a lot of internecine politics in these regiments, and not surprising that this animosity would result in these kinds of altercations.
The fact that the trooper was drunk, and apparently approaching the officer menacingly, suggests the officer was acting in self defense.
Grabbing the troopers sword and using it to ward him off seems like a rather predictable action.

What is telling here is that the sword was held 'pointed' at the trooper, and the dynamic action of the horse reacting to whatever the trooper was doing led to his unfortunate impaling.

As for our purposes, this account indicates the swords used (1796 heavy cavalry) were in the process of being ground at the point for thrusting at this time. Clearly it was not a field process, but undertaken at the regimental base preparing for foreign service.

With the other most bizarre incident, the 18th 'Kings Irish" light dragoons were using of course the 1796 light cavalry saber. While the trooper who was severely injured by the sword by falling on it as he fell off the horse has nothing to do with the modifying of points on the 1796 heavy cavalry sword, it is an interesting anomaly of an accident. How would the trooper fall on the sword, which 'fell out of its scabbard' presumably in the same action of falling off a slipping horse?
He must have gone off and headed down head first, with the sword coming out in the same movement, thus landing on the ground prior to the contact of the troopers head.

No rider myself, I did experience falling off a horse once (a huge one at that) and the impact alone about did me in, I can imagine if a sword had been there for me to land on! Wonder if this guy made it.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2024, 05:28 PM   #5
Jim McDougall
Arms Historian
 
Jim McDougall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Route 66
Posts: 9,946
Default 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.
Jim McDougall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2024, 12:46 AM   #6
Radboud
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 261
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall View Post
Later, when LeMarchant proposed a new heavy cavalry sword, he based it on the Austrian 1775 heavy cavalry sword.
It was LeMarchant's intention for the 1796 Pattern light cavalry sabre to be a 'universal' sabre, i.e. used by all cavalry units including the heavy cavalry. It was because the later resisted this change that he had to cast around for an alternative. With his positive experiences with the Austria cavalry he recommened their 1769 model which the 1796 Pattern HC is a near identical copy of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall View Post
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).
Is this your observation or Morgans'? I would love to see an example of a 1796 Pattern sword with a date stamp on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall View Post
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.
This rumor likely came about because several survivors of the infamous charge of the light brigade were presented with inscribed 1796 Pattern light cavalry sabres when they retired.

As you say, it is extremely unlikely that any 1796 pattern swords were in service on the frontline by this point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim McDougall View Post
Just some perspectives, swordsmanship in British cavalry, particularly in other ranks, seemed not especially skilled overall, so perhaps accidental wounding more common than realized.
The British have never been a cavalry nation, something to do with the amount of available land and the cost of raising horses. I'd guess that the issues of transporting horses across the English channel or Atlantic also played a role in this.
Radboud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th September 2024, 01:21 AM   #7
Bryce
Member
 
Bryce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 186
Default

G'day Guys,
Here is a photo showing a range of blade tips found on 1796 heavy cavalry officer service swords.
From top to bottom:
1. Quill-point
2. Spear-pointed pipe-back
3. Spear-pointed intermediate pipe-back.
4. Modified semi spear-point
5. Original unmodified hatchet point

Cheers,
Bryce
Attached Images
  
Bryce is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.