Gave a replica of this type of sword to my father, who is a massive fanatic for the Napoleonic wars and has transferred this passion onto me. Will be forwarding him this video! Thank you, ScholaGladiatoria!
Apparently the curaisser sword is called "la latte de cuirassier". Or on other words, "a slat sword". Not classified as sabre. I found that nomenclature interesting.
@@josephvisnovsky1462 It's rather a nickname than an official name. In the French army, it was classified as a sabre, the difference being a "latte" is a straight sabre, which remained basically the same till the end of WW1. When you have one in your hands, you immediately understand it's a terrifying weapon. But what our historian didn't mention, is the fact that even with a curved sabre, used by the light cavalry in France, the men were trained to use it also as a thrust weapon. When charging, the sabre was hold high with a straight arm, and with one particularity : the flat back was oriented downwards, and the cutting edge upwards, in a way to ensure the upper part of the blade and the tip were nearly parallel with the ground, with the objective to aim the throat and the chest of the opponent and to penetrate it pointing downwards, ensuring a mostly certain fatal wound in that case too.
Matt revisiting topics a year later (like these curassier swords or the recent video about the 1788 Heavy Cavalry Sword) reminds me of the good professors who every year teach the same subject but try to deepen their own and their students understanding of it.
As a great admirer of Napoleon and his magnificent soldiers I am glad I found your channel. Your information is very accurate; according to the Napoleonic guidelines, the minimum height required for the cuirassiers was 1.73 metres. The average height of the French soldiers of that time was 1.65 metres. The cuirasses changed slightly during the First Empire (there were three different models: 1804, 1807 and 1812) but they all had the same thickness (2.8mm) and the same weight (about 7 kilos.). Regards from Argentina.
@@christophermichaelclarence6003 You are welcome, Christoph! Only an imbecile could not admire the greatness of Napoleon. Most people think of him as a military genius but he was more than that. He ruled France with wisdom and generosity and made her the most powerful nation in Europe. Had not been for the hateful English ruling class who started and financed all the wars against him he would have died on the throne. ¡Vive l'Empereur!
i want to add something to the height and size topic. old timey people usually have very large hands for their body size. i advise you to look at your older relatives who did trades, farming, etc from a young age, even if they are ''short'' or shorter compared to you, they will have thick strong hand that are most likely larger than yours. people these days have a habit of thinking that since men were shorter back then, they would also have frail bodies altogether
i always liked the appereance of a cuirassier , the uniform , the sword , the everything , probably why their are one of my fav units in napoleon total war
I share your kink ! I advise you to get a hold on a unit of cuirassiers in the old-school Mount&Blade : Napoleonic wars if you have not already spent several years on it. The "Commander battles" gamemode is basically Total War on the ground level, with you commanding a small unit. Absolutely delightful.
Actually it's not that uncommon, it's fairly common to do it, in most case to better glorify yourself. Quite the common practice in ancient Roma for example.
@@chronic6428 Indeed. After all, what point is there in writing that the enemy you defeated was pathetic? Far better to say they were incredible warriors, which further boosts how great you are since you beat them.
It also made perfect sense. French cavalry had a vaunted reputation for a long time, and the British have long been known to achieve victory or avoid total disaster in ridiculous circumstances such as the battle of Fontenoy. In that battle, the British made almost every single classic and unforgivable mistake, and still somehow managed to withdraw under fire and not get wiped out completely
The cuirassiers were nicknamed "les gros frères" by other french soldiers . It can be translated by "the large brothers" and were looked with high regards. And considered to be very effective in battle.
Matt, I normally enjoy your content, but find you have a way of taking 8 minutes of content and making it a 24 minute video. This was refreshing as it moved from point to point and was instructive at every point. Much enjoyed, Bravo!
Absolutely terrifying indeed, but the cuirass you saw wasn't a cuirassier's, but a carabinier's cuirass, in steel covered with a brass foil and decorated with a breast ornament. But cuirassier or carabinier, facing a cannonball, the cuirass was totally useless...
The cuirassiers should be framed very similarly to how you spoke of the Romans’ gladius/scutum - it’s a weapon system (big horse, big man, long sword) that’s supposed to be employed en masse, not individually. A phalanx of spear points that would often break their opponents before contact but certainly would have the advantage at the collision.
I'm not sure phalanx is the right term as cavalry of that period (and all cavalry in cavalry on cavalry engagements) generally fought in relatively lose formations to avoid collisions. Btw there is a polish source from the period regarding defeating the feared russian imperial guard cuirassiers - the idea was to drive the point in the top part of the breastplate and allow the geometry to do its job leading the point or the edge straight into the throat area of the opponent. Definitely not easy because russian cuirassiers were modelled after french ones (and therefore had long ass swords giving them the first strike advantage but this simple method was reportedly very effective as proven by the early stages of November insurrection (the in the napoleonic period all polish cavalry I'm aware of used lances)
@@Sk0lzky A heavy cavalry squadron engaged the enemy in two lines, boot to boot. The charge itself would be over a relatively short distance to maintain cohesion. Collisions were rare as one side often gave way before contact.
@@lc1138 I’d like to see Matt bring a 9ft lance onto the show. Similar idea about reach/shock as heavy cavalry at a reduced cost, but essentially light cavalry that could perform those roles (recce, piquet, etc.) .
There's an analogy to be made between heavy horse cav and modern tanks -- both intended to break the enemy line, and then the light cav or dragoons/mechanized infantry riding behind mop up at closer range. The Brits had lancers for the heavy cav role at the time, that's why the sword is so long, it was intended to replace the lance, and the Brits still call their tank battalions "Lancers", in keeping with the tank analogy.
It would definitely be interesting to see more translated French accounts of Napoleonic battles. I suspect that such accounts, like the one presented, might paint a far more dangerous image of their opponents than might be expected considering allied accounts. Note that another way of understanding that 19 out 20 blows "fell flat" is that you can hear also "it just took one." A battle amputation could easily have been as fatal as a thrust. Losing an arm in a _clean_ cut would see the victim dead of blood loss before they could be aided, because the cut was in fact clean. Losing an arm to shrapnel or even a musket shot would likely have been more survivable. In short, in genuine French accounts the allied cavalry might very well have appeared quite fearsome.
I recommend you to read the memoirs of the Baron de Marbot, a cavalry officer of the napoleonic army. They are very well known and very entertaining, and deal with cavalry combats in several instances.
French swords don't usually lie within my interests, but I like the way Matt prepares and presents the facts, context and historical accounts of these weapons, in addition to presenting an antique as an example. Great stuff!
Cuirassiers fought on horseback, cum cuirasse, in 1914, both in the first shock and Marne and in the ensuing race to the sea. They got rid of the cuirasse when they went to the trenches in 1915. They still exist… though they now ride Leclerc tanks. I don’t know what todays doctrine is but in the 80’s they sure were considered as shock units to be unleashed on WP troops in counterattacks.
I used to collect the Histrorex 54mm model soldiers , i had a few kits of these French cuirassiers , also i still have a Poste Militaire 90mm Kit of this french cavalryman , spent many hours completing these soldiers, i love the Napoleonic era for the uniforms, would like some of the actual swords but these museum pieces will cost a fortune now, you are lucky fellow scholagladiatoria :} since subbed to your channel .
A cuirassier sword dating from the Napoleonic era isn't that rare (at least in France) and doesn't cost a fortune. You can get one for less than 1 000 euros (one of my friend bought one in an auction for 600 euros), hilt and blade all from the good model, the problem being a lot of them had their tip modified starting 1816. Find a non-modified isn't that easy now, but it's still possible.
i always see this word and when you read it over and over you say it in your head how you think it should/does sound. Hearing you say it even with your accent is a pleasure. Thanks
At Wagram, when the cavalry of the guard passed in review before a charge, Napoleon called to them, "Don't cut! The point! The point!" The helmet also protected the cuirassier when reaching forward to thrust against reply blows to the exposed head.
All the french cavalry had some degree of protection. The dragoons also had helmets, and the the cavalry generally wore rolled blankets across the chest, as a measure of protection.
He said that because even the light cavalry, with their curved sabres, were trained to use them as a thrust weapon as well, in a terrifying way (flat side of the blade downwards, cutting edge upwards, with the upper part of the blade and the tip parallel to the ground, hold with a straight and rigid arm, the objective being to aim the throat or the upper part of the chest of the opponent). With a result, a most certain fatal wound each time...
I suppose the weight and chunkiness of the sword helps a little in regards to giving point on horse back. I imagine a lighter sword doesnt pack enough of a punch to remain controllable but obviously, i havent taken part in cavalry charges with various weapons so im speculating!
@@thekaxmax yeah, i was finding it hard to put in to words what I meant. Just, a better thrusting capability over all with the huge speed/weight of the horse compared to a lighter sword
Wow love this channel !! I love military and world history, and weapons play a huge part in how history played itself out. You've earned a subscriber sir, please keep up the good work. And maybe if possible in the future, a video or two on some of the other common medieval field weapons, makes and axes in particular. You definitely Have the expertise to cover these areas, and I look forward to checking out the rest of your material! Greetings from New England and cheers !!
Would be fascinating to see a collaboration on this topic with mat Easton and Jason Kingsley, doing a ballistics test on horseback with a sword like this.
Would you consider doing a video on why swords were chosen by these kinds of cavalry units over the spear or lance? I'm aware that there were some units like the famed Polish Lancers or Winged Hussars who were using long pointy sticks from horseback in roughly this period, but why was a sword chosen overwhelmingly? My thought while watching this video here was that if a cavalry unit with spears or lances engaged these fearsome swordsmen, then wouldn't the lancepoints impact before the swordpoints, and come off better? I know there must be something I am missing here, but I'd be really interested to hear why the sword was preferred.
By the late 16th century, improvement in armor technology and the introduction of the wheellock pistol had rendered the lance obsolete in western Europe. Do note that most heavy cavalry and pikemen of this period were still clad in plate armor. Given that the lance had absolutely no chance against the shot-proof, heavier plate of the period, while the pistols had some chance, its easy to see why western European cavalry ditched their long poles for the wheellock. The sword was however retained as an all-around useful backup weapon. In eastern Europe plate armor were not so widespread, so lances were a lot more useful and hence quite prevalent. However, as the size of armies in western Europe continued to grow and firearm technology continued to advance, armor were increasingly discarded. By mid 17th century pikemen rarely wore it, while the cavalry were reduced to helmets and breastplates. By the 18th century very few soldiers wore any armor at all. In this environment cold steel became much more useful, and the sword replaced the pistol as the horseman's primary weapon. Many famous military commanders of the era like the Duke of Marlborough and Charles of Sweden forbade their troopers from firing at all during the charge. In this environment of no armor, one would expect the lance to be sooner or later reintroduced. Military conservatism being what it is, however, it took awhile for this to happen in western Europe, the catalyst coming from the east. It finally happened in the early 19th century, when the Poles showed Napoleon how useful their long poles were. After the Napoleonic Wars most European armies again sported regiments of lancers, and the German Army in particular armed all their front rank troopers with it in the 1870's. Ironic given that by that date cavalry charges had became increasingly obsolete.
Omitting the second fuller would offer a much more effective backup cutting capability while still being much stiffer for the thrust than most other swords. With its thrust-only design, it's basically a lance that forfeits most of a lance's reach advantage. Lance against no shield and no / minimal armor is not only likely to kill, but also to panic / break opponents who realize their shorter weapons have no defense or attack until after they're skewered - an important consideration in the days of slower and shorter-ranged firearms. Yes, I've seen the earlier video about swords and lances, but lancers also generally carried swords.
Wouldn't you need big sturdy lances (like the ones used by medieval knights) to do the job of a shock cavalry ? If I remember corectly those just didn't exist anymore and the lances were smaller and usually used by light cavalry
@@blitzhill9533 You do remember correctly about the dimensions and use of 18th/19thC lances, but you they'd only need to be big and sturdy to punch through armor (or unhorse a jousting opponent). A lighter lance goes through a uniform coat just fine and - perhaps more importantly - makes it visibly clear that it will do so before your bayonet or sabre has any chance of touching the rider or horse (unlike the subject of this article).
That was my initial thinking. This is less of a big sword and more of a small lance. Presumably to make them far more mobile and maneuverable. It would seem that the cutting edge is primarily there as a backup to increase the versatility. It may also be somewhat vestigial, depending on the exact evolution that the sword and tactics followed.
@@Master...deBater But it wouldn't and couldn't - as Matt clearly explains in the video. He doesn't say that the cuirassiers were too lazy or stupid to sharpen their swords; dullness is inherent in the blades' geometry. From the opening scene, you can see that the grind from the outside ridge of the fuller (1/4" thick or so) to the "edge" is less than half the width of the handguard bars (which are about 3/8"). That's shallower than 45 degrees - like trying to "cut to the bone" with half a pair of scissors. And again, lancers not only could, but did carry backup sabres that gave them options once someone made it past the point.
Hi! Didn't the Carabiniers have the same blades but different hilts? I read that the Carabiniers were Senior and the elite of the heavy cavalry not the Curiassiers.
Thank you, I was for my military service in the 5eme Regiment de Cuirassiers (Royal Pologne) in Kaiserslautern in 1977/1978. No horse, no sword...but Tanks (AMX30,AMX10..) Congratulations for your channel.
French cuirassiers were reserved to deliver the coup de grace to a weakened enemy. Size and armor meant nothing when confronting a solid infantry square and their horses simply would shy away from crashing in to a wall of bayonets. They were also the heaviest cavalry and quickest to become blown limiting the speed and number of charges possible thus correct application and timing were critical. I often wonder if Napoleon wouldn't have benefited from having larger numbers of chasseurs and lancers sparing the large expense of equipping cuirassier units. Excellent description of the pallash design and application.
French cuirassiers also had an enormous battlefield morale factor, as you said they were core of the "charge in the back of a retreating unit" thing, when French troops saw them in action that meant that the Generals,Marshalls,or Napoleon himself considered that it was time to use the advantage and go for total victory, it was a huge boost in confidence and fighting spirit, on the other hand when you were fighting against the French that meant sudden shock and awe that you were loosing and probably should drop your weapon and run for your life while you still can. In that way i'm sure the expense of caring for a cuirassier unit was well worth the investment, they essentially were special forces.They not only had a physical impact on the battlefield but also a big psy op effect on it, they could turn an orderly retreat into a catastrophic debacle by their mere presence.
Cuirassier charges were mostly delivered on the flanks of the Infantry and they could completely smash the Infantry . Also , If the Infantry could not form the Bayonet square on time before the Cuirassier charge , they could smashed too . Timing mattered to Infantry as well . They were supposed to form a square quickly before a charge . Or else , they could be decimated. Cuirassier charges were also used against Artillery Gunner , other light and Heavy cavalry
@@redwithblackstripesThey were the Sledgehammers . Or Offensive arm . Without Heavy cavalry , war could never be won . It will always be turned into stalemate . Heavy cavalry was needed to decisively smash the enemy .
Thank you for this video ! I always found the french cuirassiers outfit particularly fashionable (as well as most of the hussars, austrians excepted). But I didn't know the cuirasse was effective against musket fire. Can you tell us about the other french heavies ? Horse grenadiers, carabiniers... were there any differences between the carabiniers and the cuirassiers, in weight of armor, in usage, in the horses mounted...? And, the grenadiers, without armor, how did they perform with this heavy sword ? Is 1.3 kg really this cumbersome ? I sparred a bit with 12th-13th swords (today hand-crafted) of this approximate weight, and, well, 1.4kg was unpractical for me in foot combat, as I am a thin person. But for horseback, and for stronger horsemen, I'm surprised this would be much of an issue. I assume the great length is part of the encumbrance, especially if you cannot slash with it. Oh, and this leads to another question : what are the consequences on the wrist/arm/body of using a sword as a spear at the speed of horse ? Seeing how a spear might have reacted (aka : breaking in splinters), I wonder how the cuirassiers managed to thrust their targets and come out with all limbs in good shape. Especially still targets, like infantry. Was the penetration smooth enough to not stop the blade and the limb that followed ?
AN XIII is the 13th year of the revolution not of Napoleon. The cuirass was originally pistol proofed but this went out the door later in the period as it meant a lot of cuirass were being rejected for use. There are many statements from British infantry from Waterloo and Quatre Bras where they said that a musket ball frequently passed through both front and back plates, and the body of course.
To be precise, (and therefore correct), An XIII was the 13th year of the Republic, not the Revolution... The Revolutionary calendar started, retroactively and theoretically, on 22 Septembre, 1792 (day the Republic was established; the Revolution having already started since 1789). Therefore, year XIII of the Revolutionary calendar started on 23 September, 1804 and ended on 22 September, 1805.
@@frontenac5083 Thanks for the clarification, I was being a bit unspeciific in what I said my main point being it wasn't to do with a Napoleonic created system of dating.
I think the fact that the torso, which would have been (and of course still is) the primary target for firearms remained armored all the way up to the 20th century is one of the greatest discreditors to the common misconception that "firearms made armor useless"
Napoleon era cuirass couldn't block musketfire unless it was at extreme range, it was largely used since the cuirassiers where primarily close ranged fighters (the sword he's talking about was considered his primary weapon) and armor could still block swords/bayonets/and occasionally pistols.
In addition, keep in mind that until smokeless powder, brass cased cartridges, and pointed bullets, the velocity of round ball ammunition fell off rapidly.
@@rugerredhawk9065 There are many preserved Napoleonic curiasses that show dents from musket balls that didn't penetrate. any of those shots would have most likely been mortal, had the man not worn a curiass.
The cuirassier sword was not a good cutter but sometimes were observed to inflict devastating cuts. The Royal Armoury has a first hand account of a English trooper who saw his comrade almost bisected in the bead by a cuirassier sword that struck in the mouth and cut to the throat. Of course, this was written down because it was a horrifying and unusual wound.
A thrust during a charge or pass would look and affect much like a cut because the blade would pass in through and out in... unpredictable ways very quickly and violently.
The cuirassier sabre wasn't intended to cut anything, and anyway, it's very hard to cut anything with a straight blade. The cuirassiers were a "shock cavalry" used in a heavy and terrifying mass intended to break the ennemy lines. I guess the guys who were seeing a regiment of cuirassiers charging and shouting at them may more than probably feel a lot of fear, in particular when you know how heavy was a fully equipped cuirassier (already among the tallest and strongest men of the French army) on his horse, the biggest of all French cavalry...
@@laurentdevaux5617 The horses of the Selles Français, a fairly enormous horse weighing at least 500kg plus the 80kg man with weapons and luggage, i.e. almost 600kg launched at full speed and preceded by a huge sword, all lined up in a charging line... Yes, there was something to do in his pants.😥😥
@@laurentdevaux5617 "and anyway, it's very hard to cut anything with a straight blade." This is possibly the most frustrating misconception in arms & armor armchair discussion
@@colbyboucher6391 Are you sure it's a misconception ? Seems you never had a cuirassier sabre in hand (I have one). I won't change my point of view, this terrible weapon wasn't intended to cut anything, it wasn't made for that, a curved sword is much better for that kind of job. Matt Easton said it very clearly, the cuirassier sword was a thrusting weapon, a sort of giant skewer. It was made to be held straight and pierce. Some straight blades may be good at cutting, but not this one, rather difficult to handle in another way, in particular because of its length and its weight
For anybody who loves Cuirassiers, the french film "le Colonel Chabert" has some very nice scenes with them, including the charge at Eylau ruclips.net/video/slaNADrdPMA/видео.html The cavalrymen in the movie were from the French republican guard, one of the only units in the world to actually still practice cavalry charges ruclips.net/video/jaWCgdD7jlg/видео.html (although they use curved sabers instead of the straight sword)
Hello, I'm french and I have to congratulate for this nice review. I have two of those astonishing swords. When I buy them, about 25-30 years ago, I read a lot of press reviews (no internet at this time...) and it was said that the sword was so long in order for the cuirassier, when leaning over the horse when charging, to have the tip of the blade a lot ahead the nose of the horse. Is it true....? Let people make their own mind.
+scholagladiatoria The French heavy cavalry used point-oriented longswords of backsword construction, excepting the spear point. A steel guard might have performed better than brass in battle. But the cuirasses hindered arm movement, so enemy heavy sabers (e.g. the U.S. Saber, Dragoon, 1840) had an advantage, provided that they struck neck and/or arm.
Thanks for the accounts and anecdotes Matt. That's a thumping great horse in the oil painting. No wonder he needs two reins. To stop the buggar lol. Great vid, as ever.
Excellent video, topic and comments. Just spent 2 hours reading them all 😀 A slightly off topic question that I can’t find an answer to. What might the drill book state for cavalry going into a charge. Sword down, resting on shoulder, or in scabbard?
YES. Thank you! I’m one of the only people I’ve encountered who has one of the double-fuller model pallasche /cuirassier’s “backsword” (although I would debate the backsword title, I can tell you just from looking at the edge geometry that although perhaps you could effect a fatal stroke with the edge of a slightly less blunt iron bar, a good cutting sword it is not). Mine is the reformed Mousquetaires du Roi Imperial Guard heavy cavalry sword, with the earlier hatchet point unmodified, and it’s EXTREMELY hard to find any information about the history and use of these swords, especially technique of use when dismounted. Is there any resource you could point me towards, by chance?
Small detail. If the hilt is "modèle AN XIII". It means that model was created during the 13th year of the french "revolutionnic" calendar, so betwen 23 september 1804 and 22 september 1805. This year is in the first year of the empire. The "calendrier républicain" was used from the 22 of september 1792 until 1806.
at 8:43, the an xiii means year 13 of the republic, not year 13 of napoleon. the calendar counts from 1792 (an i) when the monarchy was abolished, rather than 1799 (an viii) when napoleon orchestrated the 18th brumaire coup and became first consul. even though the republic was abolished and the first empire proclaimed in december 1804 (which would have been in frimaire an xiii funnily enough!), the use of the republican calendar continued until january 1806 (nivose an xiv) when napoleon restored the gregorian calendar.
Correct! At last, someone gets it right. (There's no shame in not knowing the details and intricacies of the French Revolutionary calendar, but why do some people in the comments who don't know what they're talking about, feel the need to explain all this wrongly? Perplexing...)
The anecdote about the English cavalry saying the French fight unfair seems to be the polar opposite of the later anecdote I believe you did a video on where British officers part of the occupation forces in France post-Waterloo dueled French officers with something along the lines of "fighting unfair" and it was the latter who complained. Just thought that was interesting.
@@Sk0lzky Pretty much. Reminds me of the Arabs who after their defeat in the 1967 Six Day War, complained that American planes must be supporting the Israelis cause they couldn't accept that the Jews alone had decisively defeated them.
In Germany/ Austria this kind of weapon was often called Pallasch. In early stages of Revolution/Napoleonic wars, german/ austrian heavy cavallrymen noticed, compared to their swords, french ones had been a bit narrower and pointier, so better for thrusting. Even in 1870/71french more thrustbased fencing style was a Problem for German cavallrymen with a more cutbased fencing style.
I also believe that their sword , nicknamed la latte (latter is still a verb used to say to beat in French), was so heavy that it could be used effectively as a club, using either edge. As for the way the cuirassiers were engaged into battle, usually it was in close compact formations, swords in scabbards, trotting slowly, until quite close to the enemy, then after a signal, all swords were suddenly drew starting the charge for the last close distance. This was to create an impressive swoosh sound to impress / destabilize the enemy before impact.
Hey,Matt.....This is an AnXIII model made in 1826 with an AnXIII blade. It does not have a M1816 blade which is slightly different being somewhat slimmer and longer(1000mm) with a convex rather than flat spine. Most AnXIIIs had their blades modified by removal of the hatchet point in or around the Battle of Waterloo ,hence the confusion. The spear point certainly was regulation by 1816. The hilt form designates the sword model on French swords...There are quite a few M1854 Dragoon sabres around with AnXIII blades
You note this, particularly towards the end, but it's really telling how formidable the curissars were considered when defeating 1 (particularly 1 on 1) was considered worthy of documenting in a memoir or anecdote. Infantry don't write letters to magazines evey time they shoot an opposing infantryman. Yet defeating a curissair was seen as, literally, "something to write home about."
Fantastic Matt very interesting 👍 Long term Napoleonic warfare fan, alongside an interest in history, esespecially swords and weapons this was a treat .. cheers
Cheers for the info! How did it compare to the British Heavy Cavalry 1796 sword? They look to have more commonalities than with the British 1796 Light Cavalry sword, I have replicas of both, might look out for a replica of the French Cuirassier sword now! ;-)
i have a sword with that exact same guard, 3 things and a knuckle bow, it even has those 3 little balls where they all connect to the guard but its curved, i always wondered if it was rehandled or something
Question: given that these swords were intended more or less purely for thrusting, why not use a triangular- or square-section blade, like that of an estoc?
An XIII would date the hilt about September 1804 to September 1805 I believe The Imperial Guard Grenadier a Cheval sword would be worth a fair price I guess - any ideas on that? Finally I recall (from someone else’s research - not mine!) that Captain Nolan’s (of Balaclava fame) cavalry manual did not consider Cuirassiers that much above unarmoured cavalry Can anyone offer a fuller insight on that?
Awesome video, really interesting. As an aside, you mentioned that the heavy cavalry of the other European powers was influenced by the Cuirassiers, and you are correct. However, Austria and Prussia had Cuirassiers before Napoleon’s time. Friedrich Whilhelm Von Seydlitz was the leader of Frederick the Greats Cuirassiers, and other cavalry, during the Seven Years War, and they did quite well.
Cuirassiers were ubiquitous in most European armies since the late 16th century. They replaced the lance-armed men-at-arms as the primary heavy cavalry of the period, being armed with pistols instead. Originally they were armored almost as completely as the earlier knights/men-at-arms, with the only difference being their lack of lower leg armor, to compensate for their much heavier, now bulletproof breastplate. Over time though they lightened their armor, so that by the mid 17th century cuirassiers only wore a breast-and-back plate and a helmet, and were generally referred simply as 'Horse'. Their armor protection continued to be reduced over time; Seydlitz's cuirassiers only had a front plate and wore no helmet. By the late 18th century they rarely wore any armor at all. Napoleon certainly made waves when he decided to reintroduce the cuirass and helmet in 1802.
Yea, good point, thank you for the reply, some of what you said I didn’t know. I have also heard that the wearing of only a front armor plate was to reduce weight and save the horse’s energy, though that had mixed results, and Cuirassiers with only a front plate were at a disadvantage against more well protected foes. Thoughts?
@@usauk3605 Yes, wearing just the front plate was the normal practice in the 18th century, when cost and weight saving seemed to be of paramount importance. It should be noted that these 18th century front plates were really meant to be bulletproof, and were in consequence quite heavy indeed. Those issued to Frederick the Great's troopers could weight as much as 20 lbs! When Napoleon reintroduced the cuirass, bulletproof-ness seemed to be of secondary consideration to him. French cuirasses of the period were indeed noted to be of dubious value against musket balls, and in fact they were proof tested with just one shot from an unspecified long range. They were also a lot lighter, weighing just 15 lbs for the front AND back plate combined. Supposedly the French practice of armoring both the front and back were considered superior to the Austrians', who only wore the front plate. This was observed in one particular engagement when the French and Austrian cuirassiers repeatedly clashed, with each side pursuing, rallying and counterattacking several times. Since the Austrian heavies had completely exposed backs the French were able to easily stab them from behind while the former was fleeing, but the reverse wasnt true. In consequence the Austrian suffered far heavier casualties than the French. At any rate when the other European nations reintroduced the cuirass during and after the Napoleonic Wars, they followed the French practice.
So fascinating this true history, my father was a well read man about Napoleon, a huge fan of the history and battles fought, as well as I am, and still have some of his books. I never could find more details like you are teaching us now. I allways wondered why the highly specialized cuirassiers didn't have more swords for effective fighting, like these cuirassiers, having a cutting sabre for close combat in a scabbard, a pistol on the side and this formidable straight sword for the charge, that would have given them much more effective melee force. On the other hand; Britain might still be French by now..... dealing with metric system, baguette and Grand Nappy instead of Big Ben
It's mainly to do with policy, etiquette, uniformity and general top-down inability to think outside the box. They weren't peasants, they were quite well off and personally if you're a soldier in a war most logical people would supplement themselves out of their own pocket with just about anything they could get away with. If I were in the cavalry I'd carry 2 swords and as many pistols as I could within the realms of practicality. Cost is a bitch yeah but being dead is worse and being crippled for the rest of your life is worse still. They weren't idiots, I cannot fathom a reason that they wouldn't carry additional things outside of their specifications if they were allowed to do so.
Hey Matt, If you happen to need any help on translating french documents from this period, I'd be happy to help. I would struggle to read medieval french, but the 18th and 19th french is rather similar to the modern one. For science !
Very interesting ! Indeed, cuirassiers were tough warriors. Most curious is that there were still 12 regiments in 1914, which entered the war dressed and equiped almost like 100 years before. The cuirass was the model 1855, the sword was the model 1854/82 and the helmet was the model 1874, but all these things only changed a bit since the napoleonic wars. The biggest difference was that in 1914, the helmet had a khaki light canvas cover and the cuirass wasn't polished anymore (at least in one regiment, the solution found was to put the cuirasses in the courtyard of the barracks and let the rain do a natural rust camouflage. The men were also told to urinate on the cuirasses to accelerate the process...) Another thing is that, in the napoleonic wars French light cavalry, equiped with curved sabers, the saber, unlike in the British cavalry, was sometimes also used as a thrust weapon in a terrible way : during a charge, the saber was hold with a straight arm, the flat back of the blade turned towards the soil and the cutting edge facing the sky, and the men were trained to aim the throat, or at least the upper part of the torso of their opponent. The way the curved saber was hold then made it a very dangerous weapon...
It's interesting that with a thrusting centred training, you would have to make sure you don't get into a protracted melee; where your opponent would likely dominate with a cut focused attack and more dexterity. Sort of interesting to think that the French mindset here was probably to charge, retreat, then charge again, as they have done for so much of their mounted history since the days of chivalry when French mounted Knights were the model to emulate.
For that initial quote: Is it possible (some of) the British/Allied cavalry were under-trained? I was thinking that if they consistently failed to get through clothes with their cuts, it could be a problem of alignment. Though I suppose sabres ought to make that easier.
It could also be an issue with equipment and doctrine. I don't know if that's the case at that point in history, but I heard that sometimes regulation swords would come with metal scabbards that made keeping a good edge basically impossible - that wasn't seen as a big deal because soldiers were supposed to thrust, not slash. The issue being that while thrusting is usually more deadly (there are caveats even to that), it's less instinctual - in the heat of battle most people forgot and just tried to bash their enemies over the head.
Yes, they were barely trained. If they were good, they'd be given lances and moved through the swordsmen even without armor of their own. A properly sharpened saber in skilled hands during Napoleonic era was capable of consistent decapitation, as often mentioned in the context of Napoleonic Mamelukes. Interestingly, if the French Curiassiers were as well trained and equipped as suggested here, they'd have had armor which did not limit their mobility, then lances or pistols, or both, plus a sword, likely more suited to close combat melee. But it was what it was. An early onset of cannon fodder armies.
I remember hearing on the age of Napoleon podcast (but don't quote me on this) that the arch duke Charles said he was convinced that the Austrian cuirassiers had better gear than the French ones but the French were still better. I doubt a lot of cuirassiers unit were undertrained but that's a profoundly uneducated guess from my part. Maybe morale played a more important role than most people think and the French, galvanized by both the revolution's ideals and their emperor's invincible aura, might have had metric tons of it?
@@fil2fer1150 It most certainly has something to do with morale, as part of the equation. It's like 16th century swiss pikemen who would just advance in formation, and, you, standing in front, would know they wouldn't stop.
Swedish carolean cavalry rapier-ish sword were also 96 cm long. Double edged and somewhat slimmer I think. Do you have one? I think late ones were somewhat longer
Being in the kings troop we had the early 1900 sabre /sword which was straight blade….. and a thrusting weapon also?……I’d be interested in your thoughts on this….. loved your knowledge on swords etc 😎👌🏽
Hi Matt - love your videos - especially everything within the George III and Napoleonic era. Just one correction I'd like to raise if I may. You described the year ANXIII as the "13th year of Napoleon", that's not quite right - the French revolutionary calendar really started in 1793, Sept 1792 nominated being the start of the first year. It was a republican attempt to decimalise and remove religion from the calendar. Napoleon tolerated it but eventually scrapped it in 1804 (year ANXIII).
I was reading an account of Indian lancers racing into a tribal fort about the end of the 19th century wheeling around amongst them dealt with all of them despite them all having firearms. Well trained, motivated and practiced lancers can wield the lightweight lance about and use both ends even in a confined space. Learning to use a heavy cavalry sword at point is taught more easily and suited better to hastily trained wartime conscripts than the lance which needs practiced professionals to make best use of it. I imagine that in a melee the shown Curassier sword would be swung about like a crowbar to keep the unpleasant gentlemen as far away as possible rather than trying to poke a hole in them.
More nimble, and much more efficient and lethal. As our historian said, a wound inflicted by a cuirassier's sword was most often fatal, which wasn't the case with a lance
@@andresmartinezramos7513 How can you be sure if you were never stabbed by one or the other ? 😆 Talk a little bit seriously, if you can compare a lance from this period and this sword, I think you'll understand... the lance has a wooden shaft, which make it less rigid, and as it has no really efficient grip, you can't hold it as firmly as 80 cm of hard and straight steel, not to mention the training of French cuirassiers, taught to use this weapon in a particular way which made it particularly deadly. Matt quotes english books which all say how lethal this weapon was... and it's the point of view of the ennemy, so I let you guess, the truth was maybe even more terrible !
@@laurentdevaux5617 A puncture wound from a lance will kill you just as easily as a sword., the wound mechanism is the exact same The fact that the sword was lethal does not make the lances and spears less so. The forces needed to stab a man without armor are not significant enough to make the points you raise relevant. The fact that the lances were as "flimsy" as they were indicates they needn't be sturdier to do the job. The use of lances literally revived in the 19th century because they started to make sense with the abandonment of armor at the time. If you could think with seriousness you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
What makes me wonder is if the Curassier Sword was such a bad cutter and the curassiers have been ordered to only give point, and not to cut, wouldn't a longer completely thrust centric sword, like the PLC Koncerz make more sense? Or even a lance?
What battle formations or tactics were used with both sides having full body Armor like Plate Armor or mail and plate hybrids. Please make a video regarding this or give some references so I can get my answer, thank you.
Great video, i love my Cuirassiers, i just have to correct something at 8:45, the "An XIII" or Year 13 is not refering to the reign of Napoleon. It's the Republican Calendar the Revolution created as a "New Era" thing, it sets year 1 in 1792, meaning the An XII model of sword was released in 1805
Gave a replica of this type of sword to my father, who is a massive fanatic for the Napoleonic wars and has transferred this passion onto me. Will be forwarding him this video!
Thank you, ScholaGladiatoria!
Apparently the curaisser sword is called "la latte de cuirassier".
Or on other words, "a slat sword". Not classified as sabre.
I found that nomenclature interesting.
@@josephvisnovsky1462 It's rather a nickname than an official name. In the French army, it was classified as a sabre, the difference being a "latte" is a straight sabre, which remained basically the same till the end of WW1. When you have one in your hands, you immediately understand it's a terrifying weapon. But what our historian didn't mention, is the fact that even with a curved sabre, used by the light cavalry in France, the men were trained to use it also as a thrust weapon. When charging, the sabre was hold high with a straight arm, and with one particularity : the flat back was oriented downwards, and the cutting edge upwards, in a way to ensure the upper part of the blade and the tip were nearly parallel with the ground, with the objective to aim the throat and the chest of the opponent and to penetrate it pointing downwards, ensuring a mostly certain fatal wound in that case too.
Как может нормальный человек быть фанатиком войн ? Это может быть лишь в том случае если он никогда не воевал.
Matt revisiting topics a year later (like these curassier swords or the recent video about the 1788 Heavy Cavalry Sword) reminds me of the good professors who every year teach the same subject but try to deepen their own and their students understanding of it.
You learn a lot teaching. Even if it's just clarifying what you already know and lining it up to make sense, telling someone else is a powerful tool.
a dangerously rare trait it would seem nowadays.
As a great admirer of Napoleon and his magnificent soldiers I am glad I found your channel. Your information is very accurate; according to the Napoleonic guidelines, the minimum height required for the cuirassiers was 1.73 metres. The average height of the French soldiers of that time was 1.65 metres. The cuirasses changed slightly during the First Empire (there were three different models: 1804, 1807 and 1812) but they all had the same thickness (2.8mm) and the same weight (about 7 kilos.). Regards from Argentina.
Thank for admiring and appreciating our French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte
@@christophermichaelclarence6003 You are welcome, Christoph! Only an imbecile could not admire the greatness of Napoleon. Most people think of him as a military genius but he was more than that. He ruled France with wisdom and generosity and made her the most powerful nation in Europe. Had not been for the hateful English ruling class who started and financed all the wars against him he would have died on the throne. ¡Vive l'Empereur!
Ew imagine supported a huge piece of trash like napoleon. Thats like thinking putin or stalin were good men.
i want to add something to the height and size topic. old timey people usually have very large hands for their body size. i advise you to look at your older relatives who did trades, farming, etc from a young age, even if they are ''short'' or shorter compared to you, they will have thick strong hand that are most likely larger than yours. people these days have a habit of thinking that since men were shorter back then, they would also have frail bodies altogether
i always liked the appereance of a cuirassier , the uniform , the sword , the everything , probably why their are one of my fav units in napoleon total war
I share your kink ! I advise you to get a hold on a unit of cuirassiers in the old-school Mount&Blade : Napoleonic wars if you have not already spent several years on it.
The "Commander battles" gamemode is basically Total War on the ground level, with you commanding a small unit. Absolutely delightful.
I personally prefer the Polish Lancers, the Imperial Chasseurs a Cheval and Grenadiers a Cheval but Cuirassiers come damn close
strange that they didnt use spears instead?
@@HA-gu1qk Lances, and Lancers were a thing at the time
@D Anemon I'd say the Grenadiers a Cheval are the best Heavy Cavalry in the game, with the Polish Guard Lancers being the best Light Cavalry
It's impressive that even in the success report they underline how difficult it was to achieve those successes against those opponents.
Yeah. Those are stories of successes gained "against all odds", where the opposite result should have been expected.
Actually it's not that uncommon, it's fairly common to do it, in most case to better glorify yourself. Quite the common practice in ancient Roma for example.
@@chronic6428 Indeed. After all, what point is there in writing that the enemy you defeated was pathetic? Far better to say they were incredible warriors, which further boosts how great you are since you beat them.
It also made perfect sense. French cavalry had a vaunted reputation for a long time, and the British have long been known to achieve victory or avoid total disaster in ridiculous circumstances such as the battle of Fontenoy. In that battle, the British made almost every single classic and unforgivable mistake, and still somehow managed to withdraw under fire and not get wiped out completely
Thanks!
Thanks!
The cuirassiers were nicknamed "les gros frères" by other french soldiers .
It can be translated by "the large brothers" and were looked with high regards. And considered to be very effective in battle.
j aurais plutot traduit par " the big boys"
Big bro
Big 'Uns to smash some humies
Les terrible CCTV? I am not a language professor, but it seems plausible that my interpretation is the correct one. Cheers from Norway ✌😊
le gros mfers
because when frenchies popped them out during the Napoleonic Wars...... probably not good for the other side.
Gotta love any anecdote about how awesome the french troops are. And that is an amazing sword
Palash
Matt, I normally enjoy your content, but find you have a way of taking 8 minutes of content and making it a 24 minute video. This was refreshing as it moved from point to point and was instructive at every point. Much enjoyed, Bravo!
I’ll never forget seeing that cuirass with a cannon ball having gone straight through,absolutely savage!
in Paris on Les Invalides !
Absolutely terrifying indeed, but the cuirass you saw wasn't a cuirassier's, but a carabinier's cuirass, in steel covered with a brass foil and decorated with a breast ornament. But cuirassier or carabinier, facing a cannonball, the cuirass was totally useless...
The cuirassiers should be framed very similarly to how you spoke of the Romans’ gladius/scutum - it’s a weapon system (big horse, big man, long sword) that’s supposed to be employed en masse, not individually. A phalanx of spear points that would often break their opponents before contact but certainly would have the advantage at the collision.
Yep.
There is something fascinating about this kind of specialist mood.
I'm not sure phalanx is the right term as cavalry of that period (and all cavalry in cavalry on cavalry engagements) generally fought in relatively lose formations to avoid collisions.
Btw there is a polish source from the period regarding defeating the feared russian imperial guard cuirassiers - the idea was to drive the point in the top part of the breastplate and allow the geometry to do its job leading the point or the edge straight into the throat area of the opponent. Definitely not easy because russian cuirassiers were modelled after french ones (and therefore had long ass swords giving them the first strike advantage but this simple method was reportedly very effective as proven by the early stages of November insurrection (the in the napoleonic period all polish cavalry I'm aware of used lances)
@@Sk0lzky A heavy cavalry squadron engaged the enemy in two lines, boot to boot. The charge itself would be over a relatively short distance to maintain cohesion. Collisions were rare as one side often gave way before contact.
@@lc1138 I’d like to see Matt bring a 9ft lance onto the show. Similar idea about reach/shock as heavy cavalry at a reduced cost, but essentially light cavalry that could perform those roles (recce, piquet, etc.) .
There's an analogy to be made between heavy horse cav and modern tanks -- both intended to break the enemy line, and then the light cav or dragoons/mechanized infantry riding behind mop up at closer range. The Brits had lancers for the heavy cav role at the time, that's why the sword is so long, it was intended to replace the lance, and the Brits still call their tank battalions "Lancers", in keeping with the tank analogy.
Love to see more Napoleonic coverage, especially about my favorite historical cavalry -- the cuirassiers!
Try to see the beginning of the movie " Colonel Chabert". There is a spectacular cuirassiers charge against the Russians.
Nowaydays, our French Calvary don't longer use "Cuirassiers" which is sad.😔
Now it's British Cavalry that actual wear it
It would definitely be interesting to see more translated French accounts of Napoleonic battles. I suspect that such accounts, like the one presented, might paint a far more dangerous image of their opponents than might be expected considering allied accounts. Note that another way of understanding that 19 out 20 blows "fell flat" is that you can hear also "it just took one." A battle amputation could easily have been as fatal as a thrust. Losing an arm in a _clean_ cut would see the victim dead of blood loss before they could be aided, because the cut was in fact clean. Losing an arm to shrapnel or even a musket shot would likely have been more survivable. In short, in genuine French accounts the allied cavalry might very well have appeared quite fearsome.
I recommend you to read the memoirs of the Baron de Marbot, a cavalry officer of the napoleonic army. They are very well known and very entertaining, and deal with cavalry combats in several instances.
Plenty of French Napoleonic soldiers’ accounts have been translated. They’re not at all hard to find.
Yes, showing your big sword is definitely a good way to tell people how much of a dominator your are :)
...
They also used sabers and a few swords in the American civil war. 1861-1865.
Me owning a greatsword..., heh.
I knew I'd find at least one "big sword" joke.
They're french. I think they're compensating
French swords don't usually lie within my interests, but I like the way Matt prepares and presents the facts, context and historical accounts of these weapons, in addition to presenting an antique as an example. Great stuff!
Cuirassiers fought on horseback, cum cuirasse, in 1914, both in the first shock and Marne and in the ensuing race to the sea. They got rid of the cuirasse when they went to the trenches in 1915.
They still exist… though they now ride Leclerc tanks. I don’t know what todays doctrine is but in the 80’s they sure were considered as shock units to be unleashed on WP troops in counterattacks.
I used to collect the Histrorex 54mm model soldiers , i had a few kits of these French cuirassiers , also i still have a Poste Militaire 90mm Kit of this french cavalryman , spent many hours completing these soldiers, i love the Napoleonic era for the uniforms, would like some of the actual swords but these museum pieces will cost a fortune now, you are lucky fellow scholagladiatoria :} since subbed to your channel .
A cuirassier sword dating from the Napoleonic era isn't that rare (at least in France) and doesn't cost a fortune. You can get one for less than 1 000 euros (one of my friend bought one in an auction for 600 euros), hilt and blade all from the good model, the problem being a lot of them had their tip modified starting 1816. Find a non-modified isn't that easy now, but it's still possible.
It almost strikes me as a broad basket hilted estoc. Thankyou for your introducing so many different and awesome swords to the community!
i always see this word and when you read it over and over you say it in your head how you think it should/does sound. Hearing you say it even with your accent is a pleasure.
Thanks
At Wagram, when the cavalry of the guard passed in review before a charge, Napoleon called to them, "Don't cut! The point! The point!" The helmet also protected the cuirassier when reaching forward to thrust against reply blows to the exposed head.
All the french cavalry had some degree of protection. The dragoons also had helmets, and the the cavalry generally wore rolled blankets across the chest, as a measure of protection.
He said that because even the light cavalry, with their curved sabres, were trained to use them as a thrust weapon as well, in a terrifying way (flat side of the blade downwards, cutting edge upwards, with the upper part of the blade and the tip parallel to the ground, hold with a straight and rigid arm, the objective being to aim the throat or the upper part of the chest of the opponent). With a result, a most certain fatal wound each time...
I suppose the weight and chunkiness of the sword helps a little in regards to giving point on horse back. I imagine a lighter sword doesnt pack enough of a punch to remain controllable but obviously, i havent taken part in cavalry charges with various weapons so im speculating!
Not so much punch as resistance to bending with the weight of a horse behind it.
@@thekaxmax yeah, i was finding it hard to put in to words what I meant. Just, a better thrusting capability over all with the huge speed/weight of the horse compared to a lighter sword
Wow love this channel !! I love military and world history, and weapons play a huge part in how history played itself out. You've earned a subscriber sir, please keep up the good work.
And maybe if possible in the future, a video or two on some of the other common medieval field weapons, makes and axes in particular. You definitely
Have the expertise to cover these areas, and I look forward to checking out the rest of your material!
Greetings from New England and cheers !!
Would be fascinating to see a collaboration on this topic with mat Easton and Jason Kingsley, doing a ballistics test on horseback with a sword like this.
And a thrusting test too !
Had to comment just to say congratulations on your amazing taste in t-shirts and bands! Great video as always, Rock on!
Would you consider doing a video on why swords were chosen by these kinds of cavalry units over the spear or lance? I'm aware that there were some units like the famed Polish Lancers or Winged Hussars who were using long pointy sticks from horseback in roughly this period, but why was a sword chosen overwhelmingly?
My thought while watching this video here was that if a cavalry unit with spears or lances engaged these fearsome swordsmen, then wouldn't the lancepoints impact before the swordpoints, and come off better? I know there must be something I am missing here, but I'd be really interested to hear why the sword was preferred.
He did that video a year ago - it's titled "Why didn't all CAVALRY use LANCES?"
@@mrhamneggs5295 oh amazing! I'll watch that later, thanks.
By the late 16th century, improvement in armor technology and the introduction of the wheellock pistol had rendered the lance obsolete in western Europe. Do note that most heavy cavalry and pikemen of this period were still clad in plate armor. Given that the lance had absolutely no chance against the shot-proof, heavier plate of the period, while the pistols had some chance, its easy to see why western European cavalry ditched their long poles for the wheellock. The sword was however retained as an all-around useful backup weapon.
In eastern Europe plate armor were not so widespread, so lances were a lot more useful and hence quite prevalent.
However, as the size of armies in western Europe continued to grow and firearm technology continued to advance, armor were increasingly discarded. By mid 17th century pikemen rarely wore it, while the cavalry were reduced to helmets and breastplates. By the 18th century very few soldiers wore any armor at all. In this environment cold steel became much more useful, and the sword replaced the pistol as the horseman's primary weapon. Many famous military commanders of the era like the Duke of Marlborough and Charles of Sweden forbade their troopers from firing at all during the charge.
In this environment of no armor, one would expect the lance to be sooner or later reintroduced. Military conservatism being what it is, however, it took awhile for this to happen in western Europe, the catalyst coming from the east. It finally happened in the early 19th century, when the Poles showed Napoleon how useful their long poles were. After the Napoleonic Wars most European armies again sported regiments of lancers, and the German Army in particular armed all their front rank troopers with it in the 1870's. Ironic given that by that date cavalry charges had became increasingly obsolete.
Omitting the second fuller would offer a much more effective backup cutting capability while still being much stiffer for the thrust than most other swords. With its thrust-only design, it's basically a lance that forfeits most of a lance's reach advantage.
Lance against no shield and no / minimal armor is not only likely to kill, but also to panic / break opponents who realize their shorter weapons have no defense or attack until after they're skewered - an important consideration in the days of slower and shorter-ranged firearms. Yes, I've seen the earlier video about swords and lances, but lancers also generally carried swords.
Wouldn't you need big sturdy lances (like the ones used by medieval knights) to do the job of a shock cavalry ? If I remember corectly those just didn't exist anymore and the lances were smaller and usually used by light cavalry
@@blitzhill9533 You do remember correctly about the dimensions and use of 18th/19thC lances, but you they'd only need to be big and sturdy to punch through armor (or unhorse a jousting opponent). A lighter lance goes through a uniform coat just fine and - perhaps more importantly - makes it visibly clear that it will do so before your bayonet or sabre has any chance of touching the rider or horse (unlike the subject of this article).
That was my initial thinking. This is less of a big sword and more of a small lance. Presumably to make them far more mobile and maneuverable. It would seem that the cutting edge is primarily there as a backup to increase the versatility. It may also be somewhat vestigial, depending on the exact evolution that the sword and tactics followed.
If you sharpen the edge it would certainly cut to the bone! Perhaps not as efficiently as a 1796 or 1822...but obviously better than a lance.
@@Master...deBater But it wouldn't and couldn't - as Matt clearly explains in the video. He doesn't say that the cuirassiers were too lazy or stupid to sharpen their swords; dullness is inherent in the blades' geometry. From the opening scene, you can see that the grind from the outside ridge of the fuller (1/4" thick or so) to the "edge" is less than half the width of the handguard bars (which are about 3/8"). That's shallower than 45 degrees - like trying to "cut to the bone" with half a pair of scissors.
And again, lancers not only could, but did carry backup sabres that gave them options once someone made it past the point.
Outstanding video! Informative, entertaining, and enjoyable - well done, Matt!👍🏻🎅👍🏻
In case it is not clear, AN XIII is the 13th year of the 1792 revolutionary calendar (1804), so you can just say year 13 instead of A.N. 13
Very nice report. I have a cuirassier saber from the battle of Waterloo. Impressive and very heavy. Manufactured in 1806.
Hi! Didn't the Carabiniers have the same blades but different hilts? I read that the Carabiniers were Senior and the elite of the heavy cavalry not the Curiassiers.
Thank you, I was for my military service in the 5eme Regiment de Cuirassiers (Royal Pologne) in Kaiserslautern in 1977/1978. No horse, no sword...but Tanks (AMX30,AMX10..)
Congratulations for your channel.
Ça devait être fun!
Holy... that's a nearly two-century's old piece of metal. A testament to the people who made it, and cared for it all this time!!!
It's not that old, well within modern history. Plenty things that are more fragile are still around.
French cuirassiers were reserved to deliver the coup de grace to a weakened enemy. Size and armor meant nothing when confronting a solid infantry square and their horses simply would shy away from crashing in to a wall of bayonets. They were also the heaviest cavalry and quickest to become blown limiting the speed and number of charges possible thus correct application and timing were critical. I often wonder if Napoleon wouldn't have benefited from having larger numbers of chasseurs and lancers sparing the large expense of equipping cuirassier units. Excellent description of the pallash design and application.
French cuirassiers also had an enormous battlefield morale factor, as you said they were core of the "charge in the back of a retreating unit" thing, when French troops saw them in action that meant that the Generals,Marshalls,or Napoleon himself considered that it was time to use the advantage and go for total victory, it was a huge boost in confidence and fighting spirit, on the other hand when you were fighting against the French that meant sudden shock and awe that you were loosing and probably should drop your weapon and run for your life while you still can. In that way i'm sure the expense of caring for a cuirassier unit was well worth the investment, they essentially were special forces.They not only had a physical impact on the battlefield but also a big psy op effect on it, they could turn an orderly retreat into a catastrophic debacle by their mere presence.
Cuirassier charges were mostly delivered on the flanks of the Infantry and they could completely smash the Infantry .
Also , If the Infantry could not form the Bayonet square on time before the Cuirassier charge , they could smashed too .
Timing mattered to Infantry as well .
They were supposed to form a square quickly before a charge .
Or else , they could be decimated.
Cuirassier charges were also used against Artillery Gunner , other light and Heavy cavalry
@@redwithblackstripesThey were the Sledgehammers .
Or Offensive arm .
Without Heavy cavalry , war could never be won . It will always be turned into stalemate .
Heavy cavalry was needed to decisively smash the enemy .
I love these story-time videos of yours. More please😊
I love this channel…better than the history channel, I actually learn things
Thank you for this video ! I always found the french cuirassiers outfit particularly fashionable (as well as most of the hussars, austrians excepted). But I didn't know the cuirasse was effective against musket fire.
Can you tell us about the other french heavies ? Horse grenadiers, carabiniers... were there any differences between the carabiniers and the cuirassiers, in weight of armor, in usage, in the horses mounted...? And, the grenadiers, without armor, how did they perform with this heavy sword ?
Is 1.3 kg really this cumbersome ? I sparred a bit with 12th-13th swords (today hand-crafted) of this approximate weight, and, well, 1.4kg was unpractical for me in foot combat, as I am a thin person. But for horseback, and for stronger horsemen, I'm surprised this would be much of an issue. I assume the great length is part of the encumbrance, especially if you cannot slash with it.
Oh, and this leads to another question : what are the consequences on the wrist/arm/body of using a sword as a spear at the speed of horse ?
Seeing how a spear might have reacted (aka : breaking in splinters), I wonder how the cuirassiers managed to thrust their targets and come out with all limbs in good shape. Especially still targets, like infantry. Was the penetration smooth enough to not stop the blade and the limb that followed ?
AN XIII is the 13th year of the revolution not of Napoleon. The cuirass was originally pistol proofed but this went out the door later in the period as it meant a lot of cuirass were being rejected for use. There are many statements from British infantry from Waterloo and Quatre Bras where they said that a musket ball frequently passed through both front and back plates, and the body of course.
I think that's why Matt mentions "on a good day"?
I too understood that they were proof against pistols. One reason for pistols falling out of favour for cavalry offensive use.
To be precise, (and therefore correct), An XIII was the 13th year of the Republic, not the Revolution...
The Revolutionary calendar started, retroactively and theoretically, on 22 Septembre, 1792 (day the Republic was established; the Revolution having already started since 1789).
Therefore, year XIII of the Revolutionary calendar started on 23 September, 1804 and ended on 22 September, 1805.
@@frontenac5083 Thanks for the clarification, I was being a bit unspeciific in what I said my main point being it wasn't to do with a Napoleonic created system of dating.
I think the fact that the torso, which would have been (and of course still is) the primary target for firearms remained armored all the way up to the 20th century is one of the greatest discreditors to the common misconception that "firearms made armor useless"
They made it useless for infantry, it's largely correct
Napoleon era cuirass couldn't block musketfire unless it was at extreme range, it was largely used since the cuirassiers where primarily close ranged fighters (the sword he's talking about was considered his primary weapon) and armor could still block swords/bayonets/and occasionally pistols.
In addition, keep in mind that until smokeless powder, brass cased cartridges, and pointed bullets, the velocity of round ball ammunition fell off rapidly.
@@rugerredhawk9065 There are many preserved Napoleonic curiasses that show dents from musket balls that didn't penetrate. any of those shots would have most likely been mortal, had the man not worn a curiass.
On the other hand, never underestimate a Frenchman's desire to look good, even, and perhaps especially, when going into battle.
The cuirassier sword was not a good cutter but sometimes were observed to inflict devastating cuts. The Royal Armoury has a first hand account of a English trooper who saw his comrade almost bisected in the bead by a cuirassier sword that struck in the mouth and cut to the throat. Of course, this was written down because it was a horrifying and unusual wound.
A thrust during a charge or pass would look and affect much like a cut because the blade would pass in through and out in... unpredictable ways very quickly and violently.
The cuirassier sabre wasn't intended to cut anything, and anyway, it's very hard to cut anything with a straight blade. The cuirassiers were a "shock cavalry" used in a heavy and terrifying mass intended to break the ennemy lines. I guess the guys who were seeing a regiment of cuirassiers charging and shouting at them may more than probably feel a lot of fear, in particular when you know how heavy was a fully equipped cuirassier (already among the tallest and strongest men of the French army) on his horse, the biggest of all French cavalry...
@@laurentdevaux5617 The horses of the Selles Français, a fairly enormous horse weighing at least 500kg plus the 80kg man with weapons and luggage, i.e. almost 600kg launched at full speed and preceded by a huge sword, all lined up in a charging line...
Yes, there was something to do in his pants.😥😥
@@laurentdevaux5617 "and anyway, it's very hard to cut anything with a straight blade."
This is possibly the most frustrating misconception in arms & armor armchair discussion
@@colbyboucher6391 Are you sure it's a misconception ? Seems you never had a cuirassier sabre in hand (I have one). I won't change my point of view, this terrible weapon wasn't intended to cut anything, it wasn't made for that, a curved sword is much better for that kind of job. Matt Easton said it very clearly, the cuirassier sword was a thrusting weapon, a sort of giant skewer. It was made to be held straight and pierce. Some straight blades may be good at cutting, but not this one, rather difficult to handle in another way, in particular because of its length and its weight
For anybody who loves Cuirassiers, the french film "le Colonel Chabert" has some very nice scenes with them, including the charge at Eylau ruclips.net/video/slaNADrdPMA/видео.html
The cavalrymen in the movie were from the French republican guard, one of the only units in the world to actually still practice cavalry charges ruclips.net/video/jaWCgdD7jlg/видео.html (although they use curved sabers instead of the straight sword)
Cette scene est magique.
came for the historical aspects of this branch of cavalry; learned about that yes but lots of neat technical stuff too!
Hello, I'm french and I have to congratulate for this nice review.
I have two of those astonishing swords.
When I buy them, about 25-30 years ago, I read a lot of press reviews (no internet at this time...) and it was said that the sword was so long in order for the cuirassier, when leaning over the horse when charging, to have the tip of the blade a lot ahead the nose of the horse. Is it true....? Let people make their own mind.
Fantastic work Matt! It would be awesome if you could cover accounts of French soldiers facing the archery of Russian irregular cavalry.
Chad underfed Kalmyk Mongols vs virgin 6ft tall French Old Guard
I'm fascinated to see how beautiful these weapons and apparels are. As if you could put some refinement in gruesome warfare.
+scholagladiatoria The French heavy cavalry used point-oriented longswords of backsword construction, excepting the spear point. A steel guard might have performed better than brass in battle. But the cuirasses hindered arm movement, so enemy heavy sabers (e.g. the U.S. Saber, Dragoon, 1840) had an advantage, provided that they struck neck and/or arm.
Thanks for the accounts and anecdotes Matt. That's a thumping great horse in the oil painting. No wonder he needs two reins. To stop the buggar lol. Great vid, as ever.
Excellent video, topic and comments. Just spent 2 hours reading them all 😀 A slightly off topic question that I can’t find an answer to. What might the drill book state for cavalry going into a charge. Sword down, resting on shoulder, or in scabbard?
Thanks for your insight, references and interesting topic ! Another great Vid !
I really love the the case studies and the accounts you read, gonna enjoy this one
YES. Thank you! I’m one of the only people I’ve encountered who has one of the double-fuller model pallasche /cuirassier’s “backsword” (although I would debate the backsword title, I can tell you just from looking at the edge geometry that although perhaps you could effect a fatal stroke with the edge of a slightly less blunt iron bar, a good cutting sword it is not). Mine is the reformed Mousquetaires du Roi Imperial Guard heavy cavalry sword, with the earlier hatchet point unmodified, and it’s EXTREMELY hard to find any information about the history and use of these swords, especially technique of use when dismounted. Is there any resource you could point me towards, by chance?
Small detail. If the hilt is "modèle AN XIII". It means that model was created during the 13th year of the french "revolutionnic" calendar, so betwen 23 september 1804 and 22 september 1805.
This year is in the first year of the empire. The "calendrier républicain" was used from the 22 of september 1792 until 1806.
at 8:43, the an xiii means year 13 of the republic, not year 13 of napoleon. the calendar counts from 1792 (an i) when the monarchy was abolished, rather than 1799 (an viii) when napoleon orchestrated the 18th brumaire coup and became first consul. even though the republic was abolished and the first empire proclaimed in december 1804 (which would have been in frimaire an xiii funnily enough!), the use of the republican calendar continued until january 1806 (nivose an xiv) when napoleon restored the gregorian calendar.
Correct!
At last, someone gets it right.
(There's no shame in not knowing the details and intricacies of the French Revolutionary calendar, but why do some people in the comments who don't know what they're talking about, feel the need to explain all this wrongly? Perplexing...)
Thank you RUclips for recommending me the channel, newly subscribed
The anecdote about the English cavalry saying the French fight unfair seems to be the polar opposite of the later anecdote I believe you did a video on where British officers part of the occupation forces in France post-Waterloo dueled French officers with something along the lines of "fighting unfair" and it was the latter who complained. Just thought that was interesting.
It's the good old "he must be cheating" copium lmao
@@Sk0lzky Pretty much. Reminds me of the Arabs who after their defeat in the 1967 Six Day War, complained that American planes must be supporting the Israelis cause they couldn't accept that the Jews alone had decisively defeated them.
My Grand Father was a French Cuirassier in the late 18th century I have an amazing set of photo's of him with his reg and on Horseback.
In Germany/ Austria this kind of weapon was often called Pallasch. In early stages of Revolution/Napoleonic wars, german/ austrian heavy cavallrymen noticed, compared to their swords, french ones had been a bit narrower and pointier, so better for thrusting. Even in 1870/71french more thrustbased fencing style was a Problem for German cavallrymen with a more cutbased fencing style.
I also believe that their sword , nicknamed la latte (latter is still a verb used to say to beat in French), was so heavy that it could be used effectively as a club, using either edge. As for the way the cuirassiers were engaged into battle, usually it was in close compact formations, swords in scabbards, trotting slowly, until quite close to the enemy, then after a signal, all swords were suddenly drew starting the charge for the last close distance. This was to create an impressive swoosh sound to impress / destabilize the enemy before impact.
I believe the proper sound would be SCHING...steel scabbards!
It sounds like 2 pans being struck en masse
Love the detail and your passion for the subject well done sir 😎👍
Merci beaucoup pour cette présentation excellente !
Précision ; le nom donné à ce sabre « une latte »
Merci.
Hey,Matt.....This is an AnXIII model made in 1826 with an AnXIII blade. It does not have a M1816 blade which is slightly different being somewhat slimmer and longer(1000mm) with a convex rather than flat spine. Most AnXIIIs had their blades modified by removal of the hatchet point in or around the Battle of Waterloo ,hence the confusion. The spear point certainly was regulation by 1816. The hilt form designates the sword model on French swords...There are quite a few M1854 Dragoon sabres around with AnXIII blades
Thanks for an excellent presentation, I learned a great deal from you. 😁👌👌👌❤️❤️
You note this, particularly towards the end, but it's really telling how formidable the curissars were considered when defeating 1 (particularly 1 on 1) was considered worthy of documenting in a memoir or anecdote.
Infantry don't write letters to magazines evey time they shoot an opposing infantryman. Yet defeating a curissair was seen as, literally, "something to write home about."
Fantastic Matt very interesting 👍
Long term Napoleonic warfare fan, alongside an interest in history, esespecially swords and weapons this was a treat .. cheers
Cheers for the info! How did it compare to the British Heavy Cavalry 1796 sword? They look to have more commonalities than with the British 1796 Light Cavalry sword, I have replicas of both, might look out for a replica of the French Cuirassier sword now! ;-)
I have a 1820 marked blade ( Kingenthal ) model of this sword with metal scabbard in good condition, what is it's ruff value? Thanks
i have a sword with that exact same guard, 3 things and a knuckle bow, it even has those 3 little balls where they all connect to the guard but its curved, i always wondered if it was rehandled or something
Great video Matt.
Regards from Brazil.
Question: given that these swords were intended more or less purely for thrusting, why not use a triangular- or square-section blade, like that of an estoc?
An XIII would date the hilt about September 1804 to September 1805 I believe
The Imperial Guard Grenadier a Cheval sword would be worth a fair price I guess - any ideas on that?
Finally I recall (from someone else’s research - not mine!) that Captain Nolan’s (of Balaclava fame) cavalry manual did not consider Cuirassiers that much above unarmoured cavalry
Can anyone offer a fuller insight on that?
Love this stuff Matt!
Awesome video, really interesting. As an aside, you mentioned that the heavy cavalry of the other European powers was influenced by the Cuirassiers, and you are correct. However, Austria and Prussia had Cuirassiers before Napoleon’s time. Friedrich Whilhelm Von Seydlitz was the leader of Frederick the Greats Cuirassiers, and other cavalry, during the Seven Years War, and they did quite well.
Cuirassiers were ubiquitous in most European armies since the late 16th century. They replaced the lance-armed men-at-arms as the primary heavy cavalry of the period, being armed with pistols instead.
Originally they were armored almost as completely as the earlier knights/men-at-arms, with the only difference being their lack of lower leg armor, to compensate for their much heavier, now bulletproof breastplate. Over time though they lightened their armor, so that by the mid 17th century cuirassiers only wore a breast-and-back plate and a helmet, and were generally referred simply as 'Horse'. Their armor protection continued to be reduced over time; Seydlitz's cuirassiers only had a front plate and wore no helmet.
By the late 18th century they rarely wore any armor at all. Napoleon certainly made waves when he decided to reintroduce the cuirass and helmet in 1802.
Yea, good point, thank you for the reply, some of what you said I didn’t know. I have also heard that the wearing of only a front armor plate was to reduce weight and save the horse’s energy, though that had mixed results, and Cuirassiers with only a front plate were at a disadvantage against more well protected foes. Thoughts?
@@usauk3605 Yes, wearing just the front plate was the normal practice in the 18th century, when cost and weight saving seemed to be of paramount importance. It should be noted that these 18th century front plates were really meant to be bulletproof, and were in consequence quite heavy indeed. Those issued to Frederick the Great's troopers could weight as much as 20 lbs!
When Napoleon reintroduced the cuirass, bulletproof-ness seemed to be of secondary consideration to him. French cuirasses of the period were indeed noted to be of dubious value against musket balls, and in fact they were proof tested with just one shot from an unspecified long range. They were also a lot lighter, weighing just 15 lbs for the front AND back plate combined.
Supposedly the French practice of armoring both the front and back were considered superior to the Austrians', who only wore the front plate. This was observed in one particular engagement when the French and Austrian cuirassiers repeatedly clashed, with each side pursuing, rallying and counterattacking several times. Since the Austrian heavies had completely exposed backs the French were able to easily stab them from behind while the former was fleeing, but the reverse wasnt true. In consequence the Austrian suffered far heavier casualties than the French. At any rate when the other European nations reintroduced the cuirass during and after the Napoleonic Wars, they followed the French practice.
So fascinating this true history, my father was a well read man about Napoleon, a huge fan of the history and battles fought, as well as I am, and still have some of his books. I never could find more details like you are teaching us now.
I allways wondered why the highly specialized cuirassiers didn't have more swords for effective fighting, like these cuirassiers, having a cutting sabre for close combat in a scabbard, a pistol on the side and this formidable straight sword for the charge, that would have given them much more effective melee force. On the other hand; Britain might still be French by now..... dealing with metric system, baguette and Grand Nappy instead of Big Ben
It's mainly to do with policy, etiquette, uniformity and general top-down inability to think outside the box. They weren't peasants, they were quite well off and personally if you're a soldier in a war most logical people would supplement themselves out of their own pocket with just about anything they could get away with. If I were in the cavalry I'd carry 2 swords and as many pistols as I could within the realms of practicality. Cost is a bitch yeah but being dead is worse and being crippled for the rest of your life is worse still. They weren't idiots, I cannot fathom a reason that they wouldn't carry additional things outside of their specifications if they were allowed to do so.
Hey Matt, If you happen to need any help on translating french documents from this period, I'd be happy to help. I would struggle to read medieval french, but the 18th and 19th french is rather similar to the modern one.
For science !
Very interesting ! Indeed, cuirassiers were tough warriors. Most curious is that there were still 12 regiments in 1914, which entered the war dressed and equiped almost like 100 years before. The cuirass was the model 1855, the sword was the model 1854/82 and the helmet was the model 1874, but all these things only changed a bit since the napoleonic wars. The biggest difference was that in 1914, the helmet had a khaki light canvas cover and the cuirass wasn't polished anymore (at least in one regiment, the solution found was to put the cuirasses in the courtyard of the barracks and let the rain do a natural rust camouflage. The men were also told to urinate on the cuirasses to accelerate the process...)
Another thing is that, in the napoleonic wars French light cavalry, equiped with curved sabers, the saber, unlike in the British cavalry, was sometimes also used as a thrust weapon in a terrible way : during a charge, the saber was hold with a straight arm, the flat back of the blade turned towards the soil and the cutting edge facing the sky, and the men were trained to aim the throat, or at least the upper part of the torso of their opponent. The way the curved saber was hold then made it a very dangerous weapon...
I wondered why the French cavalry are kicking my but in 'Total War'. Great channel, very engaging & interesting.
Fascinating. Thank you.
It's interesting that with a thrusting centred training, you would have to make sure you don't get into a protracted melee; where your opponent would likely dominate with a cut focused attack and more dexterity.
Sort of interesting to think that the French mindset here was probably to charge, retreat, then charge again, as they have done for so much of their mounted history since the days of chivalry when French mounted Knights were the model to emulate.
Interesting and lively video! 👍
Thanks for the video
For that initial quote: Is it possible (some of) the British/Allied cavalry were under-trained? I was thinking that if they consistently failed to get through clothes with their cuts, it could be a problem of alignment. Though I suppose sabres ought to make that easier.
It could also be an issue with equipment and doctrine. I don't know if that's the case at that point in history, but I heard that sometimes regulation swords would come with metal scabbards that made keeping a good edge basically impossible - that wasn't seen as a big deal because soldiers were supposed to thrust, not slash.
The issue being that while thrusting is usually more deadly (there are caveats even to that), it's less instinctual - in the heat of battle most people forgot and just tried to bash their enemies over the head.
Yes, they were barely trained. If they were good, they'd be given lances and moved through the swordsmen even without armor of their own. A properly sharpened saber in skilled hands during Napoleonic era was capable of consistent decapitation, as often mentioned in the context of Napoleonic Mamelukes.
Interestingly, if the French Curiassiers were as well trained and equipped as suggested here, they'd have had armor which did not limit their mobility, then lances or pistols, or both, plus a sword, likely more suited to close combat melee.
But it was what it was. An early onset of cannon fodder armies.
Look for the documentary “Sean Bean’s Waterloo.”
It should answer most of the questions raised here.
I remember hearing on the age of Napoleon podcast (but don't quote me on this) that the arch duke Charles said he was convinced that the Austrian cuirassiers had better gear than the French ones but the French were still better. I doubt a lot of cuirassiers unit were undertrained but that's a profoundly uneducated guess from my part. Maybe morale played a more important role than most people think and the French, galvanized by both the revolution's ideals and their emperor's invincible aura, might have had metric tons of it?
@@fil2fer1150 It most certainly has something to do with morale, as part of the equation.
It's like 16th century swiss pikemen who would just advance in formation, and, you, standing in front, would know they wouldn't stop.
Swedish carolean cavalry rapier-ish sword were also 96 cm long. Double edged and somewhat slimmer I think. Do you have one? I think late ones were somewhat longer
Hello, for your information, you present a Model AN XIII saber whose blade was modified in 1816.
Cordially
This is exactly what I explained in the video :-)
Have you even watched the freaking video?
How is anything you say here "information" to someone who already knows it?
🙄🤦🤦♂🤦♀
I have a Prussian light cavalry saber guard/grip retrofitted with a 1825 Klingenthal blade. It's pretty neat.
I have the same Model 1813 Klingenthal.
Really beautiful sword that would be terrifying used a lance. Really pretty pieces thank you for your content! Gorgeous artifacts of history.
The Duelists is the best Depiction of the Cuirassieres Culture, beautiful movie.
Being in the kings troop we had the early 1900 sabre /sword which was straight blade….. and a thrusting weapon also?……I’d be interested in your thoughts on this….. loved your knowledge on swords etc 😎👌🏽
Hi Matt - love your videos - especially everything within the George III and Napoleonic era. Just one correction I'd like to raise if I may. You described the year ANXIII as the "13th year of Napoleon", that's not quite right - the French revolutionary calendar really started in 1793, Sept 1792 nominated being the start of the first year. It was a republican attempt to decimalise and remove religion from the calendar. Napoleon tolerated it but eventually scrapped it in 1804 (year ANXIII).
I can't understand a sword without an edge.
So, they were Lancers with something more nimble than a lance?
Keep up the great work!
I was reading an account of Indian lancers racing into a tribal fort about the end of the 19th century wheeling around amongst them dealt with all of them despite them all having firearms. Well trained, motivated and practiced lancers can wield the lightweight lance about and use both ends even in a confined space. Learning to use a heavy cavalry sword at point is taught more easily and suited better to hastily trained wartime conscripts than the lance which needs practiced professionals to make best use of it. I imagine that in a melee the shown Curassier sword would be swung about like a crowbar to keep the unpleasant gentlemen as far away as possible rather than trying to poke a hole in them.
More nimble, and much more efficient and lethal. As our historian said, a wound inflicted by a cuirassier's sword was most often fatal, which wasn't the case with a lance
@@laurentdevaux5617 I don't think there is much of a difference between being stabbed by a lance or a sword.
@@andresmartinezramos7513 How can you be sure if you were never stabbed by one or the other ? 😆 Talk a little bit seriously, if you can compare a lance from this period and this sword, I think you'll understand... the lance has a wooden shaft, which make it less rigid, and as it has no really efficient grip, you can't hold it as firmly as 80 cm of hard and straight steel, not to mention the training of French cuirassiers, taught to use this weapon in a particular way which made it particularly deadly. Matt quotes english books which all say how lethal this weapon was... and it's the point of view of the ennemy, so I let you guess, the truth was maybe even more terrible !
@@laurentdevaux5617 A puncture wound from a lance will kill you just as easily as a sword., the wound mechanism is the exact same The fact that the sword was lethal does not make the lances and spears less so. The forces needed to stab a man without armor are not significant enough to make the points you raise relevant. The fact that the lances were as "flimsy" as they were indicates they needn't be sturdier to do the job. The use of lances literally revived in the 19th century because they started to make sense with the abandonment of armor at the time.
If you could think with seriousness you wouldn't make such a fool of yourself.
Reminds me of the Polish koncerz, similar use case. Did witnessing Hussars inform the choice or was this a convergent solution.
Cool, is there a video about the French/Polish Lancers?
I have a kligenthal blade (spearpoint) dated 1814 holding it at full arms length is v tiring those men were v strong
Question for me: how do you charge at horse speed, pierce a standing infantry man and not break your arm or lose your sword in the impact?
Is it possible to do a show on the welsh hook? I can’t find much info elsewhere on the weapon other than it was a pole arm
Go to Invalides museum in Paris, they have a cuirassiers with a canon that went right through it!
A cannon ball has a little more momentum than a musket ball LOL.
What makes me wonder is if the Curassier Sword was such a bad cutter and the curassiers have been ordered to only give point, and not to cut, wouldn't a longer completely thrust centric sword, like the PLC Koncerz make more sense? Or even a lance?
In close melee I have read accounts of the Cuirassiers using the guard as brass knuckles and pounding a foe in the face or chest.
What battle formations or tactics were used with both sides having full body Armor like Plate Armor or mail and plate hybrids. Please make a video regarding this or give some references so I can get my answer, thank you.
Were there problems with corrosion when they matched brass and steel?
I have a sword like this myself, but no scabbard. Any ideas where I could get XIII/16 scabbard ? Thanks
Great video, i love my Cuirassiers, i just have to correct something at 8:45, the "An XIII" or Year 13 is not refering to the reign of Napoleon. It's the Republican Calendar the Revolution created as a "New Era" thing, it sets year 1 in 1792, meaning the An XII model of sword was released in 1805