Straight swords vs. curved swords

[blackeagle603]

So, I'm fairly certain that "Battle of the Nations" looks NOTHING like an actual fight would have, between gymnasts.

Maybe not for the knights but for the less foot soldier more so. The Spartan and Roman phalanx was all about the collective use of shields. Read Pressfield "Gates of Fire" for a good description of the grinding, pushing matches they trained for and fought. It was like a human battering ram pressing on the opposing force -- all the while trying to stick them with lances and/or swords.

[D5CAV]

I read an early version of the Arthurian legend at one time, which seemed to be a fairly realistic depiction of a society, based on individual combat skills - they were all sociopaths, who wandered around indifferently raping/killing/siring children/etc - tied in, to an extent, w. the descriptions of Charlemagne's court.

I think the earliest depiction of a character named "Arthur" was in the Mabinogion: http://www.amazon.com/The-Mabinogion-Pe ... 0140443223

It's quite a bit less romantic than the Mallory version. And yes, it's basically a tale of a bunch of "Hells Angels" on horses riding around looting, raping and pillaging, and occasionally having a brawl with the "Outlaws". Arthur is described as just one of the gang.

[D5CAV]

Okay... that is a long pointed straight edge certainly...

It's pistol hilted, which makes it better for straight piercing than straight hilted; particularly for the fixed arm lunge or charge.

However, it's also heavy and broad bladed for a straight fencing sword. Thus it's also going to be a decent chopping, and draw cutting blade. It's not going to be a very good glancing cut or slashing blade.

Effectively, it's a backsword, with a pistol hilt.

Here's a French example with a similar blade: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Second-Republic ... 417448332b

Surprising, because the M1822 French Cavalry Saber is one of the few sabers I feel I can fence with. It's very quick for its size. Nothing like that Prussian Blucher Saber.

This one is also a very stupid price. M1822 French Cavalry Sabers can be found for prices I'm willing to pay, which tells me these French straight sabers must be very rare.

Perhaps the Cuirassiers were like the Uhlanen, more elite troops who actually received fencing training. Anyway, we have two separate armies - Germans and French - with both types of swords used in the same type of force - mounted cavalry.

Given the two types of swords in the same armies, it's evident our debate has been going on for at least 150 years.

[Darrell]

I was under the impression that stabbing someone from horseback while charging was a good way to break one's wrist or arm, and/or to lose one's sword, due to the blade getting hung up in the dude you just poked while riding by. Hence the curved saber and slash. ???

[D5CAV]

Backsword vs. Epee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmpIiA6Ox-A

4 minutes without a touch? These guys are just playing around, not a real match.

The guy with the Epee is a much better fencer. The guy with the backsword is trying to figure out what he's doing. He's also trying to do it without killing his opponent. The guy with the Epee isn't trying any attacks because that will get him too close to that backsword for comfort.

The backsword looks like a real blade so a real match would be way too dangerous.

[Aesop]

Given the two types of swords in the same armies, it's evident our debate has been going on for at least 150 years.

It wasn't a debate so much as it was differing missions and capabilities.

Cavalry are the scissors in rock/paper/scissors.
Light cavalry is mainly for reconaissance, skirmishing, and screening.
Heavy cavalry is for protecting flanks and breaking lines. Same reason there are rifles and machineguns, fighters and bombers, cruisers and carriers.
Every force wants one of each because no one wants to get caught unprepared for a given mission.

Heavy cavalry now looks like M1A2s and M2s & M3s.
Light cavalry looks like helicopters, and increasingly, UAVs.

[NVGdude]

Anyone have any ideas why curved sabers lasted until the end of sword fighting?

It's called a "cavalry saber" because it was used by dudes on horses.

The curved blade is much better for a slashing attack while horseback:
1) A cutting attack is easier to do than a stabbing attack while on a horse.
2) Stabbing your sword into somebody while riding on a ton of galloping horseflesh is also a good way to loose your stabbing implement.

[D5CAV]

Given the two types of swords in the same armies, it's evident our debate has been going on for at least 150 years.

It wasn't a debate so much as it was differing missions and capabilities.

Cavalry are the scissors in rock/paper/scissors.
Light cavalry is mainly for reconaissance, skirmishing, and screening.
Heavy cavalry is for protecting flanks and breaking lines. Same reason there are rifles and machineguns, fighters and bombers, cruisers and carriers.
Every force wants one of each because no one wants to get caught unprepared for a given mission.

Heavy cavalry now looks like M1A2s and M2s & M3s.
Light cavalry looks like helicopters, and increasingly, UAVs.

My original post was regarding swords, with which I have a casual interest due to my participation in the sport of fencing. However, I don't have a lot of knowledge of swords. Hence my question.

Since I spent a number of years with crossed sabers on my collar, I think I am qualified to comment on the proper use of Cavalry.

The US Army has Cavalry Regiments and Armor Divisions. The US Army, never had any "Heavy Cavalry" regiments. When the Army went to Divisional structure after WW1 and lost the Regiments, the Cavalry was the only branch that got to keep the historic Regimental structure.

I belonged to a Cavalry Regiment (can you guess which one?). During my time, Armor Divisions were tank heavy combined arms divisions with some mechanized infantry and some armor. Infantry Divisions were combined arms divisions that looked a lot like Armor Divisions, but with more Mechanized Infantry brigades than Armor brigades. Armor and Infantry divisions were the Army's maneuver forces and the muscle to take and hold territory.

As Cavalry, our role was reconnaissance and screening. Screening sometimes required engagement, but our job wasn't to trade body blows. We were just supposed to hold the nose of the enemy long enough for the maneuver brigades to inflict the body blows This was a little bit more complicated in practice than in theory.

The Cavalry is the eyes and ears of the Army at the "pointy end of the spear". We typically operated a couple of kilometers ahead of the FEBA (Foward Edge of the Battle Area). We were expected to move fast and were expected to "adapt, improvise and overcome." We typically had rather loose objectives and orders, and were expected to make things up as we went along. This suited me just fine. I would have been bored to tears being a cog in the wheel of an Armor Brigade.

Mission, terrain and enemy dictates equipment. We were in Germany during the tail end of the Cold War, so we rolled very heavy even though our designation was "Cavalry", not "Light Cavalry" or "Heavy Cavalry". If you want to get an idea of our TOE, read the novel "Team Yankee" by Harold Coyle: http://www.amazon.com/Team-Yankee-Harol ... 0425110427

He basically took one of our typical combat exercises and turned it into a novel. We played out many different variations of that same story. Our equipment is the same as in that novel. We had M1 Abrams tanks and M113 APCs. The M2 Bradley IFVs weren't deployed yet.

Now the Cavalry rides in Strykers. If I was still in, I'd get a transfer to an Armor Brigade. A Stryker is just as juicy a target as a Abrams, but can't take the sucker punches.

[D5CAV]

Anyone have any ideas why curved sabers lasted until the end of sword fighting?

It's called a "cavalry saber" because it was used by dudes on horses.

The curved blade is much better for a slashing attack while horseback:
1) A cutting attack is easier to do than a stabbing attack while on a horse.
2) Stabbing your sword into somebody while riding on a ton of galloping horseflesh is also a good way to loose your stabbing implement.

Well, we've already established that straight swords were also used by "dudes on horses", including one that I own.

Honestly, I have no experience with either slashing or stabbing from horseback. I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you don't either, so I figure your comments are pure speculation, and not fact as stated.

My most extreme horseback experience was polo. I had a friend who had a string of polo ponies. He let me ride his #3 and #4, but at my skill level (less than zero), trying to hit a ball from horseback with a mallet was bordering on suicidal. To give you an idea of how suicidal, my friend, who actually had a pretty high skill level (4 to 6 IIRC), left a game in an ambulance, and ended up in traction for a couple of months. He no longer has his ponies and his wife forbids him from even showing up as a spectator at a polo game.

I do have some experience with using swords on foot, and I find I prefer the straight swords.

Here's one of the best explanations I've found so far: http://www.sword-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=17556

It seems the original Austro-Hungarian Hussar sabers from the 17th and 18th century were even more curved, like middle eastern swords. This author says the reason for the severe curve with western cavalry swords was more for eastern "Hun" tradition than anything else. Through the 19th century, cavalry swords gradually got straighter as "dudes on horses" figured out they worked better with less curve. It looks like they would have ended up as straight swords if modern weapons hadn't put an end to horse cavalry and swords altogether.

Looks like I found my answer!

[Aesop]

My original post was regarding swords, with which I have a casual interest due to my participation in the sport of fencing. However, I don't have a lot of knowledge of swords. Hence my question.

Since I spent a number of years with crossed sabers on my collar, I think I am qualified to comment on the proper use of Cavalry.

Think how someone would sound who said "I don't have a lot of knowledge about rifles. But I think I am qualified to comment on the proper use of infantry."
I respect your service as much as anyone's, but the sword is the symbol of cavalry because it exemplifies their main purpose: to swoop in, sew confusion, lop off a few heads, and ride the hell out. It's the same reason infantry purists are loathe to give up the bayonet.

The US Army has Cavalry Regiments and Armor Divisions.

Which are two lies for the price of one, as neither is in fact any such thing. Our units are amalgamated combined arms multi-branch teams, because that's what works best.

The US Army, never had any "Heavy Cavalry" regiments.

This would come as quite a shock to any vet of the 11th ACR circa 1972-1994.

When the Army went to Divisional structure after WW1 and lost the Regiments, the Cavalry was the only branch that got to keep the historic Regimental structure.

Actually, they only kept the name. But I digress.

I belonged to a Cavalry Regiment (can you guess which one?). During my time, Armor Divisions were tank heavy combined arms divisions with some mechanized infantry and some armor. Infantry Divisions were combined arms divisions that looked a lot like Armor Divisions, but with more Mechanized Infantry brigades than Armor brigades. Armor and Infantry divisions were the Army's maneuver forces and the muscle to take and hold territory.

As Cavalry, our role was reconnaissance and screening. Screening sometimes required engagement, but our job wasn't to trade body blows. We were just supposed to hold the nose of the enemy long enough for the maneuver brigades to inflict the body blows This was a little bit more complicated in practice than in theory.

The Cavalry is the eyes and ears of the Army at the "pointy end of the spear". We typically operated a couple of kilometers ahead of the FEBA (Foward Edge of the Battle Area). We were expected to move fast and were expected to "adapt, improvise and overcome." We typically had rather loose objectives and orders, and were expected to make things up as we went along. This suited me just fine. I would have been bored to tears being a cog in the wheel of an Armor Brigade.

Mission, terrain and enemy dictates equipment. We were in Germany during the tail end of the Cold War, so we rolled very heavy even though our designation was "Cavalry", not "Light Cavalry" or "Heavy Cavalry". If you want to get an idea of our TOE, read the novel "Team Yankee" by Harold Coyle: http://www.amazon.com/Team-Yankee-Harol ... 0425110427

He basically took one of our typical combat exercises and turned it into a novel. We played out many different variations of that same story. Our equipment is the same as in that novel. We had M1 Abrams tanks and M113 APCs. The M2 Bradley IFVs weren't deployed yet.

Our Army thoroughly bastardizes and FUBARs any attempt at understanding branches coherently because armies don't fight that way anymore. We win wars, so nobody calls us on it. But frankly both strategy and its explanation would improve immeasurably if they'd abandon all branch-specific descriptions, and simply start calling things rock/paper/scissors, as we almost never field anything above the company level (and increasingly, even the platoon if possible) that's branch-specific for longer than it takes to mix all the branches into the appropriate unit-sized salad of multiple parts. Thus you NEVER served in an actual cavalry unit above the troop level, and neither in all likelihood did anyone from armor or infantry for some number of decades.

And of course we never had any "heavy" horse cavalry, because we never needed any against Indians etc.
No one else we squared off against even had any heavy cavalry, until the time it went by the helpful name of "tanks".
At that point, we went all in, and cleaned house. {Cf. Patton, George S., Jr., reportedly a US Army cavalry officer from California of some repute.}

But make no mistake that whether we call them heavy or light, we most certainly have detailed the missions accordingly, and organized units with that in mind, as Chris noted vis-a-vis armored cav vs. air cav.

Now the Cavalry rides in Strykers. If I was still in, I'd get a transfer to an Armor Brigade. A Stryker is just as juicy a target as a Abrams, but can't take the sucker punches.

FWIW, if you're in a cavalry unit taking sucker punches, you've well and truly stepped in it in true Balaclava fashion, and an up-armored target probably won't be of as much use as one might hope. From the receiving end of weapons like Hellfires and Copperheads, there's no such thing as a good bullet magnet, and Murphy's advice applies:

Try to look unimportant. The enemy may be short on bullets.

BTW, I read Coyle's first book as a salty troop when it originally came out, and still have the copy on the shelf; baby brother was a TC in the OPFOR at that time, long before it was called the 11th ACR, and after he'd done a tour in the Fulda Gap. Having shared with him a brief posting to Fort Knox I have some nodding familiarity with the concepts myself.

And as you noted:

Mission, terrain and enemy dictates equipment.

That's why for almost all of their history, our (light) cavalry only carried curved slashing swords, and not the straight pointy type necessary for heavy cavalry (let alone lances). And remember that the man who gave our cavalry their one and only straight pointy heavy-cavalry type saber won the DSC for directing heavy cavalry on foot through No Man's Land in WWI, in exactly the kind of crushing overwhelming heavy cavalry attack for which he'd trained on horseback. His later speeches about using German guts to grease the treads of our tanks was no mere hyperbole; he'd actually done pretty much exactly that 25 years earlier.
He too was a magnificent son of a bitch, and you should read both his books. I killed most of my sophomore year in college entertaining myself with them when regular coursework was too boring.