Nikil Bellad A backsword is a straight sword usually with a basket hilt or shearing sword hilt. A light cavalry sabre is essentially a curved backsword with a more open hilt.
@@Crazyasianman286 nooo. he was not cavalry. Interesting to see the swords used in their "worst case scenario". The Richard here is shouting "A kingdom for my horse".
As in the description, it is a copy of 1796 troopers sword, with the modified tip. A number of units and individuals ground down the tips in to spear points. Otherwise it is regular trooper spec.
Nice fight! Looking forward to a review of the jacket ;) Since Matt posted the picture of you guys I have it open in my browser tab and am just waiting for a detailed review ^^
Amazing job to the both of you! I love seeing the matches with different sizes, weights, and even types of weapons! Your videos are always entertaining, showcase amazing fencers, and are great to watch for people who are learning to fence, but the mismatched weapons ones are the ones that feel the most like pure entertainment to me. Perhaps it's because I don't see it enough at my club yet (not enough of us)? I suppose I will have to keep up the training in other weapon types, so that I can introduce some new weapon match ups myself (well, and my instructor)!
Bahahahaha! Yeah, I'm sure they'll get the hang of it! They've got quality instructors! Seems like they need to "offend" more and utilise a few of the techniques they've learned, but you have to start somewhere, right? Just...No sword tag in the HEMA gym pliss!!! ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Hello. Nice fencing. I like your high cuts after parrying the same attack, they are fast and hard hitting (and successful). in the latest duel, Artur defeats Esther with the same attack. The german source from 1798 I am studying however emphasizes the Riposte from the same quarter as your parry, for example parry quart, thrust quart or cut (half)quart or low quart (Roworth inside parry, then cut 1 or 3 or 5). I figured out you should keep your blade between your opponent's and yourself in case of an a tempo attack and to evade his blade and attack his theoretically unguarded quarters, but I find it difficult to get enough (wrist-twisting) power.
the curved one (light cavalry sabre) seemed to have a distinct advantage despite the difference in skill between the two fighters. I am not sure about this because I can see from their movements that both took at HEMA after practising sports fencing for some time. The light cavalry sabre lends itself to sports fencing style combat while the heavy cavalry sabre lends itself to Scottish basket hilted broadsword fighting. I suggest that it is not that one sword performed better than the other, but rather that both fighters favoured the one sword as it was easier to use in a manner they were used to. Give a sports sabre style fighter the light sabre and a broadsword fighter the heavy sabre and see what happens.
Neither have practiced sport fencing at all. I am on the right, and Rick on the left is one of my students. The style used is British military sabre/broadsword of the Napoleonic era. The heavy cavalry sword is a better weapon in this scenario, especially as his represents the slightly shortened spear point modified versions. The extra guard gives good protection without compromising movement like an enclosed basket does, whilst the balance is closer to the hult and its more agile, whilst still carrying serious cutting power. The light cavalry sabres only advantage is in its cutting power. It's slower and less agile to use, but brutal in its cutting power.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing out of interest do you have any riders in your group? I'm thinking about the mounted/dismounted use of the sword. In fact that's the very reason I'm here.
Is the reputation of the 1796 heavy cavalry sword of being unwieldy and clumsy, more of a product of the design of the blade or were there issues with the manufacturing and quality control as well?
The complaint is about it being too heavy and unwieldy. But a great deal of the complaints are from collectors well after the fact either judging it without knowing really anything about fighting, or re-hashing a few complaints in the period. Now, complaints from soldiers about equipment are a fact of life. Various soldiers and experts complained about every sword pattern ever used in the British armed forces, even those models that were also famously successful, like the light cav. A lot of the problem comes from the tip, the horridly shaped hatchet tip was a terrible design, which is why so many individuals modified them, and various Regiments put out orders to do so as well. The other issue is that they are often compared to the French straight swords, and lots of people find them clumsy and unwieldy in comparison. But that is a failure to understand the differences in their intended use. The French sword was designed primarily as a thruster, as so is longer and more agile, but poor at cutting. The 1796 heavy was designed as a heavy cutter. If you look at first hand accounts you can see the heavy cav was used to great effect. Once the tip was modified to either a more shallower tapering asymmetrical tip, or spear point, they were actually a good all round sword. This tip mod also usually makes them a little more agile too.
Academy of Historical Fencing thanks for the reply. My opinion about the sword is that it was pretty decent for the time. I've seen some originals in museums and browsed some archives and nothing about the characteristics of the sword would ever suggest that it would be poor at being a cutter. I wish that the opinion about them being rubbish was less prevalent because to me, they look like lovely swords and if I ever managed to buy an original, I have no doubt that it would handle perfectly fine as a cutter
Indeed. I have handled quite a number of them now. In original troopers form with the hatchet tip they are quite a beast, but far from the unwieldy monster their are painted as. They cut very well, they have good reach and a great guard. They are just a good old traditional backsword really. Slightly shortened and with hatchet tip and they are actually a really nice sword. Officers versions are the best though. Some of the officers versions are some of the nicest swords of the period. Not just looking great, but being really very agile, whilst still cutting and thrusting really well. My favourite example is this one. Everything about it is just wonderful. A fantastic sword in looks, handling and usability. www.flickr.com/photos/155366595@N06/38959140691/in/album-72157687926586963/
Academy of Historical Fencing you have opened up another question actually about officer variants of the sword. I don't have a lot of knowledge about them but, from what I can gather, they seem to be somewhat like the spadroons of the era in terms of their hilt construction? Is this the wrong idea?
The heavy cavalry officer's sword that looks like a spadroon is not a fighting sword, it is an officers dress sword. Their 'undress' sword is the fighting sword, and it features the same blade as the standard troopers sword, but with a more elaborate hilt, but still with the same level of protection. See the flickr link in my last response for photos of one.
Hey, been waiting to see a video on the SPES Officer's Jacket! I'm sure you'll do a full review later, but how is it against one-handed cutters? Think it'd be ok against metal sideswords, such as the Regenyei Sidesword and Darkwood Sidesword or Destreza blades?
I'll be reviewing it early next week. It really depends on your contact levels. For me yes I am happy to wear it for most steel sparring including the types you mention. But I know plenty of our students would want more padding. Its really down to the individual.
Cavalry sword is supposed to be used horseback. No footwork = difficult to quick thrust and horse head to bypass. That is why sabre is preferred in cavalry.
Sabre was well loved for cavalry and infantry use, they just usually have slightly different weight/proportions. But the reality is cavalry swords also got used on foot, sometimes out of neccessity and sometimes choice.
Whats your opinion about thumb rings on sabers, for egzample polish ones? Is it true that they are absolutely superior to those who doesnt have those features?
Not a fan, and no I wouldn't say they are superior. Thumb rings were fitted to a number of hilt types, famously the dussack/tessack, Schiavona, Walloon Sword, and of course, some Eastern European sabres. Though they were actually rather short lived. The fact that all of these sword types continued on very successfully without the thumb rings speaks volumes. I think it was really just found redundant. Of course this is a hot topic and there are some fanatical followers for thumb rings. But I have used a lot, including original swords that we own, and they lack a little dexterity, are not so nice to thrust with, and also increase the chances of breaking the thumb and damaging the wrist.
Why would the heavy cavalry and light cavalry use different types of swords, one curved and one straight? Was the cuirassier charge reliant on the thrusts or is it something else?
These are both British swords rather than cuirassier (Which Britain didn't use at this time). The cuirassier swords are very different, very long thrust centric swords. Wheres the British heavy is much more intended for cutting. The reason the British light and heavy cav used different swords is in large part tradition. The man who helped design the light cavalry sabre campaigned for its adoption by both heavy and light cav, but the heavies resisted, wanting to stick with tradition of a long straight broadsword. It could be argued that their intended role was significant, as heavies were intended as a blutn instrument to take on other cavalry and infantry. Whereas the light were in theory intended for harassing actions of skirmishers, artillery, scouting duties etc. In reality, they often ended up doing much the same as the heavies. After the Napoleonic period the light and heavy swords became much closer in type, and eventually in 1853, they began to use the same pattern. Frankly their are advantages and disadvantages to both, and so its no surprise that the later swords took ideas from both.
Actually, if you've read the description of the video they clearly state that the straight blade is the heavy sabre while the curved one is the light sabre The red one just doesn't move a lot because he calculates his moves unlike the other dude who rushes in bashing like a lunatic
Slight skill difference there.
Loving the light cavalry saber.
Stan Holmes what's the difference between light cavalry sabre a backsword?
Nikil Bellad A backsword is a straight sword usually with a basket hilt or shearing sword hilt. A light cavalry sabre is essentially a curved backsword with a more open hilt.
Levi Fontaine I see thank you
Major Sharpe vs French officer
I was hoping there was another Sharpe fan here
@@Crazyasianman286 nooo. he was not cavalry. Interesting to see the swords used in their "worst case scenario". The Richard here is shouting "A kingdom for my horse".
@@tasharch Richard Sharpe uses the 1796 heavy cavalry sword. What do you mean no??
It’s only Richard sharpe if someone gets a knee to the groin or stomach
The heavy sword looks like the household cavalry swords I have seen from that era, as they had different designs from the standard model.
As in the description, it is a copy of 1796 troopers sword, with the modified tip. A number of units and individuals ground down the tips in to spear points. Otherwise it is regular trooper spec.
Thanks. I got them mixed up as they looked very similar.
I have become a fan of Nick's sparring, bravo!
The Heavy Calvary Sword looks awesome!
Nice fight! Looking forward to a review of the jacket ;) Since Matt posted the picture of you guys I have it open in my browser tab and am just waiting for a detailed review ^^
2:03 must be bologna
Amazing job to the both of you! I love seeing the matches with different sizes, weights, and even types of weapons! Your videos are always entertaining, showcase amazing fencers, and are great to watch for people who are learning to fence, but the mismatched weapons ones are the ones that feel the most like pure entertainment to me. Perhaps it's because I don't see it enough at my club yet (not enough of us)? I suppose I will have to keep up the training in other weapon types, so that I can introduce some new weapon match ups myself (well, and my instructor)!
Bahaha, tmw when you realise that there's a beginners KDF longsword vs. kendo katana match going on in the background! :P
It was a most... amusing watch.
Bahahahaha! Yeah, I'm sure they'll get the hang of it! They've got quality instructors! Seems like they need to "offend" more and utilise a few of the techniques they've learned, but you have to start somewhere, right? Just...No sword tag in the HEMA gym pliss!!! ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)
Looks very fun.
Hello. Nice fencing. I like your high cuts after parrying the same attack, they are fast and hard hitting (and successful). in the latest duel, Artur defeats Esther with the same attack. The german source from 1798 I am studying however emphasizes the Riposte from the same quarter as your parry, for example parry quart, thrust quart or cut (half)quart or low quart (Roworth inside parry, then cut 1 or 3 or 5). I figured out you should keep your blade between your opponent's and yourself in case of an a tempo attack and to evade his blade and attack his theoretically unguarded quarters, but I find it difficult to get enough (wrist-twisting) power.
thanks, very cool
the curved one (light cavalry sabre) seemed to have a distinct advantage despite the difference in skill between the two fighters.
I am not sure about this because I can see from their movements that both took at HEMA after practising sports fencing for some time. The light cavalry sabre lends itself to sports fencing style combat while the heavy cavalry sabre lends itself to Scottish basket hilted broadsword fighting. I suggest that it is not that one sword performed better than the other, but rather that both fighters favoured the one sword as it was easier to use in a manner they were used to.
Give a sports sabre style fighter the light sabre and a broadsword fighter the heavy sabre and see what happens.
Neither have practiced sport fencing at all. I am on the right, and Rick on the left is one of my students. The style used is British military sabre/broadsword of the Napoleonic era. The heavy cavalry sword is a better weapon in this scenario, especially as his represents the slightly shortened spear point modified versions. The extra guard gives good protection without compromising movement like an enclosed basket does, whilst the balance is closer to the hult and its more agile, whilst still carrying serious cutting power. The light cavalry sabres only advantage is in its cutting power. It's slower and less agile to use, but brutal in its cutting power.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing out of interest do you have any riders in your group? I'm thinking about the mounted/dismounted use of the sword. In fact that's the very reason I'm here.
Could you guys do two parrying daggers vs single rapier? I don't think I've seen that done before.
We've done it, see here -
ruclips.net/video/fXTrrlykdz0/видео.html
Is the reputation of the 1796 heavy cavalry sword of being unwieldy and clumsy, more of a product of the design of the blade or were there issues with the manufacturing and quality control as well?
The complaint is about it being too heavy and unwieldy. But a great deal of the complaints are from collectors well after the fact either judging it without knowing really anything about fighting, or re-hashing a few complaints in the period. Now, complaints from soldiers about equipment are a fact of life. Various soldiers and experts complained about every sword pattern ever used in the British armed forces, even those models that were also famously successful, like the light cav.
A lot of the problem comes from the tip, the horridly shaped hatchet tip was a terrible design, which is why so many individuals modified them, and various Regiments put out orders to do so as well.
The other issue is that they are often compared to the French straight swords, and lots of people find them clumsy and unwieldy in comparison. But that is a failure to understand the differences in their intended use. The French sword was designed primarily as a thruster, as so is longer and more agile, but poor at cutting. The 1796 heavy was designed as a heavy cutter.
If you look at first hand accounts you can see the heavy cav was used to great effect. Once the tip was modified to either a more shallower tapering asymmetrical tip, or spear point, they were actually a good all round sword. This tip mod also usually makes them a little more agile too.
Academy of Historical Fencing thanks for the reply.
My opinion about the sword is that it was pretty decent for the time.
I've seen some originals in museums and browsed some archives and nothing about the characteristics of the sword would ever suggest that it would be poor at being a cutter.
I wish that the opinion about them being rubbish was less prevalent because to me, they look like lovely swords and if I ever managed to buy an original, I have no doubt that it would handle perfectly fine as a cutter
Indeed. I have handled quite a number of them now. In original troopers form with the hatchet tip they are quite a beast, but far from the unwieldy monster their are painted as. They cut very well, they have good reach and a great guard. They are just a good old traditional backsword really. Slightly shortened and with hatchet tip and they are actually a really nice sword. Officers versions are the best though. Some of the officers versions are some of the nicest swords of the period. Not just looking great, but being really very agile, whilst still cutting and thrusting really well.
My favourite example is this one. Everything about it is just wonderful. A fantastic sword in looks, handling and usability.
www.flickr.com/photos/155366595@N06/38959140691/in/album-72157687926586963/
Academy of Historical Fencing you have opened up another question actually about officer variants of the sword.
I don't have a lot of knowledge about them but, from what I can gather, they seem to be somewhat like the spadroons of the era in terms of their hilt construction? Is this the wrong idea?
The heavy cavalry officer's sword that looks like a spadroon is not a fighting sword, it is an officers dress sword. Their 'undress' sword is the fighting sword, and it features the same blade as the standard troopers sword, but with a more elaborate hilt, but still with the same level of protection. See the flickr link in my last response for photos of one.
Hey, been waiting to see a video on the SPES Officer's Jacket! I'm sure you'll do a full review later, but how is it against one-handed cutters? Think it'd be ok against metal sideswords, such as the Regenyei Sidesword and Darkwood Sidesword or Destreza blades?
I'll be reviewing it early next week. It really depends on your contact levels. For me yes I am happy to wear it for most steel sparring including the types you mention. But I know plenty of our students would want more padding. Its really down to the individual.
first combat is awesome
Cavalry sword is supposed to be used horseback. No footwork = difficult to quick thrust and horse head to bypass. That is why sabre is preferred in cavalry.
Sabre was well loved for cavalry and infantry use, they just usually have slightly different weight/proportions. But the reality is cavalry swords also got used on foot, sometimes out of neccessity and sometimes choice.
Whats your opinion about thumb rings on sabers, for egzample polish ones? Is it true that they are absolutely superior to those who doesnt have those features?
Not a fan, and no I wouldn't say they are superior. Thumb rings were fitted to a number of hilt types, famously the dussack/tessack, Schiavona, Walloon Sword, and of course, some Eastern European sabres. Though they were actually rather short lived. The fact that all of these sword types continued on very successfully without the thumb rings speaks volumes.
I think it was really just found redundant. Of course this is a hot topic and there are some fanatical followers for thumb rings. But I have used a lot, including original swords that we own, and they lack a little dexterity, are not so nice to thrust with, and also increase the chances of breaking the thumb and damaging the wrist.
They also don't play well with sparring gloves.
Fair enough
Why would the heavy cavalry and light cavalry use different types of swords, one curved and one straight? Was the cuirassier charge reliant on the thrusts or is it something else?
These are both British swords rather than cuirassier (Which Britain didn't use at this time). The cuirassier swords are very different, very long thrust centric swords. Wheres the British heavy is much more intended for cutting. The reason the British light and heavy cav used different swords is in large part tradition. The man who helped design the light cavalry sabre campaigned for its adoption by both heavy and light cav, but the heavies resisted, wanting to stick with tradition of a long straight broadsword. It could be argued that their intended role was significant, as heavies were intended as a blutn instrument to take on other cavalry and infantry. Whereas the light were in theory intended for harassing actions of skirmishers, artillery, scouting duties etc. In reality, they often ended up doing much the same as the heavies. After the Napoleonic period the light and heavy swords became much closer in type, and eventually in 1853, they began to use the same pattern. Frankly their are advantages and disadvantages to both, and so its no surprise that the later swords took ideas from both.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Thanks for the very detailed answer!
That’s soldiering
Red is heavy Calvary. He moves are slow and slightly clumsy but the blue is faster and makes more mistakes.
Actually, if you've read the description of the video they clearly state that the straight blade is the heavy sabre while the curved one is the light sabre
The red one just doesn't move a lot because he calculates his moves unlike the other dude who rushes in bashing like a lunatic
Abysmal footwork, range management, and timing...but some great counters! Entertaining vid!