More like 1905, actually. The Russo-Japanese War already showed that dismounted Japanese cavalry distributed in several strongpoints were able to deny the ground between and in front of those strongpoints with the range and accuracy of their bolt-action carbines against mounted Cossacks trying to penetrate their outpost lines with mounted charges. On the other hand, British cavalry was able to operate quite effectively during the Hundred Days' Offensive in 1918 when they ditched the concept of large, segregated masses of cavalry but rather fought in small units closely coordinated with infantry, tanks, and artillery -- partly because they had machine guns too and were often able to use their mobility to deploy those machine guns to points of commanding terrain before retreating German infantry could secure them.
While the training of the saber is difficult, and sharpening is a pain, there is nothing as terrifying as being charged down by a man on horse with a saber!
The efficacy of the sword was irrefutably demonstrted - believe it or not - in WWI in Palestine. The Desert Mounted Corps [the DMC] of the British Egyptian Expeditionary Force grew to be one of the largest mounted forces ever assembled by the western powers. Depending on your source and during which part of the war, the numbers could be 12,000, 40,000 or 60,000. The important part however is that the Australian Lighthorse made up some 7/16th of the DMC. By the spring of 1918, 13 of the 14 ALH regiments had requested to be armed with, had been so armed and trained in the use of the British M1908 straight thrusting saber - a weapon they put to good use over the following 6 months. They conducted by my count a dozen mounted charges with it - all successful. At one point an ALH Brigade of 3 regiments attacked some 4,000 Turks and Germans with at least a dozen machineguns defending a rocky ridge. Charging over open ground nearly 3 miles, 2 of the regiments swept in with the sword while the center regiment dismounted about 100 yards out and went in with the rifle and bayonet. That regiment took more casualties than the 2 that went in mounted with the sword. Overall the attack was entirely successul. Indeed, British AARs noted that “machineguns alone are insufficient to stop a mounted charge.” [page 113 Australia's Palestine Campaign by Jean Bou - #7 in the Australian Army Series published by the Australian Army Historical Division. I note that this was a combined arms attack with the Royal Horse Artillery and a Machingun Battalion firing in direct support to suppress the Turks and Germans. Indeed, America’s greatest horseman, Harry D. Chamberlin - an officer highly respected by George Catlett Marshall and a personal friend of George S. Patton and Lucian Truscott - along with Patton and Truscott argued for maintaining a mounted force in the Army because of its speed over ground not trafficable by wheeled or tracked vehicles. [The 1941 Louisianna War Games were designed to prove horse mounted cavalry was obsolete. It rather proved the opposite]. General Chamberlin died of cancer on 29 Sept 1944. 57 years and 24 days after Chamberlin passed from this veil of tears, on 23 October 2001, American Special Forces Soldiers entered combat in Afghanistan mounted on horses alongside the cavalrymen of General Abdul Rashid Dostum of the Northern Alliance who conducted mounted charge after mounted charge to take first Mazar-e-Sherif and then Kabul. They moved faster than infantry could move across terrain impassable to armor and where other motorized transport could not go - exactly as Chamberlin and his friends Patton and Truscott argued for more than half a century earlier. I am aware I drifted off sabers so I conclude with the truism that sharp cold steel scares people.
Good post. Not sure that D-Day would have been improved by cavalry, but obviously they - and sabres - could have use on the souther border of the US at the present time.
The main reason why horse cavalry went out of fashion once armies went first motorized and then mechanized is simple: cost. It costs vastly more to maintain horses with veterinarians, farriers, forage, etc. than using scout vehicles or even motorcycles. You can replace the wheel on a scout motorcycle or a jeep where a horse breaking its leg means euthanizing it. Logistics trumps all in warfare. And the edge cases where the expense of maintaining a cavalry force are not common enough to justify it these days aside from ceremonial units.
@@andrewweitzman4006that and we have impractically few places where cavalry would actually be usable, at least where fighting is done. We've circled back to the age of city warfare in all but the most extreme invasions (see Eastern Europe).
To be fair, the Australian Light Horse were also highly proficient in dismounted combat with rifles and machineguns, which was more common than mounted charges in the Palestine campaign. Horses didn't just become obsolete due to the expense and complexity of their maintenance -- they're also much less resilient against artillery and other fragmentation weapons, while motor vehicles can be armoured against such threats. This has relegated horses to subsidiary theatres where artillery is either not present in sufficient amounts (look at the cavalry patrols still being actively used in Central Asia today) or the friendly side has an overwhelming advantage in indirect and aerial fires (basically Afghanistan in 2001). Note that when the Talibans retook Afghanistan in 2021, they relied heavily on captured Afghan government vehicles rather than horses.
As a Firearms guy I will tell you that the officers argument for Sabres vs pistols is probably correct. Trying to hit a moving man-sized Target with a 1 handed pistol from the back of a galloping horse would be dicy at best. Landing a hit in a vital enough area to put the man out of action before he's cut you even morso.
@itskarl7575 Not as much as with a pistol. With a pistol, you need to properly time firing the shot as they pass or you miss. With a saber you can kind of just hold out the sword and ride past and you'll hit them with it and do "something" to them along the way. In a melee too, you need to point the pistol whereas you can kind of just swing the sword in sweeping arcs roughly in the direction of the enemy and you're pretty likely to wound them.
I have a Reproduction 1st century Roman Gladius. While it is primarily a show piece and sits in its scabbard on display, I have it sharpened to a razors edge. One time one of my friends grabbed it and playfully started swinging it around, to which I quickly grabbed it from her and then showed her it was a real sword with a live blade. People ask me why have it sharpened and my mindset is, it’s a sword. If it was blunt then that’s just a sword “shaped” piece of metal
Things that look like weapons are so silly. A weapon should be a weapon. The sight of inert guns and blunted swords makes me puke in my mouth, and feel a slight sadness at how the fangs of American culture have got some rot in them
@@FacundoFerrara that is a different matter entirely. I'm talking when people wear fake guns for cosplays or buy stupid, crappy swords just because they look cool
@@smolsnek3835 think of it this way. Better have idiots handling weird heavy metal album shaped pieces of stainless steel than have them mishandle a sharp arming sword.
@@FacundoFerrara while that might possibly be true sometimes, I think the vast majority of people could and should become competent fighters with every major tool like bare hands, sticks, knives, swords, guns... That's why it breaks my heart when people pose with what are basically toys and think they look badass, because it's a symptom of a neutered, harmless society. Our ancestors would laugh at such a sight, because they all, from children to old farts, carried and used real weapons
What is interesting I found out recently, is the US Navy taught saber use until the early 20th century, which you can see in the original Blue Jackets Manual.
That explains why my gr. gr. great uncles sword was never even sharpened!!! He never fought in the war as he died of camp fever literally just weeks before their first battle in the fall on ‘62. (if memory serves me correctly) I always wondered if the sword was used, or how it was used (since it’s duller than a butter knife) and watching your very informative video, it sounds like it was basically tossed aside from the moment he received it… probably why it survived and made it into my hands! Who knows!
The 1st Vermont Cavalry made quite a number of saber charges and there's actually record of them grinding sabers--page 569 Vermont in the Civil War "On the 13th, the regiment went into camp at "Camp Hatch," two miles from Winchester, where it remained for ten days, and the men ground sabres." There's even an account of a supporting charge by Colonel Preston on foot with sabers and, I'm assuming, pistols (?) at Gettysburg. This would in support of Farnsworth's doomed charge--page 599 Vermont in the Civil War "Preston accordingly followed Farnsworth and Wells over the stone fence, and into the open field, where he encountered an infantry regiment which had moved in to intercept the retreat of the second battalion, and a sharp contest followed. Checked by the fire in his front, Preston obliqued to the right and charged the flank of the opposing line. "The Contest," he says in his report, "became a hand to hand one, in which our sabres were effectually used. The enemy being completely cut up, surrendered in squads and were sent to the rear. Had I had two companies of carbineers at my command, I think I could have held the position and removed my wounded; but being exposed to the fire of the enemy's batteries and sharpshooters I was obliged to fall back." Here's another account at Hagerstown--page 607, Vermont in the Civil War "The latter part of the afternoon Major Wells's battalion, now reduced to less than 60 men, was ordered to charge down the Hagerstown road. The charge was made with spirit, and sabre cuts were freely given and taken, but the force was not large enough to hold the ground gained, and Wells retired, having inflicted serious injury on the enemy. In this melee Major Wells crossed sabres with a Confederate officer and received a glancing thrust in the side which passed through his clothes and scratched his skin. While so engaged in front he was attacked from behind by a trooper, received a blow across the back, and was in serious danger, when Sergeant Jerome B. Hatch, who was lying pinned to the ground by his horse which had fallen on him, disabled one of Wells's assailants by a shot from his revolver, and Wells beat off the other." And here is another charge of the 1st Vermont at Tom's Brook while under Custer's command--page 662 VCW "It is related that before he ordered the grand charge of his division, Custer rode out alone, in advance of his staff, and taking off his broad sombrero hat swept it to his knee in a knightly salute to his foe; and that Rosser from the crest beyond pointed him out to his staff, saying: "That's Custer; and I am going to give him the best whipping to-day that he ever got." Instead Rosser got the worst whipping he ever had. As soon as his brigades were fairly in position Custer attacked in one sweeping charge. It was first a walk to the skirmish line, then a trot, then a gallop, then a wild rush of shouting troopers with waving sabres and frantic horses. The charge was so sudden and rapid that the enemy's fire of artillery and small arms took little effect, and before Rosser knew what had happened, his position was carried."
Great to have someone knowledgeable cite sources. I've often argued over the premise that the civil somehow proves that sabers were obsolete.... aside from the fact that swords were used in Europe up into (and even past) 1900. The US never really had a cavalry tradition of swordsmen, we had dragoons, and then called then cavalry, never fostering a swordsmanship culture. Men taking ineffective pot shots with each other with revolvers whether mounted or not, flies in the face of effective closing home with bayonet and blade in wars across the world in the same period. The Victorian British officer carried an Adam's AND an 1845 Wilkinson precisely bc the firearm didn't fully render anything but a knife in grappling obsolete until detachable box magazine fed repeating weapons.
I teach historical military sabre use from around the civil war period. I mostly use British sources, but of course when i started i tried to find some American period sources. About all they showed was how to salute and carry the sabre at parade.
The Ames saber, especially the 1861, was ground with egregiously bad primary bevels, making it impossible to sharpen it effectively wit field equipment.
If you want an example of the efficacy of a sword armed cavalry charge, pressed home with determination, look no further than the charge of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava. 300 against 2000, charging uphill - so more of a trot.
In classic cavalry vs cavalry yes but, in close quarters fighting with infantry armed with muskets and fixed bayonets, not so good (try it) and as the war went on, fewer charges managed to breach the lines.
Charging straight into a line of infantry with mounted bayonets is of course not going to be very effective and any commander that does that is inept and incompetent and will only waste the lives of his men, if not with suicidal charges then in a myriad other ways. Charging the enemy from the flanks, back or in combination with infantry or when the enemy morale is already low, can be devastatingly effective and cause them to rout and flee and then be cut down as a horse runs faster than a human. Even more effective is to use light cavalry, such as those armed with sabers rather than lances and wearing little or no armor, to chase down already fleeing or retreating enemy troops in order to capitalize on a gained advantage to drive it home and cause huge losses to the enemy.
@@nehcrum A line of infantry with muskets will rarely stop a dedicated charge especially of heavy cavalry like cuirassiers. Karrees of welldisciplined and welltrained Infantry with good morale will certainly stand but they couldn´t move in karree
@@thodan467 WTF is "karree"? Googling it gives it's german from a french word for quadrant. And square tactics for infantry kinda went out of style among western militaries somewhere in the 17th century in when the swedish school beat out the spanish school, changing heavy pike-and-shot tercios for lines of musketeers that would shoot the immobile tercios to pieces since they neither had the mobility nor the firepower to either win a gunnery duel or close to melee. It was still in use in colonial warfare, yes, but then against enemies with a lack of modern firearms that couldn't win that gunnery duel againt squared infantry and so had to charge it.
If your trying to say a saber would be at a disadvantage against bayonets your wrong a bayonet fixed rifle ways around 9 pounds so despite the significant reach advantage the 3 pound saber could easily parry what is essentially a super heavy shorter spear and cut down the opponent if you ofcourse grab his rifle at the time we Americans were panzys terrified of the potential melee and completely disrespected the sword in a era without armor for the most part which is absurd and were just interested in the aesthetic but knew nothing about how to use it during the napoleonic wars it was common for officers to engage in a duel in front of the men with their swords to show they are willing to share their men’s fate civil war officers never even fenced each other for fun lol
Also, to be pointed out, in the video there is references to how "US cavalry" would beat european armies and how they were most effective in a dismounted skirmish line. To put that into context, the US Civil War was about at the same time as the Second Schleswig War and the Austro-Prussian war. So these "US cavalry" would have been up against something like prussian Jägers armed with Dreyse needle-rifles.
It wouldn't be surprising if the US cavalry in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War would have been able to go toe-to-toe with Prussian needle rifles, though. They had their own repeaters in the Henry and Spencer rifles, and a couple of years of experience in intense dismounted skirmishing. There were even several instances where dismounted Union cavalry with repeaters were able to drive back larger numbers of Confederate infantry with their superior firepower.
I am an old time fencer/ pre HEMA sword fighter ! And it had always confounded me as to why 1860s back . That there where not more sword dueling / fights . After all the blades where there . From former wars(1812- Mexican war) along with the number of hunting swords that had been carried from the pre rev war threw 1830s 🤔 !
Maybe also talk about choices of saber I know some men north and south privately purchased German made British style 1821 and 1845 swords mainly because of the steel guards
Great video bro! I am really interested in saber combat especially during the American Civil and Indian Wars. There aren’t too many stories of their use in combat during those times, but the ones that exist are amazing. Hard to believe we still fought with sabers even when firearms were prevalent
Union cavalryman Henry Calvert gives a different reason for having a "moderate degree of sharpness" in chapter 9 of his memoir. He wrote that "razor-like sharpness is not resorted to by civilized nations like Great Britain and the United States." He said that Admiral Napier's order to "sharpen your cutlasses" (Crimean War) was a brutal order and had no excuse, and that in the Civil War, "a captive who had a sharpened weapon in his possession was in danger of being killed on the spot like a captive wolf." Calvert's regiment (Scott's Nine Hundred/11th NY Cavalry) was primarily sabre cavalry, so his opinion is worth considering.
I found that quote. Kinda funny, had no idea "civilized" was a synonym for "idiot". _I With to say a few words here for my justification about the cavalry saber. If the officer who was the victim of thirteen saber cuts at the second Bull Run battlefield had been struck by a scimitar or a Damascene sword, he would soon have died from blood loss; simply because such weapons are tempered to a keen degree of sharpness and cut right through the flesh. I have seen an accomplished swordsman cut a dressed sheep into two portions by one blow of a Damascus blade, and with the same blade divide a silken scarf into two pieces, merely by placing the scarf on the blade and then drawing the blade swiftly through the air. This razor-like sharpness is not resorted to by civilized nations like Great Britain and the United States. I am officially informed by our Navy Department that it has never been the custom in the United States Navy to sharpen cutlasses or swords before battles. Some of my readers will doubtless remember the horror which was felt, not in England only but also elsewhere, when Admiral Napier signaled to the British fleet in the Baltic Sea durin the Crimean War, "Sharpen your cutlasses." The well-known fact that Admiral Napier belonged to a family renowned for fighting proclivities was held to be no excuse for the issuing of a brutal order. There was a well-grounded fear in our Civil War, both in the Southern and Northern armies, that a captive who had a sharpened weapon in his possession was in danger of being killed on the spot like a captive wolf. Our cavalry sabers were tempered only to a moderate degree of sharpness, but that degree was suficient to render them terrible in the hands of men who knew how to use them. [/skipped/] Our custom implied close contact, hand to hand, and some men of the regiment had been horribly disfigured, some indeed had been killed outright by sabers cuts;_ [/skipped/]
Just to cherrypick a few examplesof the long quoted text. _If the officer who was the victim of thirteen saber cuts at the second Bull Run battlefield had been struck by a scimitar or a Damascene sword, he would soon have died from blood loss; simply because such weapons are tempered to a keen degree of sharpness and cut right through the flesh._ _There was a well-grounded fear in our Civil War, both in the Southern and Northern armies, that a captive who had a sharpened weapon in his possession was in danger of being killed on the spot like a captive wolf._ _Our custom implied close contact, hand to hand, and some men of the regiment had been horribly disfigured, some indeed had been killed outright by sabers cuts;_ One has to imagine that the fear of being executed when captured if having a sharp saber was something that was very real, since they probably got captured quite a lot when smacking their enemies with weapons that tended to horribly disfigure enemies, rather than outright kill them.....
British soldier in India how did you use our sabres so efficiently Indian soldier we sharpened them Possible that Calvert considered unsharpened swords in peace the norm in war. In the french revolutionary wars the blades of prussian hussars were sharp and i would be very surprised if the grey scots ´´d blunt swords at waterloo
@@nehcrum In my biography of Blücher, there is a brutal description how prussian hussars at the beginning or the wars of the french revolution cut extremities of in surprise attacks on the french soldiers
This is fascinating as a piece of history. As opposed to the Europeans who came over to teach saber exercises to our boys in our revolutionary war, this is an interesting perspective leading up to the 20th century, where George Patton critically taught his men to practice saber exercises.
I disagree with the idea of issuing paper-cutting sharp sabers (it becomes an issue when in transport, storage etc, although proper bevelling would be a nice improvement lol), however whetstones or even simple sharpening irons are so crucial it's baffling to me they ignored this issue
It may have been the last sword ever used significantly in war but it certainly wasn't a new one. Horse the entire time: "OK so what're we doing?" \ __~__ /
did anyone have files? I have a replica sword, (a windlass 1840 nco sword), and I sharpened it with a file,, it didn't take very long, and windlass are REALLY blunt if you buy them unsharpened. The front of the blade is almost as thick as the spine, there is no edge. I bought a new file, and spent about an hour, and then it was ready to be finished up in a few minutes with a new file. (really to make it fast I needed 2 brand new files, but really it would have taken about twice that if I did the whole thing with an old file, but had some filing skills)
Even if a pistol would would be more likely to be instantly fatal a large, deep cut from a saber will incapacitate & has a different psychological effect on those who witness it than pistols. Even in modern times many people are terrified of being cut by an attacker more than they fear being shot. Perhaps this is because people get cut but likely have been or seen anyone get shot. Regardless there was certainly a fear generated by men on horses charging with long, sharp swords!
Describing the battle on Laurel Hill (Spotsylvania), Theodore Gerrish of the 20th Maine Infantry wrote "Our officers all fought like demons. The revolvers and swords, which up to that hour had never seen actual service, here received their baptism of blood." The 20th Maine was recruited in the summer of '62, so I guess the swords were unused for almost two years. Still, in a hand-to-hand brawl like Laurel Hill they must have been good to have. Gerrish says the infantrymen had no time to load their guns and so they used them as clubs or dropped them in favor of fists.
@@Beaguins Amazing, thanks pard for the recap - sounds like an all out close and personal brawl - no time to load. Sending you an invite to follow our group at facebook.com/1St.Minn.Sharpshooters. -- LT
The infantry didn't have swords or saber. The officers did, but the rank and file did not. They were simply too expensive and with no training it was far better to arm them with bayonets instead, which were cheaper, easier to use and quite effective in and of themselves.
@@nehcrum apologies, for not being more clear. I was referring to the swords issued to the Infantry 1st Sargent and Officers. The primary reason for my question was as I'm acting as 1st Sargent for one of my clubs an an infantry sword.
Excellent video thank you. If you happen to look back at new comments on your old videos - can I ask, have you handled a French 1822 light cavarly sabre that the US one is based on? Quite different handling characteristics (as originals) you might be intetested to feel the difference, might add to the subject vis-a-vis sabre usage at the time. Always enjoy your videos 👍.
I do not dispute Whitaker's comment wholesale, but these are the observations of one man. I have read many other's from the Civil War who attested the opposite conclusions. In fact, all attestations of the Battle of Brandy Station in 1863 (the largest cavalry battle in the history of North America) state that the vast majority of cavalrymen fought each other with sabers and n'er heard a shot fired.
Nathan Bedford Forrest understood this, he kept his M1860 light sharp as he could get it the entirety of the war, he killed 31 in hand to hand combat as a General. Much respect
@The Crazy Cat Gentleman you should really visit Ft. Pillow and get some real history from the rangers and read some of the documentation in the museum. Or just go on stating inaccurate information, free country right?
@@jbearmcdougall1646 There is good evidence that Forrest did kill at least one prisoner. At Murfreesboro, a Union soldier set fire to the jail with Rebel prisoners still behind bars. The prisoners were rescued, the Yankee captured, and did not respond when the roll of Union prisoners was called. But, I note, the culprit did not surrender "at terms" so killing him would not have been unlawful.
11th OVC. Have you read the account of the 4th Ohio's saber charge against the 8th Texas at Murfreesboro? Major Milliken's (sp?) greatest wish was to lead a saber charge. It was his last wish--literally.
Thanks. I've always been curious whether Hungarian officers who came over to serve as cavalry trainers did anything to teach troopers the use of the sabre in the process, as it was a weapon they of course knew very well. Got any idea where I might start to research that? TYIA.
I picked up a gorgeous private purchase sabre blade very much along the 1796 pattern but with a slightly heftier blade and the hand guard of the 1821 sabres with the 3 bars in front . Its become my favorite out of the collection so far as cutting goes. Im not by all means a ninja, but ive played with blades all my life and am quite good at cutting in general and il back up that guy in saying i could very easily cut a man in half with a medium to strong swing, arms and legs would offer zero resistance. Its quite an effective means to dispatch another man. Great video man, thank you
One wonders if the officers have no training and therefore not confidence in the use of a saber it is because with the quick growth of the US Army at the start of the war they were men who had no formal military training. Where did these officers come from, just civilians that joined the military. Learning the trade of war as they went. Handguns and rifles being more familiar than swords, therefore more useful. The British until the Napoleonic era had no formal training for swords either and were outclassed with them by the french. Then they came up with a training manual and got better. I wonder if you can even find a saber use manual for combat and training for the US Army?
Find this surprising. I mean you had six shots in your pistol. Why would you charge with so limited tools? But then Civil war cavalry were really just mounted infantry by all accounts
It is typically to think of charges from cavalry as these magnificent, high speed, well dressed lines type of affairs. The truth is that this seldom happened. It was much more common for cavalry to either fight dismounted, using superior speed to set up and disperse quickly....or use superior mobility to find a weak flank or rear....and then ride into it trampling and shooting to start a panic. Think less about titanic masses clashing and more about quick, mobile but large scale raids. It was best to hit an opponent who was in a weak position quickly and move out of the way. Essentially, if the opposing line had time to fire more than a shot or 2 while you were charging, your charge was greatly diminished! Also don't forget that the horse in a charge is a weapon as well....getting knocked down and trampled will kill you just as dead as a saber thrust!
LoL 😅 The way you said... If a force of : American (light) Cavalry, which you admitted fulfilled the role of scouts, skirmishers and mounted infantry. And a force of: French Cuirassiers, heavy cavalry that tactically fulfilled the role of shock troops and could (and had) decisively win large scale battles by charging forward after an artillery barrage, braking enemy lines and turning enemy flanks. Meet on a so called "even playing field..." the American cavalry would unfortunately lose... Honestly made me laugh because It's almost like you were gently braking this fact to an audience that never before heard of any kind of American military weakness... What makes it even more hilarious is that what you said is kinda like the military equivalent of saying. "If a pack mule and a thoroughbred racehorse meet to race on an "even played field" the pack mule would probably lose... Shocking I know... LoL 😂
@@Tariko yeah unfortunately most of the guys out there nowadays are hobbyists or are ridiculously expensive Boutique workers will charge thousands of dollars just to look at your project. My recommendation would be to put Google to work and look for reputable sword and knife guys but do so with the understanding that you may need to replace your blade if whoever does it screws up. I know there are also professionals out there who do kitchen knife sharpening and since a lot of the principles are the same one of them might be willing to accommodate you.
@@Tariko at the risk of spamming I can tell you a professional sharpener is going to charge you a 1.25 to $2.50 per inch of blade assuming they're willing to step out of their kitchen knife comfort zone.
The real problem is that Americans don't know what cavalry is. Which is amply evidenced by the "effective US cavalry" being most effective when in a dismounted skirmish line. That's not cavalry. That's dragoons. Mounted infantry. And yes, European cavalry would have lost a gunnery duel with US dragoons, because European cavalry didn't do dismounted combat, they fought mounted because that's what defines cavalry. This also explains why USA today has armored cavalry and air cav. Which have no horses and fought on foot. Like infantry do, and which is what defines infantry.
In reality, US cavalry was always closer to dragoons than to classic European-style cavalry. I'm not sure the reasons for that. Perhaps it was that for most of their existence, their principal opponents were Native Americans against whom a cavalry charge would have served no purpose. Some units certainly did learn to use a cavalry charge effectively during the Civil War but that was a very small part of the total experience of US mounted forces.
There is something to be said for flexibility, though, and the US cavalry was very flexible. I'm currently reading Col. James Harvey Kidd's memoir (6th Michigan Cavalry), and he says that Custer's Michigan Brigade had three sabre regiments and two regiments armed with Spencer carbines, yet there were times when all five regiments fought mounted (like Tom's Brook, Winchester, Cedar Creek) and times when all five regiments fought on foot (like in the Wilderness). It's inaccurate to say US cavalrymen were mounted infantry when they fought so effectively on horseback. Some of the most famous cavalry fighting in the Civil War was in the Gettysburg campaign, and if you only look at Buford's cavalry on July 1, you can get the impression that it was a dismounted affair. Col. Kidd describes the fighting in the days before and after Gettysburg, and it turns out there was plenty of mounted action.
@@le7decav Yes, dragoons existed in Europe. They were called dragoons. The difference is that Europe had BOTH dragoons and cavalry and they differentiated between the two.
@@le7decav Yes, but they also had traditional cavalry who weren't expected to fight dismounted. In the US, regardless of what they were called mounted troops did a lot of dismounted action. In relative terms the US army was quite small so flexibility may have been a more significant factor in military planning.
Wow, even back then the big hats did not pay attention to anything that the soldiers were saying. They just kept on throwing money at the problem until it eventually worked
European cavalry with all their experience..would win in a head on.. A fight between a European power and 🇺🇸 in 1870's warfare would have be intresting..
I mean that's the point of the video, innit? French curaissiers or British hussars could absolutely wipe the floor in a charge, but they don't nearly have the same flexibility in skirmishing, raiding, and reconnaissance. The US was always enamored with the Dragoon style of cavalry doctrine even from the Revolution, and given the wide variety of terrain that campaigns took place in (dense woods, bayous, mountains, even deserts) it made sense to use such approach.
Shooting is easier. Keep in mind that more of these men grew up shooting, if they had any weapon training at all. Additionally, many in the northern armies especially hadn't grown up riding and hunting.....so they had alot of skills to learn in a very short time. The union army especially had to propritize with the rapid influx of untrained horses and men, I imagine training the troopers to ride and horses to be ridden came first, followed by unit cohesion then weapons training. The quickest weapon to become proficient with at the time would have been firearms in my opinion.....especially as it wasn't deemed necessary to become a marksman! A sword, knife, spear, etc is always a more pinpoint style weapon that needs strength and agility whereas virtually anyone can pull a trigger.
Studying the ACW is a waste of Time Generalfieldmarshall Helmuth von Moltke Chief of Staff Prussian Army What he describes Trencks pandours did with the army of Frederik II of Prussia in the 7 Years war Marching around Impressive Try to move through enemy corps
Wow, interesting point Helmuth... Tell me, how did your nephew Moltke the Younger march through the French in the First Battle of the Marne using what you taught him? What's that? He lost? Bummer. Maybe if he brushed up on other wars that were taking place around the world instead of laser focusing on Frederick the Great and his dear old uncle, he might have switched up the playbook enough to catch the French off guard. Oh well. At least his mistakes didn't lose his country the war...
While I have no doubt that a lot of this is true (American settlers were never great adopters of sword fighting) this narrative has a distinct odor that you get from a lot of nineteenth century "advocacy" publications. The cited author Captain Nolan was no doubt seeking to introduce pro-sabre training reforms into the army, and we can expect that writing and publishing this book was also a career move: he was establishing himself as a professional expert in the field. Both motivations should make us treat claims like "federals never sharpened their sabres" with a very big grain of salt.
I'd like to ask after your source on this one, though I know it's quite a while on from the comment. I know of no such standing order, though I do beleive he forbade them On a raid though part of maryland..... I cannot remember where I wpudl have gotten this from, though
I think americans were right to use revolvers instead of swords... After the cartridge revolver was invented how long were swords used in combat.... Do you see dudes rocking swords or pistols today...
Sorry, but I had to stop after a few minutes. I wouldn't trust a baker's expert knowledge if he kept calling bread "beard", and it is the same with you calling cavalry "calvary". In fact it's arguably worse, because at least the baker might have a literacy problem and still be good at baking because you can learn that from watching others do it. But if you speak of a historical subject, as you do here, your knowledge must necessarily come from books, and so not even knowing the correct name of the subject you're talking about is even more of a warning sign.
9:07 Every army of 1914 and onwards "laughs in machinegun."
More like 1905, actually. The Russo-Japanese War already showed that dismounted Japanese cavalry distributed in several strongpoints were able to deny the ground between and in front of those strongpoints with the range and accuracy of their bolt-action carbines against mounted Cossacks trying to penetrate their outpost lines with mounted charges. On the other hand, British cavalry was able to operate quite effectively during the Hundred Days' Offensive in 1918 when they ditched the concept of large, segregated masses of cavalry but rather fought in small units closely coordinated with infantry, tanks, and artillery -- partly because they had machine guns too and were often able to use their mobility to deploy those machine guns to points of commanding terrain before retreating German infantry could secure them.
While the training of the saber is difficult, and sharpening is a pain, there is nothing as terrifying as being charged down by a man on horse with a saber!
Except charging a line of guys with revolvers when all you have is a big ass knife....
Outstanding video.
Just goes to show that well developed basics often carry the day: sharpen your sword and know how to use it
The efficacy of the sword was irrefutably demonstrted - believe it or not - in WWI in Palestine. The Desert Mounted Corps [the DMC] of the British Egyptian Expeditionary Force grew to be one of the largest mounted forces ever assembled by the western powers. Depending on your source and during which part of the war, the numbers could be 12,000, 40,000 or 60,000. The important part however is that the Australian Lighthorse made up some 7/16th of the DMC. By the spring of 1918, 13 of the 14 ALH regiments had requested to be armed with, had been so armed and trained in the use of the British M1908 straight thrusting saber - a weapon they put to good use over the following 6 months. They conducted by my count a dozen mounted charges with it - all successful.
At one point an ALH Brigade of 3 regiments attacked some 4,000 Turks and Germans with at least a dozen machineguns defending a rocky ridge. Charging over open ground nearly 3 miles, 2 of the regiments swept in with the sword while the center regiment dismounted about 100 yards out and went in with the rifle and bayonet. That regiment took more casualties than the 2 that went in mounted with the sword. Overall the attack was entirely successul. Indeed, British AARs noted that “machineguns alone are insufficient to stop a mounted charge.” [page 113 Australia's Palestine Campaign by Jean Bou - #7 in the Australian Army Series published by the Australian Army Historical Division. I note that this was a combined arms attack with the Royal Horse Artillery and a Machingun Battalion firing in direct support to suppress the Turks and Germans.
Indeed, America’s greatest horseman, Harry D. Chamberlin - an officer highly respected by George Catlett Marshall and a personal friend of George S. Patton and Lucian Truscott - along with Patton and Truscott argued for maintaining a mounted force in the Army because of its speed over ground not trafficable by wheeled or tracked vehicles. [The 1941 Louisianna War Games were designed to prove horse mounted cavalry was obsolete. It rather proved the opposite]. General Chamberlin died of cancer on 29 Sept 1944. 57 years and 24 days after Chamberlin passed from this veil of tears, on 23 October 2001, American Special Forces Soldiers entered combat in Afghanistan mounted on horses alongside the cavalrymen of General Abdul Rashid Dostum of the Northern Alliance who conducted mounted charge after mounted charge to take first Mazar-e-Sherif and then Kabul. They moved faster than infantry could move across terrain impassable to armor and where other motorized transport could not go - exactly as Chamberlin and his friends Patton and Truscott argued for more than half a century earlier.
I am aware I drifted off sabers so I conclude with the truism that sharp cold steel scares people.
Good post. Not sure that D-Day would have been improved by cavalry, but obviously they - and sabres - could have use on the souther border of the US at the present time.
The main reason why horse cavalry went out of fashion once armies went first motorized and then mechanized is simple: cost. It costs vastly more to maintain horses with veterinarians, farriers, forage, etc. than using scout vehicles or even motorcycles. You can replace the wheel on a scout motorcycle or a jeep where a horse breaking its leg means euthanizing it. Logistics trumps all in warfare. And the edge cases where the expense of maintaining a cavalry force are not common enough to justify it these days aside from ceremonial units.
@@andrewweitzman4006that and we have impractically few places where cavalry would actually be usable, at least where fighting is done. We've circled back to the age of city warfare in all but the most extreme invasions (see Eastern Europe).
To be fair, the Australian Light Horse were also highly proficient in dismounted combat with rifles and machineguns, which was more common than mounted charges in the Palestine campaign.
Horses didn't just become obsolete due to the expense and complexity of their maintenance -- they're also much less resilient against artillery and other fragmentation weapons, while motor vehicles can be armoured against such threats. This has relegated horses to subsidiary theatres where artillery is either not present in sufficient amounts (look at the cavalry patrols still being actively used in Central Asia today) or the friendly side has an overwhelming advantage in indirect and aerial fires (basically Afghanistan in 2001). Note that when the Talibans retook Afghanistan in 2021, they relied heavily on captured Afghan government vehicles rather than horses.
I love this and I love you for posting it. “Sharp cold steel scares people.” A truism indeed! ⚔️
As a Firearms guy I will tell you that the officers argument for Sabres vs pistols is probably correct. Trying to hit a moving man-sized Target with a 1 handed pistol from the back of a galloping horse would be dicy at best. Landing a hit in a vital enough area to put the man out of action before he's cut you even morso.
True, but generally once the charge has impacted, you are no longer galloping.
You could argue that trying to hit a man-sized target with a sabre from the back of a galloping horse would also be... dicey.
@itskarl7575
Not as much as with a pistol.
With a pistol, you need to properly time firing the shot as they pass or you miss.
With a saber you can kind of just hold out the sword and ride past and you'll hit them with it and do "something" to them along the way.
In a melee too, you need to point the pistol whereas you can kind of just swing the sword in sweeping arcs roughly in the direction of the enemy and you're pretty likely to wound them.
@@Maverick-gg2do I was making a pun. You know, slice and dice.
@@itskarl7575 lmao, my bad, I missed that.
I have a Reproduction 1st century Roman Gladius. While it is primarily a show piece and sits in its scabbard on display, I have it sharpened to a razors edge. One time one of my friends grabbed it and playfully started swinging it around, to which I quickly grabbed it from her and then showed her it was a real sword with a live blade. People ask me why have it sharpened and my mindset is, it’s a sword. If it was blunt then that’s just a sword “shaped” piece of metal
Things that look like weapons are so silly. A weapon should be a weapon. The sight of inert guns and blunted swords makes me puke in my mouth, and feel a slight sadness at how the fangs of American culture have got some rot in them
@@smolsnek3835 Ever head of a training weapon?
@@FacundoFerrara that is a different matter entirely. I'm talking when people wear fake guns for cosplays or buy stupid, crappy swords just because they look cool
@@smolsnek3835 think of it this way. Better have idiots handling weird heavy metal album shaped pieces of stainless steel than have them mishandle a sharp arming sword.
@@FacundoFerrara while that might possibly be true sometimes, I think the vast majority of people could and should become competent fighters with every major tool like bare hands, sticks, knives, swords, guns... That's why it breaks my heart when people pose with what are basically toys and think they look badass, because it's a symptom of a neutered, harmless society. Our ancestors would laugh at such a sight, because they all, from children to old farts, carried and used real weapons
What is interesting I found out recently, is the US Navy taught saber use until the early 20th century, which you can see in the original Blue Jackets Manual.
That explains why my gr. gr. great uncles sword was never even sharpened!!! He never fought in the war as he died of camp fever literally just weeks before their first battle in the fall on ‘62. (if memory serves me correctly) I always wondered if the sword was used, or how it was used (since it’s duller than a butter knife) and watching your very informative video, it sounds like it was basically tossed aside from the moment he received it… probably why it survived and made it into my hands! Who knows!
The 1st Vermont Cavalry made quite a number of saber charges and there's actually record of them grinding sabers--page 569 Vermont in the Civil War "On the 13th, the regiment went into camp at "Camp Hatch," two miles from Winchester, where it remained for ten days, and the men ground sabres."
There's even an account of a supporting charge by Colonel Preston on foot with sabers and, I'm assuming, pistols (?) at Gettysburg. This would in support of Farnsworth's doomed charge--page 599 Vermont in the Civil War "Preston accordingly followed Farnsworth and Wells over the stone fence, and into the open field, where he encountered an infantry regiment which had moved in to intercept the retreat of the second battalion, and a sharp contest followed. Checked by the fire in his front, Preston obliqued to the right and charged the flank of the opposing line. "The Contest," he says in his report, "became a hand to hand one, in which our sabres were effectually used. The enemy being completely cut up, surrendered in squads and were sent to the rear. Had I had two companies of carbineers at my command, I think I could have held the position and removed my wounded; but being exposed to the fire of the enemy's batteries and sharpshooters I was obliged to fall back."
Here's another account at Hagerstown--page 607, Vermont in the Civil War "The latter part of the afternoon Major Wells's battalion, now reduced to less than 60 men, was ordered to charge down the Hagerstown road. The charge was made with spirit, and sabre cuts were freely given and taken, but the force was not large enough to hold the ground gained, and Wells retired, having inflicted serious injury on the enemy. In this melee Major Wells crossed sabres with a Confederate officer and received a glancing thrust in the side which passed through his clothes and scratched his skin. While so engaged in front he was attacked from behind by a trooper, received a blow across the back, and was in serious danger, when Sergeant Jerome B. Hatch, who was lying pinned to the ground by his horse which had fallen on him, disabled one of Wells's assailants by a shot from his revolver, and Wells beat off the other."
And here is another charge of the 1st Vermont at Tom's Brook while under Custer's command--page 662 VCW "It is related that before he ordered the grand charge of his division, Custer rode out alone, in advance of his staff, and taking off his broad sombrero hat swept it to his knee in a knightly salute to his foe; and that Rosser from the crest beyond pointed him out to his staff, saying: "That's Custer; and I am going to give him the best whipping to-day that he ever got." Instead Rosser got the worst whipping he ever had. As soon as his brigades were fairly in position Custer attacked in one sweeping charge. It was first a walk to the skirmish line, then a trot, then a gallop, then a wild rush of shouting troopers with waving sabres and frantic horses. The charge was so sudden and rapid that the enemy's fire of artillery and small arms took little effect, and before Rosser knew what had happened, his position was carried."
Great to have someone knowledgeable cite sources. I've often argued over the premise that the civil somehow proves that sabers were obsolete.... aside from the fact that swords were used in Europe up into (and even past) 1900. The US never really had a cavalry tradition of swordsmen, we had dragoons, and then called then cavalry, never fostering a swordsmanship culture. Men taking ineffective pot shots with each other with revolvers whether mounted or not, flies in the face of effective closing home with bayonet and blade in wars across the world in the same period. The Victorian British officer carried an Adam's AND an 1845 Wilkinson precisely bc the firearm didn't fully render anything but a knife in grappling obsolete until detachable box magazine fed repeating weapons.
I teach historical military sabre use from around the civil war period.
I mostly use British sources, but of course when i started i tried to find some American period sources. About all they showed was how to salute and carry the sabre at parade.
The Ames saber, especially the 1861, was ground with egregiously bad primary bevels, making it impossible to sharpen it effectively wit field equipment.
If you want an example of the efficacy of a sword armed cavalry charge, pressed home with determination, look no further than the charge of the Heavy Brigade at Balaclava. 300 against 2000, charging uphill - so more of a trot.
Nice fellas, looks very sharp, no pun intended.
In classic cavalry vs cavalry yes but, in close quarters fighting with infantry armed with muskets and fixed bayonets, not so good (try it) and as the war went on, fewer charges managed to breach the lines.
Charging straight into a line of infantry with mounted bayonets is of course not going to be very effective and any commander that does that is inept and incompetent and will only waste the lives of his men, if not with suicidal charges then in a myriad other ways. Charging the enemy from the flanks, back or in combination with infantry or when the enemy morale is already low, can be devastatingly effective and cause them to rout and flee and then be cut down as a horse runs faster than a human. Even more effective is to use light cavalry, such as those armed with sabers rather than lances and wearing little or no armor, to chase down already fleeing or retreating enemy troops in order to capitalize on a gained advantage to drive it home and cause huge losses to the enemy.
@@nehcrum
A line of infantry with muskets will rarely stop a dedicated charge especially of heavy cavalry like cuirassiers.
Karrees of welldisciplined and welltrained Infantry with good morale will certainly stand but they couldn´t move in karree
@@thodan467 WTF is "karree"?
Googling it gives it's german from a french word for quadrant. And square tactics for infantry kinda went out of style among western militaries somewhere in the 17th century in when the swedish school beat out the spanish school, changing heavy pike-and-shot tercios for lines of musketeers that would shoot the immobile tercios to pieces since they neither had the mobility nor the firepower to either win a gunnery duel or close to melee.
It was still in use in colonial warfare, yes, but then against enemies with a lack of modern firearms that couldn't win that gunnery duel againt squared infantry and so had to charge it.
@@nehcrum
the infantry square, that e.g. the british used at waterloo against Neys heavy cavalry
If your trying to say a saber would be at a disadvantage against bayonets your wrong a bayonet fixed rifle ways around 9 pounds so despite the significant reach advantage the 3 pound saber could easily parry what is essentially a super heavy shorter spear and cut down the opponent if you ofcourse grab his rifle at the time we Americans were panzys terrified of the potential melee and completely disrespected the sword in a era without armor for the most part which is absurd and were just interested in the aesthetic but knew nothing about how to use it during the napoleonic wars it was common for officers to engage in a duel in front of the men with their swords to show they are willing to share their men’s fate civil war officers never even fenced each other for fun lol
Also, to be pointed out, in the video there is references to how "US cavalry" would beat european armies and how they were most effective in a dismounted skirmish line.
To put that into context, the US Civil War was about at the same time as the Second Schleswig War and the Austro-Prussian war. So these "US cavalry" would have been up against something like prussian Jägers armed with Dreyse needle-rifles.
This is not what he quotes. Watch the video again.
It wouldn't be surprising if the US cavalry in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War would have been able to go toe-to-toe with Prussian needle rifles, though. They had their own repeaters in the Henry and Spencer rifles, and a couple of years of experience in intense dismounted skirmishing. There were even several instances where dismounted Union cavalry with repeaters were able to drive back larger numbers of Confederate infantry with their superior firepower.
I am an old time fencer/ pre HEMA sword fighter ! And it had always confounded me as to why 1860s back . That there where not more sword dueling / fights . After all the blades where there . From former wars(1812- Mexican war) along with the number of hunting swords that had been carried from the pre rev war threw 1830s 🤔 !
Maybe also talk about choices of saber I know some men north and south privately purchased German made British style 1821 and 1845 swords mainly because of the steel guards
Great video bro! I am really interested in saber combat especially during the American Civil and Indian Wars. There aren’t too many stories of their use in combat during those times, but the ones that exist are amazing. Hard to believe we still fought with sabers even when firearms were prevalent
Well, if a weapon is useful......... someone will put it to use. (Vietnam era tomahawks?)
More people are murdered with knives and hammers ect than guns every year bro...
@@jimbob465 Not when the person they are trying to murder is an armed soldier they’re fighting a war against…
Union cavalryman Henry Calvert gives a different reason for having a "moderate degree of sharpness" in chapter 9 of his memoir. He wrote that "razor-like sharpness is not resorted to by civilized nations like Great Britain and the United States." He said that Admiral Napier's order to "sharpen your cutlasses" (Crimean War) was a brutal order and had no excuse, and that in the Civil War, "a captive who had a sharpened weapon in his possession was in danger of being killed on the spot like a captive wolf." Calvert's regiment (Scott's Nine Hundred/11th NY Cavalry) was primarily sabre cavalry, so his opinion is worth considering.
I found that quote. Kinda funny, had no idea "civilized" was a synonym for "idiot".
_I With to say a few words here for my justification about the cavalry saber. If the officer who was the victim of thirteen saber cuts at the second Bull Run battlefield had been struck by a scimitar or a Damascene sword, he would soon have died from blood loss; simply because such weapons are tempered to a keen degree of sharpness and cut right through the flesh. I have seen an accomplished swordsman cut a dressed sheep into two portions by one blow of a Damascus blade, and with the same blade divide a silken scarf into two pieces, merely by placing the scarf on the blade and then drawing the blade swiftly through the air. This razor-like sharpness is not resorted to by civilized nations like Great Britain and the United States. I am officially informed by our Navy Department that it has never been the custom in the United States Navy to sharpen cutlasses or swords before battles. Some of my readers will doubtless remember the horror which was felt, not in England only but also elsewhere, when Admiral Napier signaled to the British fleet in the Baltic Sea durin the Crimean War, "Sharpen your cutlasses." The well-known fact that Admiral Napier belonged to a family renowned for fighting proclivities was held to be no excuse for the issuing of a brutal order. There was a well-grounded fear in our Civil War, both in the Southern and Northern armies, that a captive who had a sharpened weapon in his possession was in danger of being killed on the spot like a captive wolf. Our cavalry sabers were tempered only to a moderate degree of sharpness, but that degree was suficient to render them terrible in the hands of men who knew how to use them. [/skipped/] Our custom implied close contact, hand to hand, and some men of the regiment had been horribly disfigured, some indeed had been killed outright by sabers cuts;_ [/skipped/]
Just to cherrypick a few examplesof the long quoted text.
_If the officer who was the victim of thirteen saber cuts at the second Bull Run battlefield had been struck by a scimitar or a Damascene sword, he would soon have died from blood loss; simply because such weapons are tempered to a keen degree of sharpness and cut right through the flesh._
_There was a well-grounded fear in our Civil War, both in the Southern and Northern armies, that a captive who had a sharpened weapon in his possession was in danger of being killed on the spot like a captive wolf._
_Our custom implied close contact, hand to hand, and some men of the regiment had been horribly disfigured, some indeed had been killed outright by sabers cuts;_
One has to imagine that the fear of being executed when captured if having a sharp saber was something that was very real, since they probably got captured quite a lot when smacking their enemies with weapons that tended to horribly disfigure enemies, rather than outright kill them.....
British soldier in India
how did you use our sabres so efficiently
Indian soldier
we sharpened them
Possible that Calvert considered unsharpened swords in peace the norm in war.
In the french revolutionary wars the blades of prussian hussars were sharp and i would be very surprised if the grey scots ´´d blunt swords at waterloo
@@thodan467
Found some interesting quotes here:
sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/52075/sharp-swords
@@nehcrum
In my biography of Blücher, there is a brutal description how prussian hussars at the beginning or the wars of the french revolution cut extremities of in surprise attacks on the french soldiers
This is fascinating as a piece of history. As opposed to the Europeans who came over to teach saber exercises to our boys in our revolutionary war, this is an interesting perspective leading up to the 20th century, where George Patton critically taught his men to practice saber exercises.
Very interesting.
Sergeant Ewart at Waterloo showed what even a well-sharpened straight blade could do, cleaving through the skulls of 3 opponents in one fight.
I disagree with the idea of issuing paper-cutting sharp sabers (it becomes an issue when in transport, storage etc, although proper bevelling would be a nice improvement lol), however whetstones or even simple sharpening irons are so crucial it's baffling to me they ignored this issue
It was definitely a weird time in military history.
It may have been the last sword ever used significantly in war but it certainly wasn't a new one.
Horse the entire time: "OK so what're we doing?" \ __~__ /
did anyone have files? I have a replica sword, (a windlass 1840 nco sword), and I sharpened it with a file,, it didn't take very long, and windlass are REALLY blunt if you buy them unsharpened. The front of the blade is almost as thick as the spine, there is no edge. I bought a new file, and spent about an hour, and then it was ready to be finished up in a few minutes with a new file. (really to make it fast I needed 2 brand new files, but really it would have taken about twice that if I did the whole thing with an old file, but had some filing skills)
Files are very ineffective on hardened steel. Replicas and wall hangars are typically non hardened-non tempered soft steel.
Even if a pistol would would be more likely to be instantly fatal a large, deep cut from a saber will incapacitate & has a different psychological effect on those who witness it than pistols. Even in modern times many people are terrified of being cut by an attacker more than they fear being shot. Perhaps this is because people get cut but likely have been or seen anyone get shot. Regardless there was certainly a fear generated by men on horses charging with long, sharp swords!
Enjoyed the primary source history OVC. If practical can you comment how infantry would have used the sword or saber. LT
Describing the battle on Laurel Hill (Spotsylvania), Theodore Gerrish of the 20th Maine Infantry wrote "Our officers all fought like demons. The revolvers and swords, which up to that hour had never seen actual service, here received their baptism of blood." The 20th Maine was recruited in the summer of '62, so I guess the swords were unused for almost two years. Still, in a hand-to-hand brawl like Laurel Hill they must have been good to have. Gerrish says the infantrymen had no time to load their guns and so they used them as clubs or dropped them in favor of fists.
@@Beaguins Amazing, thanks pard for the recap - sounds like an all out close and personal brawl - no time to load. Sending you an invite to follow our group at facebook.com/1St.Minn.Sharpshooters. -- LT
The infantry didn't have swords or saber. The officers did, but the rank and file did not. They were simply too expensive and with no training it was far better to arm them with bayonets instead, which were cheaper, easier to use and quite effective in and of themselves.
@@nehcrum apologies, for not being more clear. I was referring to the swords issued to the Infantry 1st Sargent and Officers. The primary reason for my question was as I'm acting as 1st Sargent for one of my clubs an an infantry sword.
What about Nathan Bedford Forrest? He sharpened his sword.
hi uncle steven this is brooklyn and me and ella’s channel
Excellent video thank you. If you happen to look back at new comments on your old videos - can I ask, have you handled a French 1822 light cavarly sabre that the US one is based on? Quite different handling characteristics (as originals) you might be intetested to feel the difference, might add to the subject vis-a-vis sabre usage at the time. Always enjoy your videos 👍.
Where is this filmed? Fort Robinson? This has got to be out West.
Great video. You should make some wooden sabers to practice the skill.
You deserve a raise
Denied for saying calvary
The British (officers at least) were fantastic with military saber. Too bad they never caught on in America.
the tale of little round top and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, despite not being calvary, utilized his sword to great effect
👍👍👍
As a historical military saber fencer, this makes me very sad.
I do not dispute Whitaker's comment wholesale, but these are the observations of one man. I have read many other's from the Civil War who attested the opposite conclusions. In fact, all attestations of the Battle of Brandy Station in 1863 (the largest cavalry battle in the history of North America) state that the vast majority of cavalrymen fought each other with sabers and n'er heard a shot fired.
Nathan Bedford Forrest understood this, he kept his M1860 light sharp as he could get it the entirety of the war, he killed 31 in hand to hand combat as a General. Much respect
The Crazy Cat Gentleman no proof, bitch. It wasn’t him
@The Crazy Cat Gentleman you should really visit Ft. Pillow and get some real history from the rangers and read some of the documentation in the museum. Or just go on stating inaccurate information, free country right?
Did he or didnt he kill prisoners.?
He was definitely an intresting fighter..
@@jbearmcdougall1646 There is good evidence that Forrest did kill at least one prisoner. At Murfreesboro, a Union soldier set fire to the jail with Rebel prisoners still behind bars. The prisoners were rescued, the Yankee captured, and did not respond when the roll of Union prisoners was called. But, I note, the culprit did not surrender "at terms" so killing him would not have been unlawful.
@The Crazy Cat Gentleman perhaps, but it doesn't really matter in the context of sharpness of sabers
11th OVC. Have you read the account of the 4th Ohio's saber charge against the 8th Texas at Murfreesboro? Major Milliken's (sp?) greatest wish was to lead a saber charge. It was his last wish--literally.
Thanks. I've always been curious whether Hungarian officers who came over to serve as cavalry trainers did anything to teach troopers the use of the sabre in the process, as it was a weapon they of course knew very well. Got any idea where I might start to research that? TYIA.
11th OVC, it looks like you really opened a can of worms with this one!
Nah, it's mostly just one really annoying guy with a bit of an axe to grind.
(you really need to grind it, since the edge is so blunt)
Beaguins, no kidding! LOL. Good comments!
I picked up a gorgeous private purchase sabre blade very much along the 1796 pattern but with a slightly heftier blade and the hand guard of the 1821 sabres with the 3 bars in front . Its become my favorite out of the collection so far as cutting goes.
Im not by all means a ninja, but ive played with blades all my life and am quite good at cutting in general and il back up that guy in saying i could very easily cut a man in half with a medium to strong swing, arms and legs would offer zero resistance. Its quite an effective means to dispatch another man.
Great video man, thank you
Oh my god. We were the Tau of the cavalry world
One wonders if the officers have no training and therefore not confidence in the use of a saber it is because with the quick growth of the US Army at the start of the war they were men who had no formal military training. Where did these officers come from, just civilians that joined the military. Learning the trade of war as they went. Handguns and rifles being more familiar than swords, therefore more useful. The British until the Napoleonic era had no formal training for swords either and were outclassed with them by the french. Then they came up with a training manual and got better. I wonder if you can even find a saber use manual for combat and training for the US Army?
One big differance between Northern and Southern Calvary is the South Sharpened their Sabers and Yankees didn't. A Dull Saber is useless.
Thanks for another great video. Def a needed reprieve right about now!
Late in the Civil War the cavalry had no use for sabers other than in parade. The pistol was the preferred weapon.
That really is disappointing, tho gives hope for putting on a serious edge if itll drop an elephant or rhino
I own a saber dated 1864 and I can attest that it’s never had an edge.
My patt 1840 has never been sharpened
Where is Saber Combat: Part 2 ?
Find this surprising. I mean you had six shots in your pistol. Why would you charge with so limited tools? But then Civil war cavalry were really just mounted infantry by all accounts
Many Confederate horsemen carried multiple pistols, on their person and on the horse.
It is typically to think of charges from cavalry as these magnificent, high speed, well dressed lines type of affairs. The truth is that this seldom happened. It was much more common for cavalry to either fight dismounted, using superior speed to set up and disperse quickly....or use superior mobility to find a weak flank or rear....and then ride into it trampling and shooting to start a panic.
Think less about titanic masses clashing and more about quick, mobile but large scale raids.
It was best to hit an opponent who was in a weak position quickly and move out of the way. Essentially, if the opposing line had time to fire more than a shot or 2 while you were charging, your charge was greatly diminished!
Also don't forget that the horse in a charge is a weapon as well....getting knocked down and trampled will kill you just as dead as a saber thrust!
LoL 😅
The way you said...
If a force of : American (light) Cavalry, which you admitted fulfilled the role of scouts, skirmishers and mounted infantry. And a force of: French Cuirassiers, heavy cavalry that tactically fulfilled the role of shock troops and could (and had) decisively win large scale battles by charging forward after an artillery barrage, braking enemy lines and turning enemy flanks.
Meet on a so called "even playing field..." the American cavalry would unfortunately lose...
Honestly made me laugh because It's almost like you were gently braking this fact to an audience that never before heard of any kind of American military weakness...
What makes it even more hilarious is that what you said is kinda like the military equivalent of saying.
"If a pack mule and a thoroughbred racehorse meet to race on an "even played field" the pack mule would probably lose...
Shocking I know... LoL 😂
I have a sabre that I want to get sharpened or sharpen myself, but I want to do it right. Do you know of any sources to learn from on this?
Would recommend you find a swordsmith to put the initial edge on.
@@mrspeigle1 That's what I was thinking, I've decided not to do it myself. I just don't know where to find a swordsmith.
@@Tariko yeah unfortunately most of the guys out there nowadays are hobbyists or are ridiculously expensive Boutique workers will charge thousands of dollars just to look at your project. My recommendation would be to put Google to work and look for reputable sword and knife guys but do so with the understanding that you may need to replace your blade if whoever does it screws up. I know there are also professionals out there who do kitchen knife sharpening and since a lot of the principles are the same one of them might be willing to accommodate you.
@@Tariko at the risk of spamming I can tell you a professional sharpener is going to charge you a 1.25 to $2.50 per inch of blade assuming they're willing to step out of their kitchen knife comfort zone.
@@mrspeigle1 Hmm, yeahhh that's about the same conclusion I had come to as well. Thank you for the advice
A Sabre doesn't cut? What?
If its blunter than a butter knife
The real problem is that Americans don't know what cavalry is. Which is amply evidenced by the "effective US cavalry" being most effective when in a dismounted skirmish line.
That's not cavalry. That's dragoons. Mounted infantry.
And yes, European cavalry would have lost a gunnery duel with US dragoons, because European cavalry didn't do dismounted combat, they fought mounted because that's what defines cavalry.
This also explains why USA today has armored cavalry and air cav. Which have no horses and fought on foot. Like infantry do, and which is what defines infantry.
In reality, US cavalry was always closer to dragoons than to classic European-style cavalry. I'm not sure the reasons for that. Perhaps it was that for most of their existence, their principal opponents were Native Americans against whom a cavalry charge would have served no purpose. Some units certainly did learn to use a cavalry charge effectively during the Civil War but that was a very small part of the total experience of US mounted forces.
There is something to be said for flexibility, though, and the US cavalry was very flexible. I'm currently reading Col. James Harvey Kidd's memoir (6th Michigan Cavalry), and he says that Custer's Michigan Brigade had three sabre regiments and two regiments armed with Spencer carbines, yet there were times when all five regiments fought mounted (like Tom's Brook, Winchester, Cedar Creek) and times when all five regiments fought on foot (like in the Wilderness). It's inaccurate to say US cavalrymen were mounted infantry when they fought so effectively on horseback.
Some of the most famous cavalry fighting in the Civil War was in the Gettysburg campaign, and if you only look at Buford's cavalry on July 1, you can get the impression that it was a dismounted affair. Col. Kidd describes the fighting in the days before and after Gettysburg, and it turns out there was plenty of mounted action.
Dragoons also existed in Europe. And they fought on horse and on foot
@@le7decav Yes, dragoons existed in Europe. They were called dragoons. The difference is that Europe had BOTH dragoons and cavalry and they differentiated between the two.
@@le7decav Yes, but they also had traditional cavalry who weren't expected to fight dismounted. In the US, regardless of what they were called mounted troops did a lot of dismounted action. In relative terms the US army was quite small so flexibility may have been a more significant factor in military planning.
Wow, even back then the big hats did not pay attention to anything that the soldiers were saying. They just kept on throwing money at the problem until it eventually worked
European cavalry with all their experience..would win in a head on..
A fight between a European power and 🇺🇸 in 1870's warfare would have be intresting..
I mean that's the point of the video, innit? French curaissiers or British hussars could absolutely wipe the floor in a charge, but they don't nearly have the same flexibility in skirmishing, raiding, and reconnaissance. The US was always enamored with the Dragoon style of cavalry doctrine even from the Revolution, and given the wide variety of terrain that campaigns took place in (dense woods, bayous, mountains, even deserts) it made sense to use such approach.
Well presented, except for the times he says "cow-valry," but the picture it creates is amusing.
Just like the phase goes. blame the user, not the tool.
I dont understand this, the saber is so easy to learn! Maybe my years of training made it easy for me but dang bro, saber is way easy!
Shooting is easier.
Keep in mind that more of these men grew up shooting, if they had any weapon training at all. Additionally, many in the northern armies especially hadn't grown up riding and hunting.....so they had alot of skills to learn in a very short time.
The union army especially had to propritize with the rapid influx of untrained horses and men, I imagine training the troopers to ride and horses to be ridden came first, followed by unit cohesion then weapons training. The quickest weapon to become proficient with at the time would have been firearms in my opinion.....especially as it wasn't deemed necessary to become a marksman! A sword, knife, spear, etc is always a more pinpoint style weapon that needs strength and agility whereas virtually anyone can pull a trigger.
Studying the ACW is a waste of Time
Generalfieldmarshall Helmuth von Moltke
Chief of Staff Prussian Army
What he describes Trencks pandours did with the army of Frederik II of Prussia in the 7 Years war
Marching around Impressive
Try to move through enemy corps
Wow, interesting point Helmuth...
Tell me, how did your nephew Moltke the Younger march through the French in the First Battle of the Marne using what you taught him?
What's that? He lost? Bummer. Maybe if he brushed up on other wars that were taking place around the world instead of laser focusing on Frederick the Great and his dear old uncle, he might have switched up the playbook enough to catch the French off guard. Oh well. At least his mistakes didn't lose his country the war...
@@SirCheezersIII
you do not march through french like other forces
Ironic, as the saber was used to great effect by the US less than 20 years ago in the Mexican war.
Union army was mostly poorly trained conscripts.
Very true!!!
But it was used by a relatively smaller, and more highly trained soldiery.
While I have no doubt that a lot of this is true (American settlers were never great adopters of sword fighting) this narrative has a distinct odor that you get from a lot of nineteenth century "advocacy" publications. The cited author Captain Nolan was no doubt seeking to introduce pro-sabre training reforms into the army, and we can expect that writing and publishing this book was also a career move: he was establishing himself as a professional expert in the field. Both motivations should make us treat claims like "federals never sharpened their sabres" with a very big grain of salt.
Excellent point! Somewhat like today's security professionals teaching self defense classes.....
I hadn't thought of this!!
i heard the south was better swordsmen then the northerners during the start of the war
A dull saber makes me sad.
Col. Mosby forbad his men to carry a saber
I'd like to ask after your source on this one, though I know it's quite a while on from the comment.
I know of no such standing order, though I do beleive he forbade them On a raid though part of maryland..... I cannot remember where I wpudl have gotten this from, though
I think americans were right to use revolvers instead of swords...
After the cartridge revolver was invented how long were swords used in combat....
Do you see dudes rocking swords or pistols today...
Um I'm sorry but you saying calvary over and over is driving me nuts. It's CAVALRY
Pawn Stars does it also. Rick and Corey. Experts my ass
horse isnt having fun
Sorry, but I had to stop after a few minutes. I wouldn't trust a baker's expert knowledge if he kept calling bread "beard", and it is the same with you calling cavalry "calvary". In fact it's arguably worse, because at least the baker might have a literacy problem and still be good at baking because you can learn that from watching others do it. But if you speak of a historical subject, as you do here, your knowledge must necessarily come from books, and so not even knowing the correct name of the subject you're talking about is even more of a warning sign.
If you have a gun, use a gun. YW.
Begin saber is USA or Sweden or Russia or Italy or another.