In movies and other media, I occasionally see people using swords that mostly seem to resemble fencing sabres. They'll have the characteristic large bell guards that sweep down in a knuckle bow, and slender blades for thrusting, like a smallsword or light rapier.
I'm just curious, are there any real life examples of weapons like these? I don't think I've ever seen a historical example.[/i]
Hi!
Did you mean something like this?
http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/cavalry%20sword%201.JPG
1912 pattern british cavalry sword
I have found the photo on this site:
http://www.militaryheritage.com/swords2.htm
Cheers!
[ Linked Image ]
Did you mean something like this?
http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/cavalry%20sword%201.JPG
1912 pattern british cavalry sword
I have found the photo on this site:
http://www.militaryheritage.com/swords2.htm
Cheers!
[ Linked Image ]
Seeing as the fencing sabre was originally a practice version of a duelling sabre, yes, there definately was a real variation. The actual modern fencing hilt, however, is designed for the sport usage, even if the general shape is based on the real thing. If you're referring to some of the old Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone movies using them, they sometimes just used a modern fencing hilt because it was "good enough" for their level of authenticity. (which of course is to say, they didn't have high standards for authenticity)
| Marton Pap wrote: |
| Hi!
Did you mean something like this? http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/cavalry%20sword%201.JPG 1912 pattern british cavalry sword |
Something like that, yes. Thank you. :)
That's a cavalry sword, though? It looks very light for a military weapon. :wtf:
| Bill Grandy wrote: |
| Seeing as the fencing sabre was originally a practice version of a duelling sabre, yes, there definately was a real variation. The actual modern fencing hilt, however, is designed for the sport usage, even if the general shape is based on the real thing. If you're referring to some of the old Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone movies using them, they sometimes just used a modern fencing hilt because it was "good enough" for their level of authenticity. (which of course is to say, they didn't have high standards for authenticity) |
I've seen them in more modern productions as well, actually. Don Juan de Marco had them, and Anthony De Longis used one in the Jet Li movie Fearless. Though it's true they were more common in the classics. [/i]
The sword Delongis used in "Fearless" was a US Model 1913 Cavalry Sword, aka the "Patton saber" (so named because it was designed by Patton when he was a lieutenant in the Army). Here is some more discussion of the sword used in that movie: "Fearless" Sword.
Pic of a repro of the M1913:
[ Linked Image ]
The narrow thrusting blade with bowl-like guard became popular for cavalry swords during the twilight years of the sword as a battlefield weapon.
Here are some Spanish cavalry troopers' swords.
Best,
Jonathan
Pic of a repro of the M1913:
[ Linked Image ]
The narrow thrusting blade with bowl-like guard became popular for cavalry swords during the twilight years of the sword as a battlefield weapon.
Here are some Spanish cavalry troopers' swords.
Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan, that's some awesome info. Very interesting! Thanks for the help. :)
| Anders Backlund wrote: |
| That's a cavalry sword, though? It looks very light for a military weapon. :wtf: |
Well, that's because it was intended as a thrusting sword--the proponents of the thrust won out in the argument between cutting and thrusting swords that took up much of the 19th century and spilled over into the early 20th century. Many of the world's cavalry outfits switched to such light thrusting swords as a result of this debate. Try looking at this page for the techniques involved:
http://www.pattonhq.com/saber.html
Of course, in spite of the thrust-oriented instructor's wishes, the cavalrymen who actually got to use this sword (primarily Australian and/or New Zealand(?) Light Horse units) in World War I seemed to have wielded them as cut-and-thrust weapons instead.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | ||
Well, that's because it was intended as a thrusting sword--the proponents of the thrust won out in the argument between cutting and thrusting swords that took up much of the 19th century and spilled over into the early 20th century. Many of the world's cavalry outfits switched to such light thrusting swords as a result of this debate. Try looking at this page for the techniques involved: http://www.pattonhq.com/saber.html Of course, in spite of the thrust-oriented instructor's wishes, the cavalrymen who actually got to use this sword (primarily Australian and/or New Zealand(?) Light Horse units) in World War I seemed to have wielded them as cut-and-thrust weapons instead. |
Maybe I should look it up in my old OLD 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica as I vaguely remember looking up under
" SWORDS " and reading a long debate about point versus edge the main arguments being that the point was more lethal and the rebuttal that the point deeply in the target ( opposing horseman ) would be hard to withdraw leading to the loss of the swords and/or injury to the sword arm if one held on. The cut or slash with a curved sabre avoiding these problems.
Then the argument over lethality versus stopping power of edge versus point seemed to be unending. :lol:
I don't think the argument was ever really settled but the thrust school of thought seems to have dominated at the point where it became obsolete to charge on horseback with a sword. :p :lol:
Oh, and then one could argue the lance versus the sword as a better thrusting weapon: Reach etc ......
Yeah. It was quite a circular debate, and often degenerated into things that might seem like silly bickering by our standard. But it's entertaining to read nonetheless. I myself wouldn't trust any sword that can't do well in both the cut and the thrust! ;)
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| Yeah. It was quite a circular debate, and often degenerated into things that might seem like silly bickering by our standard. But it's entertaining to read nonetheless. I myself wouldn't trust any sword that can't do well in both the cut and the thrust! ;) |
Yes very much like a Topic thread when it goes sour on some website Forums ( Not very often here, fortunately ).
I wouldn't be surprised if the " period " masters had similar arguments among different fencing schools of though: I think the surviving traditions are only a thin remnant of a much more extensive number of fighting styles that may not always have agreed with each other.
If we are lucky, what has survived and is being studied now. are fundamental basics that were universal and the arguments would have been more with peripheral details.
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
| Yeah. It was quite a circular debate, and often degenerated into things that might seem like silly bickering by our standard. |
Don't take this wrong, but I find it hilariously ironic to read a statement like that on an internet message board. :p
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: |
|
I wouldn't be surprised if the " period " masters had similar arguments among different fencing schools of though: I think the surviving traditions are only a thin remnant of a much more extensive number of fighting styles that may not always have agreed with each other. |
Fighting over who has the best way of fighting? ;)
Page 1 of 1
You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
All contents © Copyright 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum