A friend of mine found a sword like that in the woods outside our hometown in northern Sweden many years ago. I thought it was a weird and clumsy weapon because how heavy the blade is and the handguad bigger than I thought "it should be". But thanks to you I finally understand what it was made for.
This was a fascinating video Matt. I'm so happy to hear a mention of effective cavalry use in WWI. Yes, the war embodied the transition from old world military mentality to the modern era, but that does not make cavalry mute, especially since motor vehicles were still in their infancy, struggling strenuously in harsh terrain. This was one of my favorite videos of yours.
Hey Matt, really love these long in depth sword review vids. Keep up the good work! As for the swords themselves, I can see the arguments against them, but boy, I would NOT want to be on the receiving end of a charge by a bunch of guys giving point with these on top of heavy cavalry horses. Excellent hand protection, crazy point, stiff blade. It's basically a short lance, but one that you can use to parry a opponent's blade if you get into a melee, and the guard is probably one of the best I've even seen.
Hey Matt, have you considered collaborating with The Great War? I've been enjoying their series showing the fighting conditions for the men in the trenches. If anyone knows where to get good information on WWI era fencing, for the various nations, it might just be you. And for things you don't know, you may know the right people.
i'm pretty sure it is for lighting oldschool non safety matches, as this was the time they came into common use, and pretty much all soldiers in this period smoked.
It makes sense that it'd be a heavy sword. Given it's use, thrusting on a horse at speed, you would want a very stiff blade that won't break when it plunges into some guys mid section, or break when the horse gallops past and will twist the victim as the sword is pulled out (or the rider pulled off depending.)
Always thought this was a very beautiful sword-have one of my own. My favourite design, but the Prussian pipe-back 1852 design (recently copied by Cold Steel with some noticeable flaws) runs it a close second. Found your review on pipe-back sabres in general-the 1845 British transition from pipe back to Wilkinson blades-very interesting.
Thanks Matt, these were issued to the Australian and NZ Light horse after they charged and took Beersheba in 1917 ( my Grandfather took part). as when they charged the Turkish/German trenches they used hand held .303 Bayonets as this was all they had for this role. they were also used to great effect after that at a number of battles for clearing trenches and house on foot. would love to procure one as an addition to my grandfathers collection that I currently the custodian of .
I like that style of sword, AND I'm a sword guy :) (very awesome you finally shot a video on it!) I like the industrial sensibilities of the later military swords - 1908's, Porto Segundos, Shin-Gunto, etc. Interestingly, years ago on (if I recall) Sword Forum International I likened these to estocs, but got the shoot down since armor wasn't involved. I feel vindicated! :D In any event, like others below have said, these are basically one handed lances with great hand protection. No foot instruction was given, but I'd imagine they'd be deployed similar to a rapier. I do wonder why a triangular cross section wasn't preferred (lighter, stiffer); my only guess being ease of manufacture. The hand protection is a bit suspect if you're never supposed to get into a melee, but it's better than not having it, for sure. Eventually I'd like to get my hands on one of these (or the Patton type). One day!
Matt is bang on the money in this video. I always thought that the 1908 was a thin light cavalry sword. It's only when I saw it in real life in a Shropshire military museum alongside other swords that my first thought was " God, that's just a spike on a guard". It's curious, unless you see it first hand though, even this video doesn't make you understand just how 'chunky', the weapon is. Not heavy, just very solid.
I'm a big fan of that weapon. Like the fairbairn sykes knife, simple, good for stabbing. I like that it's focused on stab, less for troops to learn. If it's a cutting weapon i'm inclined to want lots of power in the cut, so a falcion or some of the nasty scimitar style designs. The hybrid 'can kinda thrust, and kinda cut' of course gives you more options but for mass war weaponry i''d say stick to one and keep it simple always being the best policy. No edge to keep sharpening either.
The Desert Mounted Corps of WW1 in Sinai and Palestine under Lt General Harry Chauvel was the largest body of mounted men since Napoleon's Grand Armee of 1812. It was the DMC, which included 2 Divisions of Australian Light Horse (Mounted infantry later armed with the 1908 Cavalry Sword), the New Zealand Mounted Rifles, French Colonial (Largely Senegalese) Cavalry, English yeomanry, etc, that played the decisive role in defeating the Ottoman Empire between Suez and Allepo from 1916 to 1918. It was these guys that fought the Battle of Megiddo (Armagedon) in 1918 that destroyed the Turkish 8th Army.
On the eastern front, in africa, and in parts of the middle east there were heavy cavalry actions(not consistently, but a few operations that utilized them well), but to say the 1908 or the 1913 british cavalry saber played a large role in wwi engagements i believe deserves a bit more distinction. Indian lancers even played a role on the western front, but those were minor incidences. Horse mounted cavalry were a relic of the Napoleonic era where they played a huge part in campaigns, and many of europe's military leaders initially were still thinking along those lines. That's how they got so many of their men killed. British cavalry charging a machine gun emplacement did occur, but any successes they had were the exception instead of the rule. Far more often the result of a cavalry charge against an MG-08 and its crew was a pile of dead men and horses before the ranking officer that hadn't been mowed down ordered his men to fall back, because it was clear they would all be cut down if they didnt. That's why you dont see large formations of men on horses at the Somme or Verdun or even the Brusilov offensive. On the eastern front where men on horseback were used more extensively, far more often they fought as dragoons rather than traditional cavalry. On all sides, heavy artillery guns, variations of the maxim gun, and hotchkiss machine guns changed the nature of the modern battlefield. A large mass of men on horses with their swords flashing in the sunlight became less frightening and more just large targets for machine guns and artillery and entrenched soldiers with bolt action mausers with five round magazines that could be rapidly reloaded with stripper clips. A problem the BEF faced was men like Haig who were former cavalry men themselves, wanting to find a use for cavalry on the modern battlefield, when there just wasn't a place for them. Even having close quarters combat taking place in the trenches wasn't well suited for swords because the other weapons a swordsman might come up against were pistols, sharpened entrenching tools, grenades, and by the end there were men with submachine guns. In areas like africa and the middle east, they were men on horseback with swords, but it wasnt because horse mounted cavalry was the most effective force to use, it's just what they had. I imagine if you asked any of the riders with TE Lawrence whether they wanted horses to ride in to battle versus an armor plates rolls royce with a machine gun mounted on it, most would've picked the armored car with the machine gun.
It's not all that different from a Polish hussar's koncerz, apart from the bowl shaped handguard. Interestingly enough though, they were armed with a lance, koncerz, and a sabre as their hand weapons. I suppose that's understandable when all hussars had to provide their own weapons, armour, and horse (except for their lance which was provided to them), so they'd want to be as versatile as possible, compared to military equipment that was issued by the state.
+Kisk79 Well, the koncerz is basically a form of estoc. Other surrounding Slavic languages use very similar terms whenever they translate "estoc" or "tuck" (regardless of era). In my own mother tongue, the native word for "tuck" is "končiar" (obviously similar to the Polish term).
I had a replica Patton "saber" and I always wondered what was saber about it. At first, I thought it was an inaccurate replica but then I found it it was accurate.
Thanks Matt. Nice job (as always, ho-hum). Absolutely right! I own both off. and enl. and have nothing but spiritual loathing and disgust for the 1908/12. :) Patton used the Swede '93 as an example! WHAT!! You get a gold star. The blades are certainly similar and they are a double edged (mind you). Patton did hang around europe getting a sword master degree from the Samur Cav School and brought back some sort of French Cuirassier Pallashe which was put on display in the War Dept. The 1908 are good looking and glow with the prestige of the "Empire", but like most arm blanche their years of war were for the most part spent in garrison. Rusting. Cheers
Just in addition to Matt's point about the mobile phases of 1914 and 1918. By wars end the Australian Light Horse in the Middle East were asking for, and being issued swords (1908 Patt obviously), counter to regulation, doctrine and their own prior inclination. It might not sound that significant, but if those gents could see the value in carrying an extra 5lb of weight, they probably had a point. Basically the Light Horse having fought as mounted Infantry with a 'side line' in light cavalry work from Romani up to Beersheba. Started running into more and more of those classic cavalry situations Matt spoke of, and if the P'07 bayonet was intended to do many things (and wasn't much good at most of them), but Lance and Cavalry Sword were not on that list.
I don't really see the dispute over the 1908. It's a good cavalry weapon and a bad sword. That's fine, cavalry don't need to use swords. Lances and warhammers are pretty bad swords as well but they're still good weapons.
I got one of those 1912 pattern swords made by Wilkinson. Based on the serial number I think it is made in 1917 or 1918. There was this website where you could send in the serial number and against a fee you could get back the documentation they had on it, but I never got around to do it.
+scholagladiatoria Thank you! Found their site and now I remember why I newer got around to doing it, I have to print the form an actually send it by old fashioned mail. I think I shall get around to doing it this time as it will soon be a hundred years old.
As you said I would imagine that the 1908 was perfect for WW1 with the confined space of the trenches. The trenches would act just like a piste with movement being back and forth with limited movement to the sides. As well as the fact that you would really be able to put much for into a slash except for a ruffly 12-6 blow.
This has got to be one of the few occasions where I think the plain trooper's version looks much better than the officer's. Something about that wire-wrapped fish skin just looks wrong with the contours of that grip; it reminds me of AR-15's I've seen with fancy wood stocks -- it just looks wrong, trying to apply an old-fashioned style of decoration, from a more ornate era, to a very new and different kind of weapon, that was born in a plainer, more utilitarian age, where "form follows function" is the dominant aesthetic. And the way the pommel appears stuck on as an afterthought, rather than having its contours blended better into the shape of the grip makes the whole hilt look awkward and lumpy to my eye.
While the quality of video and audio in your uploads is not by any means bad, I strongly recommend getting better gear to do your recording Matt, when coming from another video with properly recorded sound the difference is rather enormous. Considering you have almost 100.000 subscribers as of this comment, an upgrade like that might be due, no? Anyway, nice input on the qualities of estoc-like swords and their use.
Keeping the common assessments in mind, could you use it like a Rapier? The weapon heralded as the pinnacle of duelling swords. Both have a fairly strong point bias, highly protective hand guards, and I can't remember the numbers, but they both tended to be fairly heavy...
I really appreciate it when people can change their opinions. It seems like there's so much ego in martial arts that people get as stuck in their opinions as much as with politics or religion. I'd love to see a video on how people connect ego to their favorite martial art or weapon, and how people did this in the past.
Apologies if you've already covered this in a previous vid, but I'd like to see a video musing on what cavalry could actually do in WW1. I mean its obvious they we're in their element when trench warfare broke out, but as there were presumably a lot of cavalrymen in the various armies of WW1 they must have got into combat at some points without just being mown down, and i would love to hear if there were any accounts of cavalry troops getting stuck in during WW1 and how their equipment fared with the sharp shovels, clubs and trench knives the infantry were working with.
Given that the role of cavalry was going through a radical redefinition in that period and that the new role of cavalry was as mounted riflemen who could quickly redeploy to exploit a weakness, only using one's sword to pursue fleeing infantry or attack artillery crews seems a much more sensible proposition.
you would have reliable revolvers and even automatic pistols by then. the sword would be used in the charge to disperse and hopefully rout disorganised infantry. quite a good idea as a shock tactic.
Personally I don't know why they didn't flare the primary edge out, from the middle to the weak of the blade. Increasing it's width (not thickness) by just by about 1/4". Then with clever grinding and a little more distal taper, the characteristics of the blade mass would be the same, but it would allow for the formation of an additional cutting edge. So the "perfect thrusting sword", with a cutting edge "tacked on" from the strong of the blade upwards. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Heinz Guderian in 'Achtung - Panzer! -The development of tank warfare' gives numerous detailed examples of cavalry being decimated during charges against machine gun and artillery positions. Even in Belgium in 1914. when positional warfare was not a thing yet. It is not just modern media: "Not a horseman will be seen... Breech-loaders and machine-guns will have banished the cavalryman quite mercilessly from the battlefield." - Von Schlieffen, 1909. ...and so it was. Great book btw, i recommend it. :D
+betonskiorah One example: " The brigade had made a successful passage of the Gette at Donck, and it was there that it received the order to sweep onwards and capture the enemy artillery. Without losing a moment the regiment of Konigin Cuirassiers galloped through Velpen with a first line of three squadrons; this charge too was beaten off with severe losses. The regimental commander renewed the attack with the third squadron, which was still intact, and the remnants of the first two squadrons. It was all in vain, and a third and last effort proved to be no more successful." - chapter 1. Lances against machine-guns. Geman losses in the action at Haelen - 24 officers, 468 men, and 843 horses, compared to Belgian - 10 officers, 117 men and 100 horses.
So the guys who spent their careers fighting with swords, came up with a good sword. I am not surprised. We must give them credit for knowing what they were doing. A good topic would be to look at the types of swords the British cavalry use today. It would be interesting to see how much sword training they do (if any, but i suspect they do). I remember seeing a demonstration of cavalry skills by the mounted troop of the Royal Canadian Dragoons when I was a kid. They did some tent pegging and cutting targets at the charge. I am sure the Life Guard and Blues and Royals do this sort of thing to.
interesting I have one of the trooper swords but it is unsharpened and the handle is cast of a metal material. Perhaps it is a reproduction but I acquired it in the middle east so I can't imagine it is a recent one.
You may not realize it but the American version (M1913 and the later unissued M1931) swords design as a cut and thrust weapon was based on careful study's of wounds in the American civil war and later. It was found that the thrust was far more effective (against enemy cavalry) and much safer for the troopers. Your analogy of the lance is right on, American cavalrymen were forbidden to cock their arms as for a cut as this resulted in far more injury's as it exposed their arms to a counter cut. They were trained to, in the charge, to lean forward with the sword held straight out in front. They also found, by extensive tests, that the straight arm thrust was far more difficult to doge and counter than the cut. Some may argue but I have read that these modern designs were considered the best cavalry swords ever issued.
My grandfather left me a "1912 Pattern Cavalry Officers Swords Made for the Sons of the Maharaja of Gwalior" Could you tell me what is it made of and how do I polish it and remove black rust.
+Matthew Bozanich That's what they have attempted on the 1912 shown here. However, due to the thickness of the blade and the narrowness, the angle of the edge is always going to be large.
Is it possible to be good ambidextrously when using military sabers or any kind of single handed sword? As in fighting well with your left hand if your dominant right hand is incapacitated.
One salient point is missed here; a thrust (in pre-antibiotic days) is usually a kill, and a slash is generally just a wound, and often not even a disabling wound. Your opponent keeps fighting... The 1908 (and similar swords) are one of many things marking the end of chivalry and the beginning of industrial killing on the battlefield. If you must draw the enemies blood, you'd best damn well kill him, with no room for "wounds of honor."
I do believe this is one of the best comments I've read in a very long time. Another point on thrusts is that they cause massive internal bleeding which was at that time impossible to treat in almost all situations, obviously before The Great War, there were rapiers and sideswords and smallswords that were very point oriented and also caused similar injuries, which were back then IMPOSSIBLE to treat if critical. The key difference is in the philosophical view of what the thrust kill signified in the past eras, back when there was still chivalry the thrust meant that you would die quickly without any unsightly wounds and the 1908/1912 sword here which was the end to true combat swordsmanship and a dawn to industrial loss of human life.
Very nice video, it's rare to see such detailed overviews of late, WWI era military swords. :-) Speaking of the cavalry role and specialisation of these swords... Do you think mounted infantrymen of WWI could also have found uses for the 1908/1912 swords, or were they better off just sticking to knives and bayonets ? Cavalry in WWI was indeed used regularly on the eastern front and the fronts in the ME. Aside of the beginning and ending of the war, the western theatre did see less horseman action due to the prolonged stalemates. The other fronts were generally more fluid, and those where horseback attacks made sense certainly didn't dismiss the importance of cavalry. Horseback units really only went out of fashion following WWII.
+ZemplinTemplar Those swords are too large to be handy in a trench. Look up "InRangeTV"; they recently did a half hour bit on trench weapons, actually.
+ZemplinTemplar I agree with Michael; these are too unwieldy on foot and especially in trench fighting. Short weapons were the way to go for trench combat, though there are some examples of swords being used in the trenches.
scholagladiatoria I meant mounted infantrymen only (so, still men on horses, though not cavalry). But you're right that it wouldn't make sense for regular infantry to use these. :-)
+Ambrose Oh He's definitely covered how the sword was used ("Using the point of sword & lance on horseback") but, and I don't want to put words into his mouth, I don't think Easton would want to go into specific tactics or strategy of cavalry only their weapons.
It's interesting that in the end they got back to a "rapierish" design. What was the rationale behind sacrificing cutting in Western Europe when so many other light cavalries never did it? Explaining that would make quite an interesting video.
Matt once answered this question of mine once, and his guess was that it was easier, faster and cheaper to teach cavalry recruits to simply hold the sword in front of them and run enemies through, instead of schooling them through the whole study of cut, thrust and parries. Especially since they recognized that changes in technology meant that opportunities for cavalry mounted actions had become much more limited.
My chisels have edges sharpened to either about 25 or 35 degrees (depending on the materials they will be used on) and either angle will allow you to shave. Woodworkers often have bald patches on their arms from testing blade sharpness. So, Mat's comparison to a chisel was rather unkind to the chisel.
looking at the guard as a left hander, looks sufficiently protective for me to use left handed. :-) But the sword admirer in me does want to switch out the blade for something else. Particularly if I ever have to use it on foot in sparing or tournaments.
Did it ever come up against the Turkish cavalry troopers sabre? And are there any records from either side as to which may have been better? The Turkish sabre was a 33-34 inch slightly curved sword with a pipe back and quill point.
+Divertedflight As it happens I have owned the Turkish sword as well. I don't honestly know if they were used in opposition, as I don't really research as late as WW1, but I suspect they must have encountered each other at some point.
I suppose that the edge means that it bites in the same way that a fanged mace works. So you wont cut with it but it should bludgeon rather than glance. The question is wouldn't they have been better served with a shovel or a carbine or grenades?, given the nature of the war they went to?
+Anony Mash Cavalry had carbines and officers had pistols. Swords and lances are the most useful weapons on horseback. Grenades and shovels aren't usually used on horseback! When cavalry were dismounted to fight as infantry, they were usually re-armed as infantry. But cavalry were used effectively as cavalry during various theatres in WW1.
Regarding estocs, I have memories of reading somewhere that the French period term could just mean any primarily thrusting oriented sword (as the word means thrust) and not a thrusting only sword. Is that correct?
Question, is the fact that it's not a curved slashing weapon like other sabres..and more of a reinforced thrusting weapon - would it be closer to a spadroon? Or is the lack of a "triangular" profile a disqualifying feature for such a classification? Does that define it as an Estoc instead?
I heard these swords to be referred as "the second incarnation of the rapier" What do you think about this comparison, Matt? Is it as long as the rapier? And also, if the design purpose was to make a "short lance", why didn't they just use actual lances instead? After all, there were cavalry lancers in WWI.
+rasnac It's nothing like a rapier really and certainly nothing like a foil (!!!!). This is 2.5lbs of spike. It's an estoc. It's not for fencing, it's a rigid heavy spike.
So something that's always bothered me with mounted charge/stabbing action is how do you pull your weapon free from the enemy again when you are on the charge? In the case of lances I always figured the lance breaking was taken into consideration and the troops would just get their swords out afterwards. But here the sword is presumably meant to be kept in the rider's hand after burying it in a person's body while the horse is running. That doesn't seem physically possible to me... ._.
+juiuffophiguo They started practicing it on foot first, and once they got good at it on a walking horse, and once they got good at that from a trotting horse, and only once they got good at that from a galloping horse.
Try it yourself, walking and running with a stick at a target on the ground or just above it. if you hold the stick in the sabre grip (thumb forward) the hand naturally rotates back as you impact, and the body will slide off the sword or lance. Not rocket science and quite easy even for someone with no fencing practice (me).
You mentionned that officers - in the 19 th and early 20 th century - bought their own equipement and this is outstanding ! So were they highly paid ? 2 ) How much would a sword cost back in the day ?
+Rami sabreur Traditionally, is still the case today but a lesser extent, officers (or their families) were of high social status - gentlemen. Therefore had relatively large amounts of family money. Up until the mid-late 19th century and Caldwell Reforms (I think - Matt will no doubt correct me) -officers could buy their own commissions. Caldwell stopped this, but nevertheless officers were still of a privileged status. By contrast the other ranks (privates/troopers etc - Sergeant Major) were and still are (apart from musicians) from traditional working class backgrounds.
+Rami sabreur The junior officer ranks were not paid enough to even cover their costs usually, but that didn't matter as they were almost always from wealthy families. So paying to be an officer and pay for all your equipment and living expenses (from family money) was a sign of social status. As mentioned, the Cardwell Reforms in the 1880s changed all that. Sometimes, though rarely, non-commissioned officers were promoted to commissioned officer rank and in some cases they might have got financial help from the regiment to meet the equipment and living requirements.
+Laughing Daffodils The Patton has a more traditional grip (with patent style slabs riveted to the tang) and its blade is double edged with a thin central fuller. They are both long and pointy with a big bowl guard so they are close cousins.
A Roman legionary walks into a bar... holds up two fingers, and asks for 5 beers... The Swedish 1842 cavalry sword was also a long and quite straight sword with a bifurcated (brass?) sheet metal guard. Leonard Wood tested the Patton 1912 sword performance against his own 1964 pattern sabre, against the back slats on a shaker chair in his office, then measured the depth of cut. He concluded that the Patton sabre was superior at giving point, but was also a superior cutting tool.
So is this likely the use of an estoc? Many of the books and articles I've read claimed that they were used specifically to thrust in the gaps of armor or alternatively that they were basically used as two handed rapiers.
From some primary source account, it seemed that eastern european cavalry often used the estoc like a little lance, tucking it in the armpit and butting up the guard against the bicep, or holding it against their knees.
1) Pardon my stupid question, but why not use a rapier? 2) As a bit of a knife enthusiast, a convex edge is also very durable and not that hard to maintain with stropping.
This sword would be excellent in the charge -- _if_ you could bring the charge home -- but it seems to me that it would be pretty useless in the melee. Was the doctrine that cavalry would strike but never fight?
+Akatsukami I agree, it's not good for melee. But British cavalry weren't expected to get into melee anymore - they were only for the charge, and as highly mobile firing teams.
+Akatsukami By the time cavalry got in to a melee who ever they where attacking was probably less well arm than them. What does an artillery crew have to fight them of with?
I've always thought a large part of the value of an officers sword is crowd control. To a small degree just the prestige and social position that comes from seeing a man with a sword would probably inspire soldiers. I mean if im an illiterate coal miner barely 5 feet tall and permanently stooped and see an officer standing tall and proud and not even bothering to lower himself by returning fire from common enemies it sets a powerful example especially with unsheathed sword in hand. But when more is needed that heavy thick blade must provide a fine surface to give reticent soldiers a friendly wack with the flat of the sword. A dull sword like this is probably more useful in the first world war than a revolver an officer might have
My Cold Steel 1908 hangs on the wall beside my bed. I like the way it looks, but even as an ex-epeeist (all thrust), I am not sure I really like it as a weapon. This CS one is only about 2.5lbs, which I suppose is light, but it just doesn't feel right in my hand. Oh well. Good to hear Matt likes it, in a way, after all.
Can you relay some anecdotes of use of this sword in WW1? The theory behind this sword is interesting, and I'd like to see how it performed if/when it was put into practice. I'm ashamed to say my only real knowledge of cavalry in WW1boils down an image of a French Cuirassier in 1914 w/ his cuirass (also a friend of mine just got his hands on an original helmet ;) ) and of seeing that...interesting?...film "Warhorse."
Cavalry in WW1 wasn't for trench warfare, attacking entrenched infantry with them was suicide. Where they were still useful was the breakthrough when they could be behind enemy lines or places where fighting was not trench warfare which happened a lot more outside the Western front.
+Aspie Sean The evidence suggests that the best hand weapons for trench fighting were anything under about 24 inches. So clubs, daggers, maces, hatchets, shovels, but perhaps cutlasses would have been even better.
+lancer D I would say that it's better as a thrusting sword - better grip, better guard and a lighter, yet just as rigid, blade. The only advantages of the cuirassier swords is that they will have more effect with a chop, if that's what you want, and they are longer, but about 2 inches.
scholagladiatoria Thanks. I did wonder because I haven't handled one, but the cuirassier sword looks like it would be incredibly rigid and not fantastic in the cut either.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I like how they combined a tiny shield and sword into one.
In Poland there was weapon like that (estoc blade on sabre handle) and it was called "koncerz".
the koncerz was very long
wow, I'd never heard of it before so I just googled it, and it is a truly beautiful sword.
A friend of mine found a sword like that in the woods outside our hometown in northern Sweden many years ago. I thought it was a weird and clumsy weapon because how heavy the blade is and the handguad bigger than I thought "it should be". But thanks to you I finally understand what it was made for.
This was a fascinating video Matt. I'm so happy to hear a mention of effective cavalry use in WWI. Yes, the war embodied the transition from old world military mentality to the modern era, but that does not make cavalry mute, especially since motor vehicles were still in their infancy, struggling strenuously in harsh terrain. This was one of my favorite videos of yours.
Hey Matt, really love these long in depth sword review vids. Keep up the good work!
As for the swords themselves, I can see the arguments against them, but boy, I would NOT want to be on the receiving end of a charge by a bunch of guys giving point with these on top of heavy cavalry horses. Excellent hand protection, crazy point, stiff blade. It's basically a short lance, but one that you can use to parry a opponent's blade if you get into a melee, and the guard is probably one of the best I've even seen.
And now for something completely different; a 4 foot ice pick.
Hey Matt, have you considered collaborating with The Great War? I've been enjoying their series showing the fighting conditions for the men in the trenches. If anyone knows where to get good information on WWI era fencing, for the various nations, it might just be you. And for things you don't know, you may know the right people.
It's obvious why the pommel is chequered. When thrown at your enemy, your smite will leave a chequer-mark in his face.
or Cheque-mate
i'm pretty sure it is for lighting oldschool non safety matches, as this was the time they came into common use, and pretty much all soldiers in this period smoked.
Hmm, would the Chancellor of the Exchequer approve?
It makes sense that it'd be a heavy sword. Given it's use, thrusting on a horse at speed, you would want a very stiff blade that won't break when it plunges into some guys mid section, or break when the horse gallops past and will twist the victim as the sword is pulled out (or the rider pulled off depending.)
Always thought this was a very beautiful sword-have one of my own. My favourite design, but the Prussian pipe-back 1852 design (recently copied by Cold Steel with some noticeable flaws) runs it a close second. Found your review on pipe-back sabres in general-the 1845 British transition from pipe back to Wilkinson blades-very interesting.
Thanks Matt, these were issued to the Australian and NZ Light horse after they charged and took Beersheba in 1917 ( my Grandfather took part). as when they charged the Turkish/German trenches they used hand held .303 Bayonets as this was all they had for this role. they were also used to great effect after that at a number of battles for clearing trenches and house on foot. would love to procure one as an addition to my grandfathers collection that I currently the custodian of .
I like that style of sword, AND I'm a sword guy :) (very awesome you finally shot a video on it!) I like the industrial sensibilities of the later military swords - 1908's, Porto Segundos, Shin-Gunto, etc. Interestingly, years ago on (if I recall) Sword Forum International I likened these to estocs, but got the shoot down since armor wasn't involved. I feel vindicated! :D
In any event, like others below have said, these are basically one handed lances with great hand protection. No foot instruction was given, but I'd imagine they'd be deployed similar to a rapier. I do wonder why a triangular cross section wasn't preferred (lighter, stiffer); my only guess being ease of manufacture. The hand protection is a bit suspect if you're never supposed to get into a melee, but it's better than not having it, for sure.
Eventually I'd like to get my hands on one of these (or the Patton type). One day!
+Michael Eversberg II How would you use a sword without getting into melee?
Xandros999
By riding through without stopping.
The Spanish sword is called the Puerto Seguro, not Segundo.
I imagine the hand protection would probably be pretty good for if you are charging another cavalry formation and they point their sword at you.
Matt is bang on the money in this video. I always thought that the 1908 was a thin light cavalry sword. It's only when I saw it in real life in a Shropshire military museum alongside other swords that my first thought was " God, that's just a spike on a guard". It's curious, unless you see it first hand though, even this video doesn't make you understand just how 'chunky', the weapon is. Not heavy, just very solid.
Agree with you on all points Matt.I like these a lot.
I'm a big fan of that weapon. Like the fairbairn sykes knife, simple, good for stabbing. I like that it's focused on stab, less for troops to learn. If it's a cutting weapon i'm inclined to want lots of power in the cut, so a falcion or some of the nasty scimitar style designs. The hybrid 'can kinda thrust, and kinda cut' of course gives you more options but for mass war weaponry i''d say stick to one and keep it simple always being the best policy. No edge to keep sharpening either.
Completely agree with your opinion on the aesthetics. The officer's version is a thing of beauty.
Very interesting and informative video Matt, thank you.
The Desert Mounted Corps of WW1 in Sinai and Palestine under Lt General Harry Chauvel was the largest body of mounted men since Napoleon's Grand Armee of 1812. It was the DMC, which included 2 Divisions of Australian Light Horse (Mounted infantry later armed with the 1908 Cavalry Sword), the New Zealand Mounted Rifles, French Colonial (Largely Senegalese) Cavalry, English yeomanry, etc, that played the decisive role in defeating the Ottoman Empire between Suez and Allepo from 1916 to 1918. It was these guys that fought the Battle of Megiddo (Armagedon) in 1918 that destroyed the Turkish 8th Army.
On the eastern front, in africa, and in parts of the middle east there were heavy cavalry actions(not consistently, but a few operations that utilized them well), but to say the 1908 or the 1913 british cavalry saber played a large role in wwi engagements i believe deserves a bit more distinction. Indian lancers even played a role on the western front, but those were minor incidences. Horse mounted cavalry were a relic of the Napoleonic era where they played a huge part in campaigns, and many of europe's military leaders initially were still thinking along those lines.
That's how they got so many of their men killed.
British cavalry charging a machine gun emplacement did occur, but any successes they had were the exception instead of the rule. Far more often the result of a cavalry charge against an MG-08 and its crew was a pile of dead men and horses before the ranking officer that hadn't been mowed down ordered his men to fall back, because it was clear they would all be cut down if they didnt. That's why you dont see large formations of men on horses at the Somme or Verdun or even the Brusilov offensive. On the eastern front where men on horseback were used more extensively, far more often they fought as dragoons rather than traditional cavalry. On all sides, heavy artillery guns, variations of the maxim gun, and hotchkiss machine guns changed the nature of the modern battlefield. A large mass of men on horses with their swords flashing in the sunlight became less frightening and more just large targets for machine guns and artillery and entrenched soldiers with bolt action mausers with five round magazines that could be rapidly reloaded with stripper clips.
A problem the BEF faced was men like Haig who were former cavalry men themselves, wanting to find a use for cavalry on the modern battlefield, when there just wasn't a place for them. Even having close quarters combat taking place in the trenches wasn't well suited for swords because the other weapons a swordsman might come up against were pistols, sharpened entrenching tools, grenades, and by the end there were men with submachine guns. In areas like africa and the middle east, they were men on horseback with swords, but it wasnt because horse mounted cavalry was the most effective force to use, it's just what they had. I imagine if you asked any of the riders with TE Lawrence whether they wanted horses to ride in to battle versus an armor plates rolls royce with a machine gun mounted on it, most would've picked the armored car with the machine gun.
I'm quite firmly on the "this is ugly as sin" club.
I'm happy to hear your thoughts about it though, just as interesting as ever!
It's not all that different from a Polish hussar's koncerz, apart from the bowl shaped handguard. Interestingly enough though, they were armed with a lance, koncerz, and a sabre as their hand weapons. I suppose that's understandable when all hussars had to provide their own weapons, armour, and horse (except for their lance which was provided to them), so they'd want to be as versatile as possible, compared to military equipment that was issued by the state.
+Kisk79 Well, the koncerz is basically a form of estoc. Other surrounding Slavic languages use very similar terms whenever they translate "estoc" or "tuck" (regardless of era). In my own mother tongue, the native word for "tuck" is "končiar" (obviously similar to the Polish term).
+Kisk79 Yes, it's essentially an estoc.
+scholagladiatoria Ok, but wasn't estoc two heanded weapon? Koncerz was one heanded weapon.
Ah truly the final evolution of the sword; A rebar with a sharp tip!
I'm a fan of lances, and a fan of this. It's gorgeous.
The more that I looked at this particular sword in your hand the more I find myself wanting to own one, for some strange reason :)
I had a replica Patton "saber" and I always wondered what was saber about it. At first, I thought it was an inaccurate replica but then I found it it was accurate.
Thanks Matt. Nice job (as always, ho-hum). Absolutely right! I own both off. and enl. and have nothing but spiritual loathing and disgust for the 1908/12. :)
Patton used the Swede '93 as an example! WHAT!! You get a gold star. The blades are certainly similar and they are a double edged (mind you). Patton did hang around europe getting a sword master degree from the Samur Cav School and brought back some sort of French Cuirassier Pallashe which was put on display in the War Dept.
The 1908 are good looking and glow with the prestige of the "Empire", but like most arm blanche their years of war were for the most part spent in garrison. Rusting.
Cheers
Just in addition to Matt's point about the mobile phases of 1914 and 1918. By wars end the Australian Light Horse in the Middle East were asking for, and being issued swords (1908 Patt obviously), counter to regulation, doctrine and their own prior inclination. It might not sound that significant, but if those gents could see the value in carrying an extra 5lb of weight, they probably had a point.
Basically the Light Horse having fought as mounted Infantry with a 'side line' in light cavalry work from Romani up to Beersheba. Started running into more and more of those classic cavalry situations Matt spoke of, and if the P'07 bayonet was intended to do many things (and wasn't much good at most of them), but Lance and Cavalry Sword were not on that list.
+Shane Rogers Good stuff.
I don't really see the dispute over the 1908. It's a good cavalry weapon and a bad sword. That's fine, cavalry don't need to use swords. Lances and warhammers are pretty bad swords as well but they're still good weapons.
+Robert R
More of a spike than a sword, really.
Seems like it, yeah!
shlibber
Good advice, to be honest.
Hey Matt, what about making a video specificaly about cavalry in ww1? I think it would be pretty interesting
I love you enthusiastically saying "It might actually cut something!"
I'd love to see some test cuts and thrusts with these weapons some time!
You're right, it is a beautiful sword. In the words of the people who sell the replica nowadays: "Beautiful in its simplicity".
I got one of those 1912 pattern swords made by Wilkinson. Based on the serial number I think it is made in 1917 or 1918. There was this website where you could send in the serial number and against a fee you could get back the documentation they had on it, but I never got around to do it.
+KenZilla72 Yes indeed, Richard Milner's 'Wilkinson Sword Research' resource - I use it frequently.
+scholagladiatoria Thank you! Found their site and now I remember why I newer got around to doing it, I have to print the form an actually send it by old fashioned mail. I think I shall get around to doing it this time as it will soon be a hundred years old.
Love these :) Very interesting. Would love to try and "give point" with one of those.
I am totally into swords and love it :D
the convexed the edge. Very cool
As you said I would imagine that the 1908 was perfect for WW1 with the confined space of the trenches. The trenches would act just like a piste with movement being back and forth with limited movement to the sides. As well as the fact that you would really be able to put much for into a slash except for a ruffly 12-6 blow.
I feel like Matt wasn't too happy with how the saber was used in War Horse.
This has got to be one of the few occasions where I think the plain trooper's version looks much better than the officer's. Something about that wire-wrapped fish skin just looks wrong with the contours of that grip; it reminds me of AR-15's I've seen with fancy wood stocks -- it just looks wrong, trying to apply an old-fashioned style of decoration, from a more ornate era, to a very new and different kind of weapon, that was born in a plainer, more utilitarian age, where "form follows function" is the dominant aesthetic. And the way the pommel appears stuck on as an afterthought, rather than having its contours blended better into the shape of the grip makes the whole hilt look awkward and lumpy to my eye.
While the quality of video and audio in your uploads is not by any means bad, I strongly recommend getting better gear to do your recording Matt, when coming from another video with properly recorded sound the difference is rather enormous.
Considering you have almost 100.000 subscribers as of this comment, an upgrade like that might be due, no?
Anyway, nice input on the qualities of estoc-like swords and their use.
Keeping the common assessments in mind, could you use it like a Rapier? The weapon heralded as the pinnacle of duelling swords. Both have a fairly strong point bias, highly protective hand guards, and I can't remember the numbers, but they both tended to be fairly heavy...
+Benjamin Salt you would use it as a lance or estoc
+Benjamin Salt No, it's like an estoc. Rapiers are light in the tip - this is heavy in the tip.
I really appreciate it when people can change their opinions. It seems like there's so much ego in martial arts that people get as stuck in their opinions as much as with politics or religion. I'd love to see a video on how people connect ego to their favorite martial art or weapon, and how people did this in the past.
Apologies if you've already covered this in a previous vid, but I'd like to see a video musing on what cavalry could actually do in WW1. I mean its obvious they we're in their element when trench warfare broke out, but as there were presumably a lot of cavalrymen in the various armies of WW1 they must have got into combat at some points without just being mown down, and i would love to hear if there were any accounts of cavalry troops getting stuck in during WW1 and how their equipment fared with the sharp shovels, clubs and trench knives the infantry were working with.
+Max Ayson woops, haha i left the comment when i had the thought not before i'd finished the video, had some points on that at the end. Good good!
Given that the role of cavalry was going through a radical redefinition in that period and that the new role of cavalry was as mounted riflemen who could quickly redeploy to exploit a weakness, only using one's sword to pursue fleeing infantry or attack artillery crews seems a much more sensible proposition.
you would have reliable revolvers and even automatic pistols by then. the sword would be used in the charge to disperse and hopefully rout disorganised infantry. quite a good idea as a shock tactic.
I love this sword. I guess because I believe it was the last style of military sword widely used. 1913 "Patton Saber" is essentially the same thing.
Personally I don't know why they didn't flare the primary edge out, from the middle to the weak of the blade. Increasing it's width (not thickness) by just by about 1/4". Then with clever grinding and a little more distal taper, the characteristics of the blade mass would be the same, but it would allow for the formation of an additional cutting edge. So the "perfect thrusting sword", with a cutting edge "tacked on" from the strong of the blade upwards. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Heinz Guderian in 'Achtung - Panzer! -The development of tank warfare' gives numerous detailed examples of cavalry being decimated during charges against machine gun and artillery positions. Even in Belgium in 1914. when positional warfare was not a thing yet. It is not just modern media: "Not a horseman will be seen... Breech-loaders and machine-guns will have banished the cavalryman quite mercilessly from the battlefield." - Von Schlieffen, 1909. ...and so it was. Great book btw, i recommend it. :D
+betonskiorah One example: " The brigade had made a successful passage of the Gette at Donck, and it was there that it received the order to sweep onwards and capture the enemy artillery. Without losing a moment the regiment of Konigin Cuirassiers galloped through Velpen with a first line of three squadrons; this charge too was beaten off with severe losses. The regimental commander renewed the attack with the third squadron, which was still intact, and the remnants of the first two squadrons. It was all in vain, and a third and last effort proved to be no more successful." - chapter 1. Lances against machine-guns. Geman losses in the action at Haelen - 24 officers, 468 men, and 843 horses, compared to Belgian - 10 officers, 117 men and 100 horses.
"This is quite like . . . well it's not really!" Brilliant! :D
So the guys who spent their careers fighting with swords, came up with a good sword. I am not surprised. We must give them credit for knowing what they were doing.
A good topic would be to look at the types of swords the British cavalry use today. It would be interesting to see how much sword training they do (if any, but i suspect they do). I remember seeing a demonstration of cavalry skills by the mounted troop of the Royal Canadian Dragoons when I was a kid. They did some tent pegging and cutting targets at the charge. I am sure the Life Guard and Blues and Royals do this sort of thing to.
+Minute Man Generally they don't do any, though a few men in each regiment may be selected or choose to do such things for displays.
interesting I have one of the trooper swords but it is unsharpened and the handle is cast of a metal material. Perhaps it is a reproduction but I acquired it in the middle east so I can't imagine it is a recent one.
Does anybody else sometimes picture Matt in boots and braces all like "Oi! Oi! Oi!"?
Hey did you see that pirate sword fight on "black sails" last night, was pretty good.
You may not realize it but the American version (M1913 and the later unissued M1931) swords design as a cut and thrust weapon was based on careful study's of wounds in the American civil war and later. It was found that the thrust was far more effective (against enemy cavalry) and much safer for the troopers. Your analogy of the lance is right on, American cavalrymen were forbidden to cock their arms as for a cut as this resulted in far more injury's as it exposed their arms to a counter cut. They were trained to, in the charge, to lean forward with the sword held straight out in front. They also found, by extensive tests, that the straight arm thrust was far more difficult to doge and counter than the cut. Some may argue but I have read that these modern designs were considered the best cavalry swords ever issued.
I actually like the way it looks. It's not pretty, but it looks firm and has a distinct profile.
My grandfather left me a "1912 Pattern Cavalry Officers Swords Made for the Sons of the Maharaja of Gwalior"
Could you tell me what is it made of and how do I polish it and remove black rust.
could an edge be ground to give the sword a slashing/chopping function too?
+Matthew Bozanich Yes, but the mass of the blade and it's PoB aren't great.
+Matthew Bozanich That's what they have attempted on the 1912 shown here. However, due to the thickness of the blade and the narrowness, the angle of the edge is always going to be large.
Is it possible to be good ambidextrously when using military sabers or any kind of single handed sword? As in fighting well with your left hand if your dominant right hand is incapacitated.
One salient point is missed here; a thrust (in pre-antibiotic days) is usually a kill, and a slash is generally just a wound, and often not even a disabling wound. Your opponent keeps fighting... The 1908 (and similar swords) are one of many things marking the end of chivalry and the beginning of industrial killing on the battlefield. If you must draw the enemies blood, you'd best damn well kill him, with no room for "wounds of honor."
I do believe this is one of the best comments I've read in a very long time. Another point on thrusts is that they cause massive internal bleeding which was at that time impossible to treat in almost all situations, obviously before The Great War, there were rapiers and sideswords and smallswords that were very point oriented and also caused similar injuries, which were back then IMPOSSIBLE to treat if critical. The key difference is in the philosophical view of what the thrust kill signified in the past eras, back when there was still chivalry the thrust meant that you would die quickly without any unsightly wounds and the 1908/1912 sword here which was the end to true combat swordsmanship and a dawn to industrial loss of human life.
Very nice video, it's rare to see such detailed overviews of late, WWI era military swords. :-)
Speaking of the cavalry role and specialisation of these swords... Do you think mounted infantrymen of WWI could also have found uses for the 1908/1912 swords, or were they better off just sticking to knives and bayonets ?
Cavalry in WWI was indeed used regularly on the eastern front and the fronts in the ME. Aside of the beginning and ending of the war, the western theatre did see less horseman action due to the prolonged stalemates. The other fronts were generally more fluid, and those where horseback attacks made sense certainly didn't dismiss the importance of cavalry. Horseback units really only went out of fashion following WWII.
+ZemplinTemplar Those swords are too large to be handy in a trench. Look up "InRangeTV"; they recently did a half hour bit on trench weapons, actually.
+ZemplinTemplar I agree with Michael; these are too unwieldy on foot and especially in trench fighting. Short weapons were the way to go for trench combat, though there are some examples of swords being used in the trenches.
scholagladiatoria
I meant mounted infantrymen only (so, still men on horses, though not cavalry). But you're right that it wouldn't make sense for regular infantry to use these. :-)
What about the Spanish 1907 Puerto Seguro sword? It looks very similar to the British 1908.
Can you talk more in-depth about how cavalry and this sword were used during WW1?
Thanks.
+Ambrose Oh He's definitely covered how the sword was used ("Using the point of sword & lance on horseback") but, and I don't want to put words into his mouth, I don't think Easton would want to go into specific tactics or strategy of cavalry only their weapons.
What are the differences between the British '08 & the Patton 'saber?'
It is the perfect cavalry sword for its intended use at the time of its design.
It's interesting that in the end they got back to a "rapierish" design. What was the rationale behind sacrificing cutting in Western Europe when so many other light cavalries never did it? Explaining that would make quite an interesting video.
Matt once answered this question of mine once, and his guess was that it was easier, faster and cheaper to teach cavalry recruits to simply hold the sword in front of them and run enemies through, instead of schooling them through the whole study of cut, thrust and parries. Especially since they recognized that changes in technology meant that opportunities for cavalry mounted actions had become much more limited.
My chisels have edges sharpened to either about 25 or 35 degrees (depending on the materials they will be used on) and either angle will allow you to shave. Woodworkers often have bald patches on their arms from testing blade sharpness. So, Mat's comparison to a chisel was rather unkind to the chisel.
looking at the guard as a left hander, looks sufficiently protective for me to use left handed. :-)
But the sword admirer in me does want to switch out the blade for something else. Particularly if I ever have to use it on foot in sparing or tournaments.
Did it ever come up against the Turkish cavalry troopers sabre? And are there any records from either side as to which may have been better? The Turkish sabre was a 33-34 inch slightly curved sword with a pipe back and quill point.
+Divertedflight As it happens I have owned the Turkish sword as well. I don't honestly know if they were used in opposition, as I don't really research as late as WW1, but I suspect they must have encountered each other at some point.
+scholagladiatoria Thanks for the reply. I haven't even read reports of what it was like against other cavalry, just against the odd infantryman.
I suppose that the edge means that it bites in the same way that a fanged mace works. So you wont cut with it but it should bludgeon rather than glance.
The question is wouldn't they have been better served with a shovel or a carbine or grenades?, given the nature of the war they went to?
+Anony Mash Cavalry had carbines and officers had pistols. Swords and lances are the most useful weapons on horseback. Grenades and shovels aren't usually used on horseback! When cavalry were dismounted to fight as infantry, they were usually re-armed as infantry. But cavalry were used effectively as cavalry during various theatres in WW1.
Are these 1908 1912 swords worth any money and how can I take a picture of the one I do have so you can elaborate on it
Regarding estocs, I have memories of reading somewhere that the French period term could just mean any primarily thrusting oriented sword (as the word means thrust) and not a thrusting only sword. Is that correct?
Go on Matt, 2k subs more!
Very interesting video. Is it actually possible to fight on foot with these swords or are they too specialized?
Question, is the fact that it's not a curved slashing weapon like other sabres..and more of a reinforced thrusting weapon - would it be closer to a spadroon? Or is the lack of a "triangular" profile a disqualifying feature for such a classification? Does that define it as an Estoc instead?
+Mike Gould I believe he says what its like in the video.
I heard these swords to be referred as "the second incarnation of the rapier" What do you think about this comparison, Matt? Is it as long as the rapier?
And also, if the design purpose was to make a "short lance", why didn't they just use actual lances instead? After all, there were cavalry lancers in WWI.
+rasnac It's more like a fencing foil than rapier, rapiers have cutting blades.
+rasnac It's nothing like a rapier really and certainly nothing like a foil (!!!!). This is 2.5lbs of spike. It's an estoc. It's not for fencing, it's a rigid heavy spike.
It's called convex edge. Arguably the best blade geometry out there, also harder and costlier to make.
So something that's always bothered me with mounted charge/stabbing action is how do you pull your weapon free from the enemy again when you are on the charge? In the case of lances I always figured the lance breaking was taken into consideration and the troops would just get their swords out afterwards. But here the sword is presumably meant to be kept in the rider's hand after burying it in a person's body while the horse is running. That doesn't seem physically possible to me... ._.
Search for videos of 'tent pegging'
Ok well still you got to wonder how not every recruit for those cavalry forces broke their wrists the first time they attempted it during training
+juiuffophiguo
They started practicing it on foot first, and once they got good at it on a walking horse, and once they got good at that from a trotting horse, and only once they got good at that from a galloping horse.
Try it yourself, walking and running with a stick at a target on the ground or just above it. if you hold the stick in the sabre grip (thumb forward) the hand naturally rotates back as you impact, and the body will slide off the sword or lance. Not rocket science and quite easy even for someone with no fencing practice (me).
You mentionned that officers - in the 19 th and early 20 th century - bought their own equipement and this is outstanding ! So were they highly paid ?
2 ) How much would a sword cost back in the day ?
+Rami sabreur Traditionally, is still the case today but a lesser extent, officers (or their families) were of high social status - gentlemen. Therefore had relatively large amounts of family money. Up until the mid-late 19th century and Caldwell Reforms (I think - Matt will no doubt correct me) -officers could buy their own commissions. Caldwell stopped this, but nevertheless officers were still of a privileged status. By contrast the other ranks (privates/troopers etc - Sergeant Major) were and still are (apart from musicians) from traditional working class backgrounds.
+Rami sabreur The junior officer ranks were not paid enough to even cover their costs usually, but that didn't matter as they were almost always from wealthy families. So paying to be an officer and pay for all your equipment and living expenses (from family money) was a sign of social status. As mentioned, the Cardwell Reforms in the 1880s changed all that. Sometimes, though rarely, non-commissioned officers were promoted to commissioned officer rank and in some cases they might have got financial help from the regiment to meet the equipment and living requirements.
A very interesting sword. How does it differ from the Patton Sabre? Sounds very similar.
+Laughing Daffodils The Patton has a more traditional grip (with patent style slabs riveted to the tang) and its blade is double edged with a thin central fuller. They are both long and pointy with a big bowl guard so they are close cousins.
A Roman legionary walks into a bar... holds up two fingers, and asks for 5 beers... The Swedish 1842 cavalry sword was also a long and quite straight sword with a bifurcated (brass?) sheet metal guard.
Leonard Wood tested the Patton 1912 sword performance against his own 1964 pattern sabre, against the back slats on a shaker chair in his office, then measured the depth of cut. He concluded that the Patton sabre was superior at giving point, but was also a superior cutting tool.
I have to say it looks remarkably like a sport fencing Epee
+james Maleedy Except that it weigh about 3 times as much. It's like 3 epees stuck together.
So is this likely the use of an estoc? Many of the books and articles I've read claimed that they were used specifically to thrust in the gaps of armor or alternatively that they were basically used as two handed rapiers.
From some primary source account, it seemed that eastern european cavalry often used the estoc like a little lance, tucking it in the armpit and butting up the guard against the bicep, or holding it against their knees.
Can you review the British 1885 Pattern Cavalry Sword ? Do You have one ?
That thumb forward design would almost guarantee a dislotated or broken thumb.
This sword have a nice steampunk look, like a lot of forgotten weapons froom WWI.
Any suggestions on adfi&co Sialkot...
But does the pommel unscrew?
+Slayer Jesse Ironically, yes it does. There is an embedded nut.
+scholagladiatoria
End him rightly!
How did they not realise that in 1914? That would've instantly won them the war!
Are there any good estocs in production nowadays
1) Pardon my stupid question, but why not use a rapier?
2) As a bit of a knife enthusiast, a convex edge is also very durable and not that hard to maintain with stropping.
+Marshall Banana Rapier blades are thinner and lighter. This means they are more likely to flex or break in cavalry use.
That explains it. Thanks.
This sword would be excellent in the charge -- _if_ you could bring the charge home -- but it seems to me that it would be pretty useless in the melee. Was the doctrine that cavalry would strike but never fight?
+Akatsukami I agree, it's not good for melee. But British cavalry weren't expected to get into melee anymore - they were only for the charge, and as highly mobile firing teams.
+Akatsukami By the time cavalry got in to a melee who ever they where attacking was probably less well arm than them.
What does an artillery crew have to fight them of with?
+SuperFunkmachine Carbines. Pistols.
+SuperFunkmachine rifles.
+Dimes On His Eyes I meant to Fight them with in a melee.
Both these are very, very good weapons. I wouldn't want a beautiful sword, but I would want a good weapon.
What do you think about the replicas by(I believe) Universal Swords?
I've always thought a large part of the value of an officers sword is crowd control. To a small degree just the prestige and social position that comes from seeing a man with a sword would probably inspire soldiers. I mean if im an illiterate coal miner barely 5 feet tall and permanently stooped and see an officer standing tall and proud and not even bothering to lower himself by returning fire from common enemies it sets a powerful example especially with unsheathed sword in hand. But when more is needed that heavy thick blade must provide a fine surface to give reticent soldiers a friendly wack with the flat of the sword. A dull sword like this is probably more useful in the first world war than a revolver an officer might have
You're the NutnFancy of melee weapons
My Cold Steel 1908 hangs on the wall beside my bed. I like the way it looks, but even as an ex-epeeist (all thrust), I am not sure I really like it as a weapon. This CS one is only about 2.5lbs, which I suppose is light, but it just doesn't feel right in my hand. Oh well. Good to hear Matt likes it, in a way, after all.
+ᒍᗩᗰᕮᔕ ᑭᗩᗯᔕOᑎ Was looking at buying one of those a while back; IIRC the handle is quite short. I've seen people refer to it as an "India Pattern"
Is an 'apple seed' edge different from a convex edge?
love that sword even if I'am a sword lover..
that sound wierd
Can you relay some anecdotes of use of this sword in WW1? The theory behind this sword is interesting, and I'd like to see how it performed if/when it was put into practice. I'm ashamed to say my only real knowledge of cavalry in WW1boils down an image of a French Cuirassier in 1914 w/ his cuirass (also a friend of mine just got his hands on an original helmet ;) ) and of seeing that...interesting?...film "Warhorse."
Would a short saber or tulwar been of more use in WW1 & trench warfare than the Patton?
Cavalry in WW1 wasn't for trench warfare, attacking entrenched infantry with them was suicide. Where they were still useful was the breakthrough when they could be behind enemy lines or places where fighting was not trench warfare which happened a lot more outside the Western front.
+Aspie Sean The evidence suggests that the best hand weapons for trench fighting were anything under about 24 inches. So clubs, daggers, maces, hatchets, shovels, but perhaps cutlasses would have been even better.
What did the Germans and Austrians have at the time? The huge guard makes it suitable for duels also. It's still as rapierish as it can be!
How does it compare to earlier thrusting cavalry swords like the French An XI cuirassier heavy cavalry sword?
+lancer D I would say that it's better as a thrusting sword - better grip, better guard and a lighter, yet just as rigid, blade. The only advantages of the cuirassier swords is that they will have more effect with a chop, if that's what you want, and they are longer, but about 2 inches.
scholagladiatoria Thanks. I did wonder because I haven't handled one, but the cuirassier sword looks like it would be incredibly rigid and not fantastic in the cut either.