[Helge B.]

The debate if a curved or straight sword makes the better cavalry weapon is pretty old. The more I read about it the more I get confused.

Le Marchant (the inventor of the famous 1796 Pattern LC sabre) states that in the melee a curved sword works better and in the initial charge its the quality of the horse which matters. Patton on the other hand favored a purely thrusting sword. In his view a sword which is sufficiently curved to offer a cutting advantage is useless in thrusting. Anything in the middle would not do any good in both usages. In an article from ARMA (http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/GTA/motions_and_impacts3.htm) the author says that the cutting advantage on a realistic target is only minor.

Since my approach to this topic is purely theoretical I would like to know what you think about this.

I would like to narrow this discussion to the following questions:

- Which sword is more suitable for cavalry against enemy infantry/cavalry wearing soft or no armour?
- Which would do better in the initial charge/later melee?
- How big is the chance that you loose your weapon/break your wrist if you do charge á la Patton?
- How strong does the curvature of a sabre needs to be to offer a cutting advantage? Could such a weapon still be useable for thrusting?

[Colin F.]

[Matthew G.M. Korenkiewicz]

Being I'm still on a quest for replicating a Polish Hussar Saber ( with thumb-ring and L-hilt ) -- I
know, I know, sounding like a broken record, aren't I B-) -- I still find my initial thought about the saber in
general as this :

How easily is the curve of a saber managed by a sword-smith ?

Take the famous Hussars for instance, at one time or another -- again I've no great weight of
knowledge here -- it appears a soldier would carry two swordsl; a straighter / stiffer blade for " spear-
like " thrusting work ( perhaps in the initial charge after one's lance was gone ? ); and a curved blade
for the scrum of the battle ...

[Vincent Le Chevalier]

[Shahril Dzulkifli]

To me straight swords are quite difficult to be used in mounted warfare but not for curved swords. Cavalrymen prefer curved swords because they are ideal for slashing through enemy ranks even on horseback.
The sword below was used by the Russian cavalry back in the 19th century. I think it is ideal for mounted warfare at that time.

[Grayson C.]

I think it matters a lot on what the target is. On lightly armoured targets, a curved sword should do well, but what about heavy targets? I seem the recall knights using straight swords in the age of maille even though curved swords were available.

[Lafayette C Curtis]

I'm with Colin in that, even from a theoretical perspective, I don't see much to universally recommend either curved or straight swords above the other. Just determine what kind of sword you want, build a workable design based on the parameters you've set, and train your men adequately in its use according to the parameters--and you'll have a battle-winning sword.

But when we get to the realm of personal preference, I've always been in favor of a blade that can handle both the thrust and the cut adequately, even if it has to sacrifice some cutting or thrusting power in order to achieve this versatility. Since the swords that fit my parameter include a very wide range of both straight and curved blades, I find it a bit pointless to argue that the curved sword is better than the straight or vice-versa because the true conditions on the battlefield simply don't lend themselves to such simplistic generalizations.

Note that it seems like most cavalrymen in the field had a strong preference for cut-and-thrust blades over purely cutting or purely thrusting ones. The Australian and New Zealander light horsemen who used the 1908-pattern thrusting sword in the Middle East actually sharpened their swords and used them to cut with some effectiveness--the blades' design might not have allowed them to make really powerful shearing cuts, but at least they could cut well enough against the Turkish soldiers on the receiving end of their blows. Of course, as with every generalization, there are several important exceptions to this one, such as the Polish husars' koncerz, but note that the curved saber they carried alongside this tuck was a cut-and-thrust weapon!

[Joel Minturn]

A friend of mine has a Patton 1908 and the training manual to go with it. According to him the Patton saber was design to be sharpened on both sides, the reverse side was sharped for crowd control. But Patton didn't put much emphasis on cutting. His theory was stab them and keep going. there wasn't much point in dallying around trying to cut the other person. I'll try to talk to again and get the details again he is a big saber fan.

[Glen A Cleeton]

[Russ Thomas]

Hi Folks,

Not really my thing this, but the following account is pertinent and may be of some interest here .

I have just been reading David Clammers 'The Zulu War' ( Jan - July 1879), in it there is an account of a fight between Captain Lord William Beresford, and a rather large Zulu warrior. Neither giving ground, and both very skilled in the use of their respective weapons. Archibald Forbes, one of the witnesses to the encounter described it thus:

" Bill steadied his horse a trifle, just as he was wont to do before the take off for a big fence; within striking distance he made him swerve a bit to the left - he had been riding straight at the Zulu as if to ride him down. The spear flashed out like the head of a Cobra as it strikes; the sabre carried at point, 'one' clashed with it and seemed to curl around it; the spearhead was struck aside; the horseman delivered 'point two'....and lo ! in the twinkling of an eye the sabre's point was through the shield and half its length buried in the Zulu's broad chest."

I believe that Beresford was using an 1822 pattern three bar hilt at this time. He would certainly have been at a great disadvantage had he been using , say for instance a curved 1796 pattern stirrup hilt. Probably the skilled Zulu would have killed him in an instant !? Possibly in this type of encounter, the pattern 1908, which is both longer and straighter would have been an even better choice of sword ( if it had been invented and available in June 1879 that is ! ).

Hope that this is of some interest.

Regards,

Russ

[Joel Minturn]

[Russ Thomas]

I have a British pattern 1908 cavalry sword, dated 1915. I checked to see how much of the blade had been sharpened ( for use during the First World War ), to my great surprise, a full three quarters of the blade have actually been sharpened, and very carefully sharpened too ! It was never very sharp, but quite sharp enough I am sure to inflict enough damage to put the enemy off . And the point on these swords is absolutely lethal ! The back edge of the blade and the ricasso are still in factory condition; quite unsharpened and almost rounded.

Regards,

Russ

[Helge B.]

I just had a look on a swiss sabre.

Would this weapon work as a cavalry sword? Looks quite similar to a japanese tachi except beeing a bit longer.

The two handed grip would make it quite versatile just as a longsword.

Were there any cavalry sabres with blades in the 1m range?

[Russ Thomas]

[Shahril Dzulkifli]

Here is another sword that is suitable for mounted warfare - the British 1788 Pattern Cavalry Officer's Sword.
I am not sure when was this sword first used.