Sword Studies 007 - 1796 Heavy Cavalry Trooper
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 сен 2021
- The latest in a new series where we take an in depth look at one antique sword per video. This will include detailed measures of blade length, weight, balance and other characteristics, as well as close up video work and a historical overview.
Спорт
Great explanations, hugely important to serious collectors and swordsmen.
Will never get tired hearing about old swords
Brilliantly covered.
Loving these study vids thank u.
Could u do one for a 1796 cavalry dress sword? Pleas
Great stuff Nick. Fascinating!
Thank you for doing these videos. As always, I'm struck by how light & short many 18th/19th-century swords are compared with 16th-century examples. Swords with similar characteristics to this one did exist in that period, but longer & heavy swords were very common. Curious how 16th-century British cavalry such as border reivers might use basket-hilted swords with 36-44in blades that weighed 2.5-3lbs, yet folks thought & think the 1796 heavy cavalry swords at 2.2-2.4lb & a 35in blade were unwieldly. (Some of those 16th-century swords may have balanced closer to the hand, like around 4.5in from the cross, but others balanced at 5+in.)
A huge factor in the weight of 18th and 19th century swords is the lack of pommel or counter balance in general. For example my lightest sidesword trainer which is super nimble is the same weight as my 1796 heavy cavalry sword that I mentioned in this video, and it handles more like a brute. It's also harder to make an exact comparison to border reivers swords as we have to speculate which surviving swords they were using compared to having known patterns by the end of the 18thc. But your last point is really the important point, balance and mass dikstribution are what makes a sword feel the way it does far more so than weight. The reason people think the 1796HC is unwieldy is because they compare it to much lighter and more nimble infantry swords and even fencing weapons at times. It is a lack of understanding in what a tool is designed for and why.
I think about this often, being in HEMA and doing 17th and 19thC stuff. I think your method of use, the guard you hold and which muscles you're trained to use them with determine a lot. I get more fatigued from using my 900g sabre than a 1.4kg sidesword, which I'd swing with my back and whole arm, letting the wrist roll after a parry, often doing linear thrusts from a comfy low guard.
Best sword related content on YT!
This might be my favorite of the era for some reason, especially when modded with a spear tip. Would love to handle a decent antique some day.
I have read that troopers didn't like how they handled but liked how they could break enemies swords and enemies skulls. I have an unmodified reproduction and it does feel and move like an iron bar. The 'original hatchet' point resembles the Japanese Katana and poor for a one handed thrust. I've found a couple other videos on this sword but none as detailed as yours. Thank you.
A heavily pitted sword could lose half an ounce I would say. Repeat cleanings also remove metal and combined with corrosion weight loss it can add up.
I found a wonderful 1796 HC with langets and only the guard is cut down slightly. Most of the original blade polish remains. In the 1830's Canada got used 1796 HC swords from Britain. This may be the reason why some are found in such good condition? I'm busily stamping 2D on the guard, only joking. It has been converted to spear point and measures 35". Also has original grip covering. I am glad the langets remain and the blade retains most of its length.
Lovely! I suspect it's a combination of only good survivors were sent on to Canada (ie. not those abused by years of service during a near world war). Also that it was common British practice to use the previous service swords for sword practice, which destroyed many, perhaps this wasn't the practice in Canada?
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing no we didn't use them for practice (we don't see but the very odd one with rounded point) though there is one story of an instructor taking swords from storage in the 1960's for a practice which damaged the blades with many edge to edge nicks. The odd sword can be found in that condition. Canada has the "D" guard sword by Mole which is a 33" 1853p except for the D guard which is thick to retain the balance. These were ordered in 1855.
Thanks for very informative video (especially about distal taper)! But can't agree with supposal about cut out function - such form of "protect" (most similar - "sword arm protect") intended in "Rules an regulations ..." (manual both for 1796 lcs and hcs) to be a rear parry (for defence against pursuer and from cut during the last stage of head-on encounter, when opponent try to cut from the rear). I personally can probe only with my p1796lcs, but in protects to the rear mutual position of the hand and sword such that guard don't interfere with the hand (and as far as I know grip of the 1796hcs longer than on lcs). For parrying the cuts and thrusts to the front and to the side similar protect didn't provided by above mentioned manual. (And similar parries as parry for the front-right/right side defence not very practical overall, if we see analogous sources for another mounted fencing systems from XIX-XX с)
Great video ! Why was the blade shortened in your opinion ?
Whilst we can never say for certain on one particular example, we know the 1796 heavy cavs were frequently shortened either during the re-profiling of their tips for better thrusting, or in combination with it to increase the agility of the blade. In their original full length and hatch form they can be a bit of a handful. A short reduction and change in profile improved handling and thrust ability at the same time.
Given the light weight and the unique mod to the guard could this have been ordered by an officer who wanted a battlefield weapon so as not to damage his extremely expensive blue and gilt officers model sword?
This is a theory often brought up, but there is not yet any evidence for it. I would air on the side of no, because wearing one's finest was considered extremely important in battle, as was dying in one's finest clothing. I think a great many officer's would be ashamed to wear a budget sword into battle. Fashion and personal image were huge in this period.
Hi
I love your content and have also just begun reading your Napoleonic fiction.
In one of your videos, you talk about an 18.14 pattern horse guards sword.
I was wondering if there was any more information on that style?
I am registered blind so I’m not very good with images.
Why did horse guards not simply use the 1796 heavy cav?
Many thanks
H 12:10
Glad you are enjoying it!
The 1814 was an officer's pattern sword for Horse Guards based on certain Continental heavy cavalry swords. They are exceedingly rare, though Horse Guards and the Household cavalry of these era did adopt their own special variants for regular troopers also, featuring the same blade as the usual 1796 heavy pattern but with a much more elaborate guard. The simple answer for this is they were elite units that wanted to stand out from the crowd.
For reference, please see Swords of the British Army by Brian Robson and The British Cavalry Sword 1788 - 1912 by Richard Dellar, which outline much more info regarding those unusual patterns.
Thank u
I am afraid that I cannot access the reference books because I am registered blind. Doesn’t the 1814 pattern horseguards have a long blade, like a french cuirass sword?
Yes, it has a blade just like the French cuirassier sword, and the hilt likely derived from a Prussian cuirassier model. This was however only for officer's of that elite unit and so are incredibly rare, and we still do not know if they were used as dress or fighting swords.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing thank you very much for your help
Interesting stuff, thanks. I'd be interested in what the blade stiffness is like, as I have a rather battered example that appears genuine but has a very un-stiff blade. It's slightly short at 34.5" (87.5cm) but still has the hatchet tip, albeit slightly rounded. Langets removed but otherwise still a full guard, weighs in at 2.18lb (990g). Very chewed up edge.
It would be pretty harmless in the thrust, between the rounded tip and the flexibility, and actually has me wondering if it was rendered safe for practice at some point. Not sure if it's practicable to unstiffen a blade, though....
It is very flexible. All the tests I have done on heavy cavalry sabres have found they are some of the most flexible blades I have encountered, often even more flexible than many spadroons. I have been meaning to make a video about this but I believe it was down to the standardised testing procedures brought in during this period. They required every sword provided to the army to be thoroughly flex tested and beaten against hard objects and for it to return true and remain undamaged. I believe this lead to more flexible blades for durability, and this makes sense as their were complaints about brittle blades snapping in the 1790s. It also doesn't take much rigidity to push a thrust through someone so long as the tip is well shaped (which of course it wasn't initially but improved later).
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Fascinating, thanks, I hope you do make that video.
Perhaps this one is not unusually flexible for the type, then (the problem is I haven't handled others to compare it with). I have done a fair bit of practice with pig carcasses and have found, for instance, that you can thrust with reasonable effect even with a 1796 light cav, but I can't see this one going in, unless with very careful placement. With clothes on the target, forget about it.
(Among my favourite thrusters on the pig carcass were Italian and Ottoman late C19th/early C20th pipe-backed cav sabres - very effective.)
Thinking further about it, I suppose with a spear tip it might be coaxable into some kind of an effective thrust, with care. Obviously the combination of hatchet tip and high flexibility is particularly poor for this and presumably why they were modified.
Absolutely the hatchet tip as they were first made was just appalling for thrust work. The various ways they were re-ground and improved all significantly improved them. I wouldn't be confident at all thrusting with the very blunt hatchet tips and a flexible blade as the blunt and offset tip combined with flexible blade is a recipe for failure. But if you grind a gentler curve onto the front edge I think it would do it fine, let alone grinding the back of the tip.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Makes sense. Thanks for giving the benefit of your expertise and experience, and I'll keep a eye out for that video....
How accurate are modern reproductions of the unmodded 1796 hc sword? I may get one and mod it like a trooper would have.
There are currently none that are accurate, but I know a few ongoing efforts to remedy that for both sharps and training swords.
Why is the hatchet tip worse for stabbing? As long as it's taken to a point I don't understand why it would be. Also;
"Now stand back, I gotta practice my stabbin'! Ha HAH!
It depends on the angle, or how gentle the curve is to the point. Many 1796 light cavalry sabres thrust fine despite their hatchet tips, but the heavies usually have a really extreme blunt nose tip to them. See a tip comparison in the link below. That hatchet tip isn't even the most extreme of them. It is a problem for thrusting as it does not thrust in line with the direction you thrust with a sword in almost all actions, which will add to the problem of it not being a well pointed object. Even extremely broad bladees such as a gladius still have narrow points for penetration and also the thrusting point in line with the blade.
royalarmouries.org/stories/our-collection/pattern-1796-heavy-cavalry-sword/
Question. With the strict laws in the UK, do you have to have a special license to own antique swords?
No, though some particular types of swords can be legally questionable even to own (curved modern repros, swordsticks), and you can be expected to explain yourself if you are transporting swords, or have difficulties getting them delivered. But I own quite a few antique swords and as far as I'm aware there are no restrictions on just owning them (subject to aforementioned particular cases).
No, the idea of Britain having particularly strict laws is a common misconception, particularly when it comes to swords we have some of the most lax laws in the world. There are no laws regarding the ownership of antique swords besides having to be 18 years or older. There is one particular oddity which restricts curved blades over 50cm, but there are a great many exemptions for these which mean no collector or martial artist is effected.
In short, an adult can buy an antique sword in a shop or online and have it delivered without restriction.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Swordsticks in the same category as curved swords over 50cm, I think, under recently enacted provisions of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 :
[can't post a link, but search for eg offensive weapons in your home as of July 14th, 2021]
As I understand it, this law does not apply to antiques (over 100 years old) or swords made pre-1954, or by "traditional methods of making swords by hand". So if you have a curved sword or a swordstick you need to be reasonably confident in its age and/or manufacture method. It would be easy to pick up an Indian-manufactured swordstick made in the mid-C20th and have a tricky time proving that it was made before 1954 or by "traditional methods". And even if you managed to defeat the criminal charge, you most likely wouldn't get your sword back - they have a bad habit of just disposing of them.
The sale of sword sticks has been banned since 1988. Antiques are indeed exempt. Antiques are excempt in almost every way from modern blade laws, and the things which are banned are just some oddities like hidden blades and push daggers. etc
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing thank you for the reply.
The reason why most modern people dont like heavy cavalry swords is because most modern people are not fighting or training from horseback.... modern people want to swing from foot or cutting water bottles and for that it can be a bit unwieldly for most people. The same thing goes for 11th 12th and early 13th century arming swords, they tend to be pretty long for one handed swords just like 18th/19th cavalry swords, so for modern consumer they seem to be unwieldly....but remember they are not fighting as cavalry, also in case of arming swords used with large shields and armour on horseback.
That can sometimes be an element, but as I pointed out in this video, the 1796 heavy cavalry sword is actually a pretty decent sword for fighting on foot in many cases. In fact almost everyone who knows anything about swords who handles them today do not find them heavy or unwieldy at all, the problem really stems from late 19th and early 20th century collectors who did not use swords and only collected them, as well as being influenced by the Victorian and post Victorian ideal that everything progresses and their latest designs wrere simply the best. Collectors in fact have a lot to answer for.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing yes i know just was saying what alot of people think, i personally love cavalry swords and sabres.
Thats