British 1796 HCS pattern blade shape

[Triarii]

Random question, as I've lost my notes; about the modified point on the British 1796 HCS.

I read two examples which indicate that the changes from hatchet to spear point potentially happened some time before the 1815 campaign, which is when it is commonly assumed to have been implemented.

One was about a duel where an HC officer accidentally kills his opponent and a witness says it was on account of the sword point; EDIT: Actually a dispute at a barracks amongst an officer and trooper of the 2nd DG April 15, 1814 - details later.

And another incident where a trooper falls off of his horse (my memory says this was 1812 and in the UK) and is presumed to be mortally wounded by his sword landing hilt down on the road and he lands head first on it.
EDIT: My faulty memory, this was an 18 LD in 1814, so using an LCS. See later post.

I'm sure one of these events was recounted here. Can anyone help?

[Jim McDougall]

The first account I recall of this (and by memory only, I dont have the exact notes) was when the Royal Scots Greys were departing for Belgium in 1815, prior to their immortal action at Waterloo. They were ordered to grind the backs of the blades on their 1796 heavy cavalry swords to a 'spear point'.

I am not sure how widely this modification was taken with other units of heavy cavalry, but it seems that the objective to to move toward the thrust, which was most effectively used by the French. After the end of the Napoleonic campaigns it seems that the 1796 swords were collectively modified by removing the inner section of the disc, as well as the langets (I believe) in addition to going to a spear point.

After the end of the war, there was little if any production of swords for other ranks with those in service remaining in use until the advent of the M1821/1829 bowl guard pattern.

These anecdotes sound rather apocryphal, as I cannot imagine a 'duel' with these heavy awkward chopping swords, and how is one 'accidentally' killed by a sword point? and the chances of a sword falling to the ground and somehow secured in position for someone to fall on it, presumably in the same moments.

John Morgan, years ago, wrote a brilliant article on the M1796 Heavy Cavalry sword in "Classic Arms and Militaria"(I'll see if I can find it).

I'd love to see these bizarre sounding tales and know more on their source.

[Triarii]

Hi Jim,

Both incidents were in contemporary broadsheet articles, pictures of which were included in the posts. I'm now more minded towards it being on Facebook in maybe the IASC forum or similar. In fact I think I recall who posted at least one of them, possibly in my HEMA club forum.

On the duel article, I'm only going by what the witness (defending the guy who mortally wounded the other) stated in the article, which implied that he didn't mean to stab him - quite possible given that killing someone would get you into a lot of trouble.

Cuts were much less lethal than thrusts, one reason which led George Silver to complain about the use of rapiers vice broad and backswords when having a good honest street fight.

As an example Donald McBane - who is in quite a few fights where people give up after receiving, or are incapacitated by, cuts that aren't fatal - stated that when fighting a broadsword user then a wet napkin folded under your hat and/or about your left arm would be enough take a lot of the blow.

I used to have an HCS with the spear point modification but had its langets and modified inner guard, which based on the folding guards of the 1796 IOS and early 1822s, was about comfort and not ragging your clothes.

[toaster5sqn]

I've heard it said (hopefully someone can actually give a source) that the practice of grinding the tips was developed during the peninsular campaign. Because none of the household cavalry was deployed to the peninsular they were unaware of this field modification and someone with experience with it choose to inform them via the order prior to Waterloo.

Robert

[Radboud]

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:


1796 Pattern HC officers undress:


1796 Pattern HC Officers dress:

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:

[Triarii]

The man falling from his horse, actually an 18th LD, using an LCS:

[Triarii]

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.

[Jim McDougall]

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]

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.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

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.

[Bryce]

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

[Triarii]

Bryce - excellent photo. What's not to like about that collection. I always did like the look of the hatchet point. I've read about HCS with spear points where the scabbard length matches, implying that they were made that way. I'm not sure you have to lose much blade length to make a spear point, especially an asymmetric one.

Jim - yes, not a duel. It was my faulty memory that made me think that the altercation was a duel and that the falling trooper was from a DG unit and hence carrying an HCS. I wonder if the rider went over to the right and hence the sword fell out as he went over, preceding him hilt first to the ground.

The Rutland militia gripe seemed to be that they said that Major Gordon was i/c barracks had been responsible for restricting their ability to leave.

From reenactment experience, losing your sword from the scabbard is fairly common when falling off. He was very unlucky here. Having your breastplate pushed rather rapidly up under your chin is fairly common.

I note that there were complaints about (memory test here - the AN XI scabbard? being too robust and causing further injury to riders who fell on it).

Radboud - there are conflicting accounts on British cavalry swordplay in the Peninsula - Captain Charles Parquin (FR) said that the British cuts missed 19 times out of 20 but if they did hit, "it was a terrible blow, and it was not unusual for an arm to be cut clean from the body."

On the other hand, at Campo Mayor, the French were broken, according to a 13 LD officer, due to “the superiority of swordsmanship of our fellows [the British 13th Light Dragoons] showed" and at Fuentes de Oñoro; “Our fellows [the British 14th Light Dragoons] evidently had the advantage as individuals.”

[Triarii]

Sgt Maj Cotton of the 7th Hussars mentioned at Waterloo wrt the Household Brigade charge into French currasiers that 'the swords clashing upon the casques and cuirasses so that as Lord Edward Somerset observed to me "You might have fancied that that it was so many tinkers at work."'

[Jim McDougall]

The note on the dates on the heavy cavalry swords:
On underside of the disc: 2D
14
BN30
The top is of course the unit
Next is the year of issue
Next the rack or issue number

As noted I have seen 14 and 15, uncertain of 16 but these are the only ones of have seen so marked. These have been in discussions over the past 20 years or so, but the issue and research have been since the 1970s. Richard Dellar has had notable success in investigating this topic.
Morgan was keyed on hilt design and to my recollection never made comments on markings in the work I am familiar with.

Thank you for correction on the Austrian cavalry sword..it was indeed the 1769....always wanted to find one but never did

Triarii thank you for the additional insights on the particulars of actual situations with these items.
Most interesting in actual experiences, you guys with these re-enactments etc. are amazing, and your keen attention to details give us perspectives we would not otherwise have.

[Radboud]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

The note on the dates on the heavy cavalry swords:
On underside of the disc: 2D
14
BN30
The top is of course the unit
Next is the year of issue
Next the rack or issue number

Thank you for those details Jim, markings on these swords are still so much of a mystery with many regiments doing their own thing. I hadn’t realised that in some instances dates had been positively identified. Of course in later years they become more uniform and common place, but in this era so much still appears to have been down to the individual regiment.

Re the Austrian 1769, I only remember the model because the date is, ironically, transposed in the 1796.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Radboud

Thank you for those details Jim, markings on these swords are still so much of a mystery with many regiments doing their own thing. I hadn’t realised that in some instances dates had been positively identified. Of course in later years they become more uniform and common place, but in this era so much still appears to have been down to the individual regiment.

Re the Austrian 1769, I only remember the model because the date is, ironically, transposed in the 1796.

You bet Radboud! British regimental markings are indeed a mystery, especially those used in the colonies during the Revolution...the abbreviations are total conundrums and rather than official or standard markings....they used things such as so and so's dragoons, or the same with foot.


Good mnemonics on the Austrian sword date!!!