[R. Connors]

Being weapon freaks, we all think about the different types of swords through the ages. Usually things evolve through the ages to reach an optimal condition for the existing conditions. Wide, thin blades for cutting unarmoured targets. Narrow, thick blades for penetrating armoured targets. Medium hybrids for dealing with both.

The point. Since about the 18th Century swords seem to be exclusively narrow bladed, slightly curved. Sabers or Sabres if you like. Firearms were becoming reliable mainstream weapons at this time. A sword was a backup, yet still mainstream carry. No armour in this period to speak of, though I am sure that thoughtful humans used what their thoughts enabled. So....if the sabre became the mainstream weapon throughout the world, does this mean that it is the epitome of sword evolution for dealing with men in cloth or leather clothing? I know that some of the short swords carried on the traditiion of roman type blades, such as artillary blades. Short naval cutlesses I also am aware of. Yet the slightly curved sabre seems to be the rule. They are not much lighter than a nice longsword, so I am wondering why the long two edged sword reached extinction. I know about cavalry, but still, why abandon that gorgeous type XII a?

[Glen A Cleeton]

Unless I have completely misunderstood the inquiry, this is virtually the same question and following discussion from the end of last year.

http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=21386

There is some argument that the straight blades continued to be the most effective cavalry sword into the 20th century but the curved swords continued as well. The narrowing of blades in general seems to go back some time but some of the sabres were still quite broad for their length. It would be easier to argue that it was later in the 19th century when curved blades really started to narrow quite a bit. In the end though, it is easy to take virtually any trait out of the context many see as an overall instead of really looking at what swords were expected to achieve. The linked thread may or may not answer your questions but may be a good start.

Cheers

GC

[Ken Speed]

I think Glen is correct. My opinion is that the "evolution" of swords from around the middle of the 19th century on is really more about the evolution of the firearm. Militarily swords became less important as weapons as firearms improved. By the time of the American Civil War swords were becoming largely symbols of authority and a means of directing subordinate soldiers.

I was talking to a Civil War reenactor about a huge D handled bowie knife in a local museum and he said that they , swords and bayonets weren't used much as weapons and that forensic analysis of Civil War era war dead revealed that they were mostly either shot or clubbed to death with gun butts and more rarely stabbed or cut.

[Simon G.]

[Glen A Cleeton]

Hi Simon,

[R. Connors]

I thank you Mr. Cleeton and others, but especially yourself Glen. I apologize for not searching. I'm one of those idiots who sits in front of a computer drinking beer, and thinks that my brilliant thought has never been considered before. Even I have a hard laugh over that. There is little that has not been said (excepting new tech.). You have made me think, and you have once again gone out of your way to provide information, for which I deeply thank you. When you bare the bottom, we are discussing a sharp piece of steel with zero moving parts. Providing that the metallurgy and heat treatment is correct,...well...the result is an instrument that will cleave you and/or stab you to death, plus be resilient and finely balanced, (physically and harmonically...both are physical) and hold an edge. Nothing technical about this FINISHED instrument other than that, excepting the shape or geometry that has changed throughout the ages. It has always done the same thing... kill or wound a human. I really don't believe that an unarmoured human would notice the difference between any of the sharp blades from whatever era. (excepting the quickness of death or destruction....a severed limb compared to a nearly hacked off limb). Now a thin, broad bladed cutting sword may dismember you more easily than a narrow thrusting sword, but without armour you are in trouble regardless. You get severely cut or stabbed...you usually die. Just wondering why they stuck with the single handed, mostly single edged sabre after the firearm saga. I think the development ceased with the need. There was no more need for development...just something that would shed blood when needed. The focus on bladed weapons diminished with the firearm, so they just stuck with the current tooling. Moderate deviations considered, I would say that the thrust prevailed in desperate times...which is why the officer blade was often narrow and straight in the very late 19th C. and early 20th c. Seldom in use, but when required, usually a quick stab or thrust to the abdomen. Just my obscure thoughts...but I like to read others, since I am VERY often wrong in thought. Sorry for not searching once again. Thanks for those pics. Glen. I really do enjoy your efforts both here and on SFI.