why did sabers, cutlasses, etc. supersede straight bladed weapon in the later eras?

i'm sure you could write a book about the topic, but i'm looking for a short, simple and general answer.
thank you.

Let's establish that I am in no way an expert on this subject,but here's a reason.Thinking about this logically,the "later eras" (1750-1900?) seen a steady decline and eventual demise of swords for combat as guns became evermore efficient.One of the last stands of the sword in warfare was in the calvary.It was MUCH easier to acquire the needed momentum for an effective blow from horseback with a curved blade than a straight one.Throughout history,you'll often see that groups who were skilled in horseback engagements(the Arabs,for example) usaully used curved blades,while skilled footsoldiers(such as the Scotts) would most often use a straight blade.Another reason possibly could have to do with the fact that a sword with a curved blade served more usefullness as a tool .I know I didn't deal with the question completely,but I'm only half awake anyways :lol: ;) Hope this gives you a small scrap of insight. :D

In short, curved blades are great for cutting soft targets. This is mainly because the curve makes them slide through the wound. They are also less likely to snag when performing draw cuts.
On the down side, you need a better angle to strike past the opponents block, and it will slide of hard armour.

However, ANY kind of sword swung with intent will kill a unarmoured man with little difficulty. Which is why there are so many different varieties.

Um...the Pattern 1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword? It was straight and of quite a late provenance. Not to mention that it also had a long heritage stretching through a succession of straight Austrian heavy cavalry swords right to the Walloons and Pappenheimers of the 17th century.

As has already been stated thoroughly already, straight blades never disappeared and are still in use today.
But neither did curved ones. Rather the question should be, why did we stop using swords in war? And the answer is pretty obvious... We didn't. Short swords like tactical wakisashi and O-tantos are being used by some US troops in Irak and Afghanistan today, because iraqi insurgents resort to trying to rush them with blades at times. Not the big swords of old, but still pretty decent cutters with some authority.

The eternal question, is a curved blade a better cutter or not isn't as simple as most think. And does it have to be a better cutter to be a good hand weapon, could it have other desirable or practical qualities?
For one, we see today that sharpness of the blade is what makes a katana cut a tatami well, and also what makes a straight Jian or europeean straight sword cut well, possibly just as well even. Slow motion photography prove that neither blade need to draw to cut properly, nor does a curved blade naturally tend to draw due to it's shape as many believe. Look at James Williams videos with both japanese and europeean blades. Where's the difference?
In gory detail, the curved blade will be easier to dislodge from a dispatched opponents cranium after a cut when riding past on horseback, possibly the curve of a saber also makes it easier and safer to retrieve the blade after a thrust from horseback. Backswords also tend to be easier to learn how to use safely for cutting, and I expect for combat because it's less risk of cutting oneself and you can rest it on an unarmored shoulder without risking injury. Curved blades tend to have surprising thrusting angles also, curving around a guard and still plenty of force.
Also, my personal theory of how a curved blade helps with cutting is because it has a smaller contact area for the force to work into the surface it cuts. So not so much better cutting as more efficiency of the force applied. Or perhaps that is indeed a better cutting ability after all, depends on how you look at it. Other blade shapes may lend themselves to this also, like the flamberge, modern serrated blades. Then there's the saw toothed Tulwars that are both curved and serrated possibly maximizing this to the extreme -if it actually works.

Cutless' were primarily designed for shipboard combat where armour in minimal but so was space. the curved heavy blade allowed quite good cuts with less swing and less chance of getting tangled up in rigging, woodwork and unintended targets (your people). There were still issued to boarding parties in the Second World War and a re sometimes seen on the hips of senior naval NCO's on parade.

Straight blades were never really superseded by curved blades, they just lost prominance was the common soldier switched to a short pike that went BANG (sometimes).

Plenty of tests have demonstrated that curved blades aren't any better at cutting than straight ones. Their benefit seems to come from improved manoeuverability in tight situations such as on a ship or when mounted on a horse.

There is a great article, I think on the Sword Forum Int. site, which compared the use of latter day curved and straight cavalry swords, where the first was used more for slashing and the second for stabbing, somewhat like a lance. From what I recall, the general conclusion was that, although the curved blade/slash often produced nasty surface wounds that bled a lot, the straight blade/stab was more likely to produce fatal wounds by damaging important organs and deep arteries. Overall, this analysis suggested that the type of sword used depended on the style of fighting advocated by a particular type of cavalry.

What was missing from the comparison is the heavy chopping and hacking one assumes was more common with earlier two-edged European war-swords - maybe this is what really went out of style.

Many cutlass types were quite straight. Many land forces continued to field both straight and curved blades through WWI and into WWII. Patton took one from column A and one from Column B when "designing" what was approved by the U.S. Ordnance in response to European trends dating back some decades to make straight swords the universal fit (and their continuing to field curved blades along with them). U.S. adoption of trends and specific model types during the nineteenth century were generally a couple of decades late in widely using them. the U.S. went backwards in the 20th century to re-issue their mid 19th century sabre (there really was no 1860 but there was a 1906 designation). The Poles carried their 1934 curved blades into the beginning of WWII, with other countries also actually carrying curved swords with mounted troops. Nickel plated Patton swords were being carried and trained with in Peking by the U.S. Horse Marines until displaced by WWII brewing.

The truths, misconceptions, myths and disinformation can easily fill large volumes of text.

Didn't some European hussar troopers simultaneously field both poky straight lance substitutes for the massed charge and curved swords for melee? Oh ya, French lancers with armour used into WWI as well

Cheers

GC

---

 Attachment: 38.99 KB

Peking Horse Marines

 Attachment: 76.05 KB



 Attachment: 106.47 KB

The chicken and the egg discussion illustrated

There are also some excellent articles on the P1796 LC swords (and photos) available at www.swordsandpistols.co.uk

Another pair of thought from the late 1780s but patterns that went back a quarter century or more before that. Edit to add that some may note a trend in my own collecting and the thoughts of thrust vs cut over the decades and centuries :lol:

Cheers

GC

---

 Attachment: 72.25 KB

Two British pattern infantry types. One straight, one curved.

Move forward again to the 19th century and we have here a pair from American use of quite similar proportion and purpose.

---

 Attachment: 123.4 KB

Berger sabre and Spies (New York, see Wolfe) retail spadroon both common patterns but of Solingen and Austrian make

As stated they didn’t, but they did ‘come back into fashion’ over how much usage curved blades had been in use a few hundred years earlier. I think your better question is why did Europe eventually adopt a curved sword after so many years of using mostly strait blades?

My opinion is definitely armor. Europe was fond of very heavy armor, when compared with what the rest of the world was using, cutting chain mail is pretty useless, and cutting plate armor is even more futile. By the time Europe moved to adopt the Sabre they had dropped the heavy armor, which makes cutting from horseback a much more viable option. The foot soldiers would adopt a blade that fit their style of fighting, but some preferred a more curvy (sometimes shorter) blade for use in close quarters of a tight fight.

Here’s the article on infantry swords - http://swordforum.com/articles/ams/1776-1815britishinfantry.php

Why did they come in fashion for officers to use when directing the troops, because they just look cool.