Dull cavalry swords make sense. An ultra sharp blade would be hazardous to the cavalryman and the horse. It would also be more to "stick" in a body, tree, or some other object during a slash. Most US and European Calvary swords from the 1700's and 1800's were curved so it was easier to pull out of a body during a stabbing thrust while moving. Basically it was bludgeoning and stabbing weapon. Great weapon when your on horseback, probably not the best on foot compared to a samurai sword or some medieval swords.
Question on Saber tactics
- Thread starter Doug.38PR
- Start date
Dull sword
By the way I think a dull sword is almost as bad as a broken arrow? (nuke troops will know what I mean) I just got a Japanese cavalry troopers sword at a flea market and it is not sharpened. Have two CW swords, and they are maybe sharp on the tips. Family heirloom CW cav. sabre is not very sharp but has known combat history. My old Westpoint type dress sabre is definitely not sharp. Recently bought and sold a Jap. NCO traditional style capture sword and it was not really sharp edged. Only swords I have that are really sharp are replicas, and they scare me. Fraid I will get sloppy and hurt myself! Evil gnomes stay out of my swinging range!
By the way I think a dull sword is almost as bad as a broken arrow? (nuke troops will know what I mean) I just got a Japanese cavalry troopers sword at a flea market and it is not sharpened. Have two CW swords, and they are maybe sharp on the tips. Family heirloom CW cav. sabre is not very sharp but has known combat history. My old Westpoint type dress sabre is definitely not sharp. Recently bought and sold a Jap. NCO traditional style capture sword and it was not really sharp edged. Only swords I have that are really sharp are replicas, and they scare me. Fraid I will get sloppy and hurt myself! Evil gnomes stay out of my swinging range!
Jack Malloy
New member
>>>I was watching the History Channel a while back while they were doing a special on the Sword and Axe. Demonstrated various techniques used in the middle ages with the sword.<<<
That featured John Clements of ARMA (which used to be HACA the Historical Armed Combat Assciation) and he was doing demos of attacks and blocks with a Del Tin longsword.
"Broadsword" and saber techniques are greatly different than fencing foil techniques. Most old movies used fencing foil techniques which is even goofier than having Arnold whip around a broadsword in Kendo moves.
You can look at reprints of old fighting manuals like Silver and see that some of the basic broadsword stances are very similar to kendo stances as they were cutting moves.
The sword lasted as long as it did in the US Army primarily because of George Patton who was technically the last Master of the Sword so merited by the US Military.
However, in other parts of the world it did go on longer, in part due to the fact that they had cultural associations (Arabia and Japan) that our culture had lost.
Also notice that a good quality handgun was not as easy to come across in those areas till after WWII. The handgun ultimately takes the tactical place of the sword. Its a sidearm and it was the cavalryman's tool.
Also notice that in recent years the sword has made a comeback. Dawson Knives sold quite a few tactical Wakisashi short swords during the first gulf war as many a trooper realized that it made a good close quarters combat weapon.
That featured John Clements of ARMA (which used to be HACA the Historical Armed Combat Assciation) and he was doing demos of attacks and blocks with a Del Tin longsword.
"Broadsword" and saber techniques are greatly different than fencing foil techniques. Most old movies used fencing foil techniques which is even goofier than having Arnold whip around a broadsword in Kendo moves.
You can look at reprints of old fighting manuals like Silver and see that some of the basic broadsword stances are very similar to kendo stances as they were cutting moves.
The sword lasted as long as it did in the US Army primarily because of George Patton who was technically the last Master of the Sword so merited by the US Military.
However, in other parts of the world it did go on longer, in part due to the fact that they had cultural associations (Arabia and Japan) that our culture had lost.
Also notice that a good quality handgun was not as easy to come across in those areas till after WWII. The handgun ultimately takes the tactical place of the sword. Its a sidearm and it was the cavalryman's tool.
Also notice that in recent years the sword has made a comeback. Dawson Knives sold quite a few tactical Wakisashi short swords during the first gulf war as many a trooper realized that it made a good close quarters combat weapon.
Hunter Rose
New member
>Also notice that in recent years the sword has made a comeback. Dawson Knives sold quite a few tactical Wakisashi short swords during the first gulf war as many a trooper realized that it made a good close quarters combat weapon.<
IIRC, the way I heard it was "We're expecting close combat. I don't want a lil' knife, I wanna be able to take the (deleted explitve)'s head off!"
IIRC, the way I heard it was "We're expecting close combat. I don't want a lil' knife, I wanna be able to take the (deleted explitve)'s head off!"
Hunter Rose
New member
Just remember Sulaco: it's rob the sheep, rape the land and pillage the women. No wait...
CobrayCommando
Moderator
I also remember reading that the Celts were at a severe disadvantage for the same reason. Upon hitting a shield the swords would bend and become useless. And to add to that the tactics they used were absolutely wrong for use against the Romans.
got ya doug...I took Aikido and Fencing in College. The majority of the fencing class was foil fencing but I WAS tall and thin and my fencing teacher begged me to join the team for saber fencing. It was my senior year and after meeting some of the guys and seeing all the bruises on those guys, I passed on the offer.
Its just a calvery saber is not a fencing saber. Sharp sabers on foot is a good thing. Dull sabers on horseback is a good thing. Visa versa is bad.
Ohh and one thing 2000 years of roman combat taught us...stabbing is easier then slashing, but I still like slashing.
I took fencing in college, too, and believe it or not, the instructor's name was Pierce. That was at West Virginia University in 1968. I also got to use the schools rifle range during ROTC using .22 Springfield bolt actions.
I'm not sure that having a dull sword while on horseback for safety reasons is logical. If that were so, then what about guns?
I think a lot of the controversy about swords in the military back then came from the fact that swords were commonly worn with civilian dress, at least by certain classes. They were taught by civilian fencing masters to be able to fight other civilians armed the same way, first with rapiers, then with smallswords, which are pretty much just small rapiers. They weren't intended for military combat exactly, even though they were usually carried into combat by officers. Indeed, the US Army NCO sword of around 1840 is a smallsword and not such a bad sword as such but I'm not sure it would stand up to an attack by a soldier armed with a saber of the period, dull or sharp.
Another thing is that a stabbing sword like the NCO sword won't cut worth anything because there is not enough weight in the blade. Yet the blade needs to be as sharp as it can be just so the blade cannot be grabbed by the opponent without danger of losing fingers in the process. By the way, I think slashing is easier than stabbing, even if stabbing works better.
Lest you think this is all pointless because nobody gets into a swordfight anymore (and very few of us in gunfights, for that matter), the emergency room at the local hospital will let you know that knife wounds are still common, unless you live in a nice peaceful town where nobody needs a gun.
I'm not sure that having a dull sword while on horseback for safety reasons is logical. If that were so, then what about guns?
I think a lot of the controversy about swords in the military back then came from the fact that swords were commonly worn with civilian dress, at least by certain classes. They were taught by civilian fencing masters to be able to fight other civilians armed the same way, first with rapiers, then with smallswords, which are pretty much just small rapiers. They weren't intended for military combat exactly, even though they were usually carried into combat by officers. Indeed, the US Army NCO sword of around 1840 is a smallsword and not such a bad sword as such but I'm not sure it would stand up to an attack by a soldier armed with a saber of the period, dull or sharp.
Another thing is that a stabbing sword like the NCO sword won't cut worth anything because there is not enough weight in the blade. Yet the blade needs to be as sharp as it can be just so the blade cannot be grabbed by the opponent without danger of losing fingers in the process. By the way, I think slashing is easier than stabbing, even if stabbing works better.
Lest you think this is all pointless because nobody gets into a swordfight anymore (and very few of us in gunfights, for that matter), the emergency room at the local hospital will let you know that knife wounds are still common, unless you live in a nice peaceful town where nobody needs a gun.
Jack Malloy
New member
I took fencing at the University of Kentucky back in the 80s under Dr. Risk, the last of the old school swashbucklers.
He was truly a great guy and the embodiment of a chivalrous man.
I once showed up to class with a broadsword after a smart alecky student was going on and on and on about how the epee and rapier were the ultimate swords.
Dr. Risk pointed out that he had better thrust fast before he got decapitated or cut in half like the dead warriors at the Battle of Wisby.
He was truly a great guy and the embodiment of a chivalrous man.
I once showed up to class with a broadsword after a smart alecky student was going on and on and on about how the epee and rapier were the ultimate swords.
Dr. Risk pointed out that he had better thrust fast before he got decapitated or cut in half like the dead warriors at the Battle of Wisby.
the possum
New member
Sorry I missed this thread earlier; I share an interest, no, make that a passion, with big blades.
I must disagree with any notion that swords were left dull to make them more effective weapons. Doubtless many were carried during wartime with a rebated edge, but I am more inclined to believe this is because the sword was not really used as much as a weapon. There is even record of one armory somewhere in Europe that sharpened swords before they were issued for combat, and then dulled them again for storage once hostilities concluded. I have seen a compelling case made that the swords were left dull by the manufacturer to save on costs and reduce danger in shipping and storage/handling, and that the troops were supposed to sharpen them themselves. It's just that many never did get sharpened.
Now aside from any historical contention, a dull sword just doesn't make sense. The kinds of swords we're discussing here simply were not designed to be blunt trauma weapons. If smashing bone was the goal, a crowbar would have been more effective and a lot cheaper at the same time. Swords are made to cut, and a sharp edge allows them to do this. Even if a blunt sword can still do damage with a good blow, it would have been even better with a sharp edge. Think about in combat if you didn't get time to rear back with a full powered blow, or if the enemy managed to partially block or redirect the swing. Now, that sharp edge would literally mean the difference between an instantly disabling wound, versus NO damage whatsoever. I hunt critters with what could be called a short sword, and a sharp edge is paramount to effectiveness. I sure wouldn't want to be handicapped in a situation where there's so much more at stake.
I must disagree with any notion that swords were left dull to make them more effective weapons. Doubtless many were carried during wartime with a rebated edge, but I am more inclined to believe this is because the sword was not really used as much as a weapon. There is even record of one armory somewhere in Europe that sharpened swords before they were issued for combat, and then dulled them again for storage once hostilities concluded. I have seen a compelling case made that the swords were left dull by the manufacturer to save on costs and reduce danger in shipping and storage/handling, and that the troops were supposed to sharpen them themselves. It's just that many never did get sharpened.
Now aside from any historical contention, a dull sword just doesn't make sense. The kinds of swords we're discussing here simply were not designed to be blunt trauma weapons. If smashing bone was the goal, a crowbar would have been more effective and a lot cheaper at the same time. Swords are made to cut, and a sharp edge allows them to do this. Even if a blunt sword can still do damage with a good blow, it would have been even better with a sharp edge. Think about in combat if you didn't get time to rear back with a full powered blow, or if the enemy managed to partially block or redirect the swing. Now, that sharp edge would literally mean the difference between an instantly disabling wound, versus NO damage whatsoever. I hunt critters with what could be called a short sword, and a sharp edge is paramount to effectiveness. I sure wouldn't want to be handicapped in a situation where there's so much more at stake.
Swords are out of my area of expertise. However, did attend a civil war re-enactment lecture in which the guys playing soldiers brought up the fact that only the last few inches of the saber were sharpened.
I believe he mentioned the "sweet spot" on the saber which would cut a man in two when swung from the back of a horse...on foot the thrust was more effective.
I believe he mentioned the "sweet spot" on the saber which would cut a man in two when swung from the back of a horse...on foot the thrust was more effective.
the possum
New member
The last third to half of the blade is generally the most used part for cutting, so it would be the most important section to keep in good sharp condition, but I still would not want the base of the blade left intentionally blunt. The base would be used more for blocking and parrying since you have the most leverage there, so it would make sense to sharpen it at a steeper angle to take more abuse, but still not necessarily dull. (I have read that the base may have been reinforced or in some cases left dull with double edged swords in medieval times for certain techniques, but that is beyond the scope of this thread.) With a blade designed purely for thrusting, especially a shorter blade like a dagger, you'd still want the base sharp since this is the area that will open up the wound when levered around after the blade has been plunged in to the hilt.
Cut vs. thrust? Again, that's a debate that's probably beyond the scope of this thread, due to all the different techniques and scenarios possible. However, I will say that in terms of pure destructive potential, the cut is far more devastating than the thrust, assuming you have a good cutting sword. A relatively small hole/slit in the torso simply will not stop an organism as quickly as cutting it nearly in half. A slit in the arm is not as effective as removing the arm entirely.
Cut vs. thrust? Again, that's a debate that's probably beyond the scope of this thread, due to all the different techniques and scenarios possible. However, I will say that in terms of pure destructive potential, the cut is far more devastating than the thrust, assuming you have a good cutting sword. A relatively small hole/slit in the torso simply will not stop an organism as quickly as cutting it nearly in half. A slit in the arm is not as effective as removing the arm entirely.
Jack Malloy
New member
A dull sword cuts for the same reason a dull machete cuts.
Physics.
The force of the blow is concentrated along the narrow line of the edge of the blade.
I have cut animal carcasses, as well as other mediums enough to know that yeah, you can injure or kill somebody with a rebated edge if you know what you are doing.
Remember, in feudal Japan, Myamoto Musashi once killed a man with a wooden sword during a duel. I kinda doubt it was sharp.
A sharp sword is far more lethal. You can take a major limb off with one good swoop if you are good and you don't torque your blade by striking off center. More than likely you can take a head off with one blow of a sharp sword, providing you are trained in test cutting. (It takes more than just a sharp edge, by the way).
But we do know civil war era swords were made and delivered dull. That's in enough contracts from the makers.
Its common enough of a fact that the handful of generals (such as one of the rebels) who carried sharpened swords, were commented upon.
Physics.
The force of the blow is concentrated along the narrow line of the edge of the blade.
I have cut animal carcasses, as well as other mediums enough to know that yeah, you can injure or kill somebody with a rebated edge if you know what you are doing.
Remember, in feudal Japan, Myamoto Musashi once killed a man with a wooden sword during a duel. I kinda doubt it was sharp.
A sharp sword is far more lethal. You can take a major limb off with one good swoop if you are good and you don't torque your blade by striking off center. More than likely you can take a head off with one blow of a sharp sword, providing you are trained in test cutting. (It takes more than just a sharp edge, by the way).
But we do know civil war era swords were made and delivered dull. That's in enough contracts from the makers.
Its common enough of a fact that the handful of generals (such as one of the rebels) who carried sharpened swords, were commented upon.
the possum
New member
Yeah, I know, but....
This is what I was getting at.
Sounds like we're pretty much in agreement.
Well yeah, I'd certainly hope so. Even my big bowie knife (which could be called a short sword) can take a deer's head off in one clean swipe. I should hope a good cutting sword can do even more damage.
Agreed. The part I would disagree with, is that they were supposed to remain dull for combat use.