Royal Artillery Swords in the Napoleonic Era
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 июл 2019
- A look at all the swords used by the British foot and horse artillery in the Napoleonic era. All swords shown are original antiques of the period.
For those interested in the Spadroon, come and join us on FB at the Spadrooners group. 
Спорт
![Sean Rii, Karyon, Sharzkii - Taungule [My Love] (Official Music Video)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eJoMuypbSzQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I kind of understand the choice of the hanger, because:
1) artillery crews defending themselves would be fighting, maneuvering around guns and balls piles, also, their work would be more difficult, wearing a longer sword;
2) while performing their task, artillery guys may have to make short work of ropes (maybe to deploy supplies in due time) and vegetation, as you said;
3) it is not to be excluded that hangers could come out handy in some minor construction work as well, maybe making stakes or something of that sort.
Great video two days ago and great video today.
Keep it up, Nick! You're doing a great job!
From a 15th-16th-century perspective, it's bizarre to see how a 2lb sword was heavy by circa-1800 standards. Most short katzbalgers were heaver than this.
True, though katzbalgers are of course a particularly robust and weighty sword for their size. But it is generally the case that later swords were lighter. In large part its because they could be because of accessibility to better steel. Or more reliable and consistent steel is the key. So if you compare a lot of circa 1800 swords to say those of the 15th century, you'll generally see a much narrow profile at the forte, despite the fact they often have just as much mass at the tip where strikes are made. With this decrease in blade mass at the forte, they do not need as much counter nalance in the form of heavy pommels. And so the total weight comes down, despite the fact they aren't hitting any lighter.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Perhaps, though there was a lot of excellent steel in the 15th century. Have any hardness tests of Napoleonic armor ever been done? Was it is made from as high-quality metal & expertly hardened as Innsbruck & Greenwich harnesses? (A replica of the latter stopped a shot from a replica *heavy musket* in a 2017 test.) Jean Henri Chandler promotes the narrative that the quality of most individual weapons & armor (including firearms & swords) went downhill after the early 16th century (1520 or so). I don't really agree with that, but I'm likewise skeptical of your & Matt Easton's claims of the superiority of 18th/19th-century metallurgy & how it influenced sword design.
16th Europe had plenty of blades that resembled 18th/19th century swords. They had sabres that were all but identical to the 1796 & other models popular in the Napoleonic era. They had light messers & falchions that resembled hangers & cutlasses. Etc. But these weapons weren't dominant in either a civilian or military context. I suspect most 18th/19th-century soldiers preferred slightly shorter, somewhat lighter sidearms than was common in 16th-century Europe primarily because they quite reasonably prioritized comfort & convenience over having the marginal advantage of a longer or more robust blade (or hand protection, in some cases). By contrast, many 16th-century soldiers & especially civilians were obsessed to getting the odds on their foes via reach, so they were willing to wear blades they could barely draw.
Additionally, 16th-century military & even civilian sidearms had to contend with the possibility of encouraging staff weapons, large two-handed swords, & armor. As you mention in this video, it can be nice to have a robust sidearm when facing bigger weapons.
Martial philosophy appears to have shifted a little as well, with 18th/19th-century fencers focusing on lightness while 15th/16th-century focused on reach.
Of course good steel did exist previously, but we aren't talking about the peak, but the typical.
So yes there were sabres in the 16th century that resembled things like the 1796 cavalry sabre, like a lot of dussacks/tessacks for example, and I showed an original of one of those on this channel. But lets not forget that is comparing an infantry weapon to a cavalry one. So its not quite a fair comparison. And the very broad blades rapidly fell from widespread use in the early 19th century. They were really quite a short lived trend really in the case of sabres in Northern Europe.
It's important to consider that fashion on culture will without a doubt play a part. It's also no surprise that one handed swords were at their longest when offhand weapons were common. As soon as single rapier began to become the norm, they quiickly decreased in size one more. The fact that other weapons were also going out of fashion is significant too. If as a civilian you aren't likely going to face a big heavy sword, that will effect your choice of sidearm. The rise of pocket pistols also played an important role here.
The huge ruge gains of the 15th and early 17th century were pretty short lived. Without a doubt they provide some big advantages in certain circumttances. As a long time rapier fencer I know all to well how that is. But it comes with a wealth of downsides too, many of which a modern HEMA practitioner never really gets to experience.
I'd also add that the trend towards light swords goes much further back. Look to the munitions grade infantry swords of the mid 17th century, and many are exactly like spadroons. And the idea of shorter swords for infantry sidearms was certainly nothing new.
The smallsword certainly always seems small compared to the longer rapiers. But military sabres, even of the infantry kind, are often 32-34" in blade, and that isn't short for miliary swords in most periods, far from it.
I just ordered the "weapon edge wes1052" on koa, which is a recreation of this artillery hanger. I'm super stoked because a saber is a monster in size.
Excellent videos this week, Nick! Very comprehensive and interesting. And now I want an artillery hanger.
Nice job, mate! Ya'll have some of the most interesting content out there, I hope you get more popular.
I like swords.
I know you mostly talk about British swords, but if possible, could you perhaps make a video on the french equivalents of the short shorts in this video, which could be the cabbage chopper gladius and the sabre briquet?
The reason I wouldn't want to is a lack of experience and exposure. So many people want to talk about weapons they really have no experience of. When I talk about weapons and styles it is from a position of knowledge and experience. I want to handle a good amount and variety of originals. Look at the styles that were used and accounts of their use where possible. I have a basic knowledge of French swords of the time, but not enough to talk about them from a level I'd want to. Perhaps that will change in time, but I don't want to perpetuate the issues with any of these swords that many do.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Thanks for the response, you've made a solid point.
Great video! Thank you! (But now I want a foot artillery hanger... I'm a big cutlass fan)
Very interesting video. Thank you! Now I wonder if a common artillery trooper (on foot) would have got a decent amount of training in sword fighting to accompany the decent swords? Or would that choppy hanger be issued partly because it is not particularly a finesse weapon fitting barely trained fighters?
The 1819 manual 'The Artillerist' contains the sword exercise for artillery on foot. It very much follows the Angelo system that had been adopted as the standard for infantry just a few years before. Suggesting gun crews had a systematic and disciplined training regime at that time. The sword was still the same at this point. What level their training would have been just a few years before during the Napoleonic wars isn't clear. I am continuing to look for evidence of it though.
Ochs HEMA Club Munich approves!
For ruther Videos: Please use a lavalier microfon. Would be a shame to skip after 5 mins because someone gets exhausted from the audio.
yeah or use sound absorbing panels.
Where do you get the practice swords that you use for your sparring videos?
All of the synthetics as well as some steel training swords come from Black Fencer in Spain. Other steel training swords come from Kvetun, Regenyei. Malleus, Danelli, Darkwood, and quite a few others.
Hi, thanks for the video! I am just wondering, that hanger kinda looks like the type of blade used used for the 95th rifle’s sword bayonets, is there any relation? I would think a blade that is supposed to be used as a bayonet would be less top heavy. Admittedly the images I’ve seen of it (not many) are usually thinner in dimensions than your hanger. If you have have a replica, or know anything on the subject, I would love to hear your opinion on the topic of Napoleonic sword bayonets!
It certainly looks similar in profile, but the size and weight difference is vast. The Baker sword bayonets usually weigh about half the total weight of the artillery hanger, and they have a shorter blade too. They were also known for bending bally, when there is no chance the artillery blade would suffer that. It is a much heavier and sturdier blade. I will make a video specifically about sword bayonets in this period at some point soon. As there are also the volunteer rifle bayonets to discuss as well.
Academy of Historical Fencing neat! Thanks for the response. I would have thought they’d have made a sword bayonet pretty stiff, so you know... you could bayonet someone? It’s odd that they would be bendy.
It's the compromise you make for going with a long edged sword blade. The standard bayonets were triangular section and so very stiff for their weight. The baker is without a doubt stiff enough for stabbing someone, the problem is what happens after. There are accounts of them bending one inside the target, and not being able to retrieve them. To make it stiffer would mean heavier and its already quite a weight to put on the end of a rifle. Inherently the sword bayonet is a compromise weapon due to it having to fulfil multiple roles. With that versatility comes some compromises.
Academy of Historical Fencing I definitely understand the idea of compromise, but i would still expect that they could have made a short sword much stiffer. I understand the spadroon’s problem with being too flexible because of its relatively long length, but I would assume a short sword would not be too hard to make stiff and relatively light, seeing as how flex is an exponential decreasing issue as size is reduced. Wouldn’t a triangular, diamond, or at least a straight saber like construction increase stiffness significantly? The flat bladeshape looks like the least effective form for a primarily thrusting weapon. Unless riflemen were also expected to use them to cut with (I don’t know why this would be a consideration, since I thought the whole point of the swordbayonet was to give the shorter baker rifle more reach in hand to hand combat).
The baker sword bayonet is absolutely intended as a short sword to use separately as well on the rifle as a bayonet. That is why it has a knucklbow, a sword grip and a blade with a cutting edge. It is longer than the brown bess socket bayonet to bring the rifle and bayonet up to a similar length as the musket and socket bayonet that's true. But it is intended as a multi purpose weapon. It was expected the riflemen would more likely find themselves in small close quarter skirmishes than line infantry and even most light infantry. So it had to fulfill the role of short sword and bayonet. If it only had to serve as a bayonet they would have just made a longer version of the land pattern socket bayonet.
Does the straight bladed artillery sword handle like the 1804 cutlass? Except for the tapered back edge of the tip they look similar.
Not really no, for two reasons. 1 - the 1804 cutlass grip is cast iron and that extra weight brings the balance way back. 2 - the distal taper is very different. The artillery sword has a lot less distal taper and so is very heavier at the tip. The 1804 is a heavy sword for it's size but quite an evenly balanced one, wheras the artillery sword is a very front heavy sword. It would be like comparing the 1796 light and heavy cavs, the heavy cav being the cutlass in this scenario, and the light cav being the artillery sword. The specs being quite accurate in proportion.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Thank you! Although I have handled originals of some swords, I am mostly stuck with owning reproductions and as you can imagine they lack the balance of the real historical swords in many cases, so it is hard to just tell from the pictures!
Off the top of your head can you recommend a good maker/brand of sharp 1804 or any similar cutlass? The one I have is very blade heavy. I love the look of the Krakens for practice but I was thinking about for cutting, my edge alignment sucks so bad...
Yeh its very hard to tell from photos. Sorry to say I don't know of any good sharp suppliers for sabres and cutlasses. Cold Steel get by, but they still clumsy.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Thank you! Same here, I haven't found any REALLY good ones... :(
I want to say,, you didn't comment that artillery soldiers might need a lever. Anyway, here's some more comments about the weight that I would suggest are worthy, and would love to hear debate on:. The artillery person is not going to practice swords. They won't win in a sword-fight against any swordsman, even if they have the right sword for it, so giving them that sword is a waste. They won't maintain a saber, and also, a saber is bulky, so they can't have one of those, it won't even make it to the fight in their hands, although a saber is good because someone who doesn't know how to use it can swing it as hard as they can, and they will do good damage to the target. The artillery sword is heavy, but artillery-men are stronger than the average soldier, because they are always lifting the artillery hardware and ammunition, digging little paths, cutting down trees, pulling like an ox,,, so if you GIVE them a sword, the best sword is the one that any idiot can swing just as hard as they can possibly swing it, and if it DOES hit, it will be effective. Then, they don't have to ever practice swords to be effective,, if they just use it sometimes to clear branches or saplings, then they should be able to hit someone with it in a fight, as long as they don't try to fence.
What is fair value for this sword and how rare??
Which one? There are a number of swords shown.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing the ones you told story about the Spaniards. But what are top 5 must have swords for the beginner that are a good investment and still affordable or reasonable?
@@ctripps1224 That is the foot artillery sword, they are very rare, usually about £600-800, if you can find one. Napoleonic era British swords are always in high demand. Some mid to late 19th century swords can be more affordable, but it depends on the model. All British swords ranging up to the early 20th century are a good investment I'd say. The best affordable options would be 1796 infantry officers swords as I showed here, about 200-300 for decent examples. Non regulation infantry sabres of the Napoleonic period can sometimes be qutie affordable as they aren't the primary patterns, about 200-500. 1821 artillery officer is an excellent starter sword as it offers early 19th century style and can be had for 150-250. These use the 1821 light cavalry hilt, but with an infantry spec blade. 1822/1845 infantry officers swords and plentiful and can be really nice, about 200-500, sometimes a good bit less as bargains are around. 1885/1890 cavalry trooper, about 200-300, a really nice all round sword. There are so many more. A budget starter is always the 1897 infantry officer, it is still current, but an early 20th century example can be very reasonable. The best investment sword is the 1796 light cavalry sabre, as there is massive demand. About 500-600 for decent examples, but they just continue to climb in value.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Oh wow...you are a wealth of knowledge! Do you know any good sword web pages? Ebay has some swords but mostly reproductions. Do you ever make trades and have interest in WW1 and WW2 bayonets?
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Also I have a few swords I can email you pics of if you have any info on them.