Baldric vs. swordbelt -- for saber

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:07:26 +0100, "William Black"
<abuse@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why do you want to walk around with it anyway?
>Do you live in a very rough area?

If I own a functional saber, I might as well own the accessories that
make it useful. After all, beheading seems to be making a comeback;
I might encounter a rude clerk who needs corrective action. Not to
mention that it would give me a big advantage on the piste.

Thank you for the informative post.

What did soldiers/warrior generally use: A swordbelt or baldric?
According to some commercial web pages, combat swords were usually not
carried on the back, but, rather, suspended in a baldric.

If cutlasses were held in the hand (without scabbard) , how did seamen
board another ship armed with one? Too big to hold in the teeth.
Maybe pushed through a belt or sash?

Ken
(to reply via email
remove "zz" from address)

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:eldci0dumbhpfvnpuf4f5vrh0hqc3hf5kv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:07:26 +0100, "William Black"
> <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Why do you want to walk around with it anyway?
> >Do you live in a very rough area?
>
> If I own a functional saber, I might as well own the accessories that
> make it useful. After all, beheading seems to be making a comeback;

You'd be better off with the traditinal short handed axe as shown in the
pictures of the execution of Charles I

> What did soldiers/warrior generally use: A swordbelt or baldric?
> According to some commercial web pages, combat swords were usually not
> carried on the back, but, rather, suspended in a baldric.

Swords aren't really a 'primary weapon' on a battlefield, but either a
badge of rank or a secondary weapon to get you home iof you got seperated
from your friends, plus instant rabbit skewer/wood chopper/shopkeeper
indimidator.

The way they were worn is a matter more of fashion than anything else.

The sword belt seems to have started to give way to the baldrick around
1600, although there is certainly a sword belt in the V&A collection from
the 1640's.

But you're right, swords seem to have been very rarly worn across the back.

> If cutlasses were held in the hand (without scabbard) , how did seamen
> board another ship armed with one? Too big to hold in the teeth.
> Maybe pushed through a belt or sash?

Ships tended to be pulled hard up to each other and the climb over wasn't
hard.

I imagine that a cutlass, like any other single handed edged weapon
designed for combat, was equipped with a 'sword knot'. A sword knot is
that flashy piece of coloured rope attached at the pommel. It has a loop in
it for your wrist.

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

Would I have to draw my sword rapidly to defend my life I wouldn't use a
baldric. It is a lot less stable than a swordbelt. As we don't learn much
the process of drawing a sword in today fencing, or maybe only in a few more
traditionnal school I havn't had access, I took some basis in kenjutsu (or
basically saber techniques), I would recommend a belt since it is stable and
you wear the sword at an angle. You should have the edge upward too. It is
faster for an attack when drawing, for one edge cutting weapons I mean.
However I had the chance to meet a classical fencing master who taugh me
little technicals aspects of drawing the smallsword. In a correct draw you
should be in prime guard position it gives you a good opportunity for a
parry riposte. But more important, for any sword draw, you should have the
weapon in a sheat at a height that feels comfortable for you. And for a
warrior, you don't carry a sword, you live with it for no purpose other than
killing, even in defence the final result is a dead man when using a sword,
or at least it is the purpose of it.

For the hand held cutlass, I doubt you saw too much movies of pirates, you
don't do it like Tarzan on a rope when you aboard a ship. The manoeuver of
boarding a ship consist at bringing the ship close to you so you can use a
jump if close enough or making fortunes bridges with board .... and you know
that is why they call it boarding a ship.


"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:eldci0dumbhpfvnpuf4f5vrh0hqc3hf5kv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 18:07:26 +0100, "William Black"
> <abuse@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Why do you want to walk around with it anyway?
> >Do you live in a very rough area?
>
> If I own a functional saber, I might as well own the accessories that
> make it useful. After all, beheading seems to be making a comeback;
> I might encounter a rude clerk who needs corrective action. Not to
> mention that it would give me a big advantage on the piste.
>
> Thank you for the informative post.
>
> What did soldiers/warrior generally use: A swordbelt or baldric?
> According to some commercial web pages, combat swords were usually not
> carried on the back, but, rather, suspended in a baldric.
>
> If cutlasses were held in the hand (without scabbard) , how did seamen
> board another ship armed with one? Too big to hold in the teeth.
> Maybe pushed through a belt or sash?
>
> Ken
> (to reply via email
> remove "zz" from address)

Somehow not absolutely true nor false, depends first on the period of time
and the battle situation. Of course one wouldn't underestimate the use of a
wall of spearman in the front of a battle. However when the first line are
broken the use of swords may come in handy. Especially against light armored
troups, however it is still a very effective weapon against the fully
armored when well trainned. It's true that in the poorly trainned hand of
normal soldier a mace or axe would be a more effective choice, and tend to
be cheaper too. When we look back at the times of the roman empires tough,
every soldier were well trained with the sword.

How you wear the sword isn't a matter of fashion, at least when you intend
to use it for protection. The draw is what could keep you alive or notm, so
there is no kidding with it.


> Swords aren't really a 'primary weapon' on a battlefield, but either a
> badge of rank or a secondary weapon to get you home iof you got seperated
> from your friends, plus instant rabbit skewer/wood chopper/shopkeeper
> indimidator.
>
> The way they were worn is a matter more of fashion than anything else.

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
newsGsVc.137$Mk4.2803@news20.bellglobal.com...

> How you wear the sword isn't a matter of fashion, at least when you
intend
> to use it for protection. The draw is what could keep you alive or notm,
so
> there is no kidding with it.

If you're on a battlefield there's no point where being 'quick on the draw'
with a sword is going to help.

The 'first position' stuff from Fabrice is about being in a street fight not
a battle.

In the end an officer's sword is male jewellery and an ordinary soldier's
sword is a device for cooking a rabbit or cutting wood, neither is really
designed for fighting a battle with.

Maybe it'll get you home if it all goes wrong, but maybe it won't...

There are a couple of historical instances of people being armed with swords
that look like primary weapons.

The Spanish 'sword and buckler' men of the late sixteenth century is one.
They lasted up until pike tactics were sorted out and then got promptly
wiped out, they seem to have bee a troop type that lasted less than a
decade.

The other one is the Romans, but is arguable, indeed probable, that the
light and heavy pilum are the real weapons.

--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government

William Black writes:

>You'd be better off with the traditinal short handed axe as shown in the
>pictures of the execution of Charles I

Actually, when they were into beheadings, the sword was considered the better
way to go. Assuming you had a competent swordsman, of course. It was
considered that a sword, being sharper, led to a quicker and less painful death
than an axe.

That's why Anne Boleyn, as her last request, asked that a professional
executioner from France be imported for her death, as in France they tended to
use swords for beheadings. Her request was granted, and so she was beheaded
with a sword, not an axe.

Joe

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:8q1ci05g2p1e8r13h0bjeflb125d667tro@4ax.com...
> I have a Cold Steel 1917 saber. The scabbard had a belt fitting.
> See: http://www.coldsteel.com/19serswor.html
>
> I find this arrangement impractical. There is too much weight on the
> belt and the sword swings around. Is this something only for
> dress/cavalry? How was this used for a cutlass aboard ship?
>
> Can someone please comment on the relative merits of this arrangment
> vs. the baldrics and swordbelts shown, e.g., at:
> http://www.theinnerbailey.com/baldrics.htm
>
> In particular, the Roman Style Baldric looks to be the most practical
> and comfortable for a sword of this [not too great] length for general
> carrying when on foot.

The most important thing to know is how to wear it. If the sword is short
(2 feet or less), then you want it to hang straight don, and you can ignore
it except when sitting down. But a saber won't hang straight down. That, I
suspect, is the problem with the current arrangement. You need to hang it
so that is hangs at an angle. Any of the arrangements shown on the website
are reasonable for this. Then you need to learn how to walk with it. It
sticks out, and you need to remember that you take up more room than usual,
as a woman does wearing a full skirt or a train, or as anyone does carrying
a piece of lumber.

Jay Rudin

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:15:58 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> to write:

>Would I have to draw my sword rapidly to defend my life I wouldn't use a
>baldric. It is a lot less stable than a swordbelt. As we don't learn much
>the process of drawing a sword in today fencing, or maybe only in a few more
>traditionnal school I havn't had access, I took some basis in kenjutsu (or
>basically saber techniques), I would recommend a belt since it is stable and
>you wear the sword at an angle. You should have the edge upward too. It is
>faster for an attack when drawing, for one edge cutting weapons I mean.

I disagree with that, *especially* if you've got a weapon with some
form of knuckle bow. Wearing the blade with the sharp edge up means
that the knuckle bow is going to be up, as well. That means in a
speed-drawing situation, the most likely thing you're going to grab is
the knuckle bow, not the grip, and you're going to end up either
fumbling the draw or presenting the back edge of the blade to your
opponent while you frantically try to hang on to the knuckle bow
and/or try to shift your hold around to the grip. If you're lucky,
your opponent will be too busy laughing at you to attack.

Edge-up works for a katana, but not for a saber, rapier, cutlass or
similar weapons.

-Chris Zakes
Texas

Did you not ask why against one man they send a hundred swords?
Because they know this one man for a friend of mine!

-Cyrano in "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand

Depend of the angle you wear it, over about 50 degres I would agree with you
however, I would recommend about 35 degres. The exact contrary would happen
with blade side down, think about it, the first thing you do on a draw is to
raise the point so that it fit better for a draw... it is ridiculous and I
even think the chances of fumbling would be greater. Then again, I can't
think of someone who train one hour per day ... even per weak fumbling his
draw. Of course it happen ... as a missed parry happen, and on both side
youre probably dead. Of course I hope that when you draw you have a hand on
your sheat ... meaning you should be able too align the knuckle bow just a
little outside so that it would leave youre handle perfectly fit for your
hand ... as for your draw. And who the hell may care for a rapier, both side
are sharps or not sharp for late rapiers then who might care wich edge on
wich side?


"Chris Zakes" <moondrgn@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
news76li0he447k91r0uceigittqb6ock5i1a@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:15:58 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
> caused "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> to write:
>
> >Would I have to draw my sword rapidly to defend my life I wouldn't use a
> >baldric. It is a lot less stable than a swordbelt. As we don't learn much
> >the process of drawing a sword in today fencing, or maybe only in a few
more
> >traditionnal school I havn't had access, I took some basis in kenjutsu
(or
> >basically saber techniques), I would recommend a belt since it is stable
and
> >you wear the sword at an angle. You should have the edge upward too. It
is
> >faster for an attack when drawing, for one edge cutting weapons I mean.
>
> I disagree with that, *especially* if you've got a weapon with some
> form of knuckle bow. Wearing the blade with the sharp edge up means
> that the knuckle bow is going to be up, as well. That means in a
> speed-drawing situation, the most likely thing you're going to grab is
> the knuckle bow, not the grip, and you're going to end up either
> fumbling the draw or presenting the back edge of the blade to your
> opponent while you frantically try to hang on to the knuckle bow
> and/or try to shift your hold around to the grip. If you're lucky,
> your opponent will be too busy laughing at you to attack.
>
> Edge-up works for a katana, but not for a saber, rapier, cutlass or
> similar weapons.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>
> Did you not ask why against one man they send a hundred swords?
> Because they know this one man for a friend of mine!
>
> -Cyrano in "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:28:35 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
caused "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> to write:


>"Chris Zakes" <moondrgn@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message de
>news76li0he447k91r0uceigittqb6ock5i1a@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 15:15:58 -0400, an orbital mind-control laser
>> caused "Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> to write:
>>
>> >Would I have to draw my sword rapidly to defend my life I wouldn't use a
>> >baldric. It is a lot less stable than a swordbelt. As we don't learn much
>> >the process of drawing a sword in today fencing, or maybe only in a few
>more
>> >traditionnal school I havn't had access, I took some basis in kenjutsu
>(or
>> >basically saber techniques), I would recommend a belt since it is stable
>and
>> >you wear the sword at an angle. You should have the edge upward too. It
>is
>> >faster for an attack when drawing, for one edge cutting weapons I mean.
>>
>> I disagree with that, *especially* if you've got a weapon with some
>> form of knuckle bow. Wearing the blade with the sharp edge up means
>> that the knuckle bow is going to be up, as well. That means in a
>> speed-drawing situation, the most likely thing you're going to grab is
>> the knuckle bow, not the grip, and you're going to end up either
>> fumbling the draw or presenting the back edge of the blade to your
>> opponent while you frantically try to hang on to the knuckle bow
>> and/or try to shift your hold around to the grip. If you're lucky,
>> your opponent will be too busy laughing at you to attack.
>>
>> Edge-up works for a katana, but not for a saber, rapier, cutlass or
>> similar weapons.
>>
>> -Chris Zakes

>Depend of the angle you wear it, over about 50 degres I would agree with you
>however, I would recommend about 35 degres. The exact contrary would happen
>with blade side down, think about it, the first thing you do on a draw is to
>raise the point so that it fit better for a draw... it is ridiculous and I
>even think the chances of fumbling would be greater.

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. Are you talking
about the angle the sword is at relative to your body (i.e. the point
of the sword is angled out 35 or 50 degrees behind you) or the angle
the sword edge is at (edge down would be zero degrees, edge up would
be 180 and you're talking about the edge being angled off to the side
at 35 or 50 degrees.)


>Then again, I can't
>think of someone who train one hour per day ... even per weak fumbling his
>draw. Of course it happen ... as a missed parry happen, and on both side
>youre probably dead. Of course I hope that when you draw you have a hand on
>your sheat ... meaning you should be able too align the knuckle bow just a
>little outside so that it would leave youre handle perfectly fit for your
>hand ... as for your draw.

I'm an SCA rapier fighter. When I fight, I normally leave my sword in
its sheath until the marshal calls "lay on", then I draw it (and there
*have* been occasions where my opponent tried to rush me before I
could draw the blade--they almost always failed. <G>) You are correct
that the best way to draw a sword is, presuming you're right-handed,
to hold the upper end of the sheath in your left hand, and adjust its
placement so that the right hand can get a firm grip and draw the
blade smoothly.

But as a general rule, when just walking around with a sheathed blade,
you'll still have the left hand on the hilt, to maintain control over
it, and the edge will be at zero degrees.


>And who the hell may care for a rapier, both side
>are sharps or not sharp for late rapiers then who might care wich edge on
>wich side?

If the blade has a knuckle bow, then it matters a great deal. It's not
the edge of the blade it's how you draw it that is important. Consider
this ASCI-art picture of a saber:

A \
=====,-----------------------------------
\ ____ /
B

Normally you'd hold the grip A. Imagine trying to fencing while
holding the bell B instead; but that's what's going to come into your
hand first, if the blade is worn edge-up.

-Chris Zakes
Texas


Did you not ask why against one man they send a hundred swords?
Because they know this one man for a friend of mine!

-Cyrano in "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
news:KvGWc.17481$DG.673211@news20.bellglobal.com.. .
> Depend of the angle you wear it, over about 50 degres I would agree with
you
> however, I would recommend about 35 degres. The exact contrary would
happen
> with blade side down, think about it, the first thing you do on a draw is
to
> raise the point so that it fit better for a draw... it is ridiculous and I
> even think the chances of fumbling would be greater. Then again, I can't
> think of someone who train one hour per day ... even per weak fumbling his
> draw. Of course it happen ... as a missed parry happen, and on both side
> youre probably dead. Of course I hope that when you draw you have a hand
on
> your sheat ... meaning you should be able too align the knuckle bow just a
> little outside so that it would leave youre handle perfectly fit for your
> hand ... as for your draw. And who the hell may care for a rapier, both
side
> are sharps or not sharp for late rapiers then who might care wich edge on
> wich side?

First of all, the knucklebow is intended to cover the knuckles. When I'm
reaching down, my knuckles are down, so the knucklebow should be down. (I
can demonstrate this far better than I can describe it.)

Secondly, all paintings I've seen of people wearing swords with knucklebows
show them worn with the knucklebow (and therefore the forward blade) down.
Yes, both edges are sharp, but there is still a difference between them.

Finally, the Prime (first) position in Agrippa's manual (1553) forward was
done with the hand held high. The books describe it as the first position
you can reach after unsheathing. This indicates that people were taught how
to unsheathe and go on guard.

Conclusion: the people whose lives depended on drawing the rapier fast were
in agreement that the forward blade went down in the sheath.

Jay Rudin

I meant relative to your body.

> I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying here. Are you talking
> about the angle the sword is at relative to your body (i.e. the point
> of the sword is angled out 35 or 50 degrees behind you) or the angle
> the sword edge is at (edge down would be zero degrees, edge up would
> be 180 and you're talking about the edge being angled off to the side
> at 35 or 50 degrees.)
>

Even then, I keep my two cents on the true edge up for a rapier, try this
exercise. I hope I can explain myself well enough that you will understand
my limited english and can try it. I am pretty sure you will adopt it as
your next method for drawing your rapier. First lets say this statement to
be true, and any fencer will agree with me I am pretty sure. Moving only the
forearm is faster than moving the entire arm, moving the hand if faster the
moving the forearm and moving fingers is faster than moving a hand. Ok then
study this motion well. You keep face to your opponent left hand on your
sheat and right hand alligned with your body. Then fold your right arm so
that the upperarm doesn't move and you fold it so that your forearm go into
your sword direction. When you are doing this turn a little bit your right
hand as well blade counterclockwise so that they are perfectly matched to
fit. Grab your sword then draw you should be almost exactly in the prime
guard position. Do it two more times so that you understand what you move
and that you get a feel for it. Now try back your ancient drawing method,
youll see that your entire arm is moving while you go to grab your sword. I
trust my word the more you keep it small the faster it is.

I hope you had tried it, it may feel unconfortable at first, but this method
is less intuitive. A little like point fencing is less intuitive than
slashing and less comfortable. But think about it I am sure you can improve
your drawing times a lot with it and your position at the end of the draw
too.



> I'm an SCA rapier fighter. When I fight, I normally leave my sword in
> its sheath until the marshal calls "lay on", then I draw it (and there
> *have* been occasions where my opponent tried to rush me before I
> could draw the blade--they almost always failed. <G>) You are correct
> that the best way to draw a sword is, presuming you're right-handed,
> to hold the upper end of the sheath in your left hand, and adjust its
> placement so that the right hand can get a firm grip and draw the
> blade smoothly.
>
> But as a general rule, when just walking around with a sheathed blade,
> you'll still have the left hand on the hilt, to maintain control over
> it, and the edge will be at zero degrees.
>
>
> If the blade has a knuckle bow, then it matters a great deal. It's not
> the edge of the blade it's how you draw it that is important. Consider
> this ASCI-art picture of a saber:
>
> A \
> =====,-----------------------------------
> \ ____ /
> B
>
> Normally you'd hold the grip A. Imagine trying to fencing while
> holding the bell B instead; but that's what's going to come into your
> hand first, if the blade is worn edge-up.
>
> -Chris Zakes
> Texas
>


>
> Did you not ask why against one man they send a hundred swords?
> Because they know this one man for a friend of mine!
>
> -Cyrano in "Cyrano de Bergerac" by Edmond Rostand

In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:47:35 -0400
Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
>
> Even then, I keep my two cents on the true edge up for a rapier, try this
> exercise. I hope I can explain myself well enough that you will understand


Think very carefully. YOu are not a duellist, you don't walk the
streets wearing a sword.

The people who *did* don't do what you say.

Who is more likely to be wrong, the armchair theorist or the experienced
fighter?

Zebee

Theory do often reach the practice, and fencing is about theory as well as
practice. May I be wrong, may I be right, I know that my drawing improved
doing this and who can tell what poeple did so long ago, paintings of the
time are proved to be sometime far from reallity, as are those of today. And
swordsmaster were often a lot better with the sword than they were artist.
So it's hard to tell what do they really did. Maybe there was little use to
draw the sword fast. And fencing was constantly on the change as the weapon
were. But as the guard evolved it was just natural that the first guard
position was named after the first position you had after drawing, that
doesn't simply means that they leanrned how to draw.



"Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
news:slrncip7d4.dqb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:47:35 -0400
> Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> >
> > Even then, I keep my two cents on the true edge up for a rapier, try
this
> > exercise. I hope I can explain myself well enough that you will
understand
>
>
> Think very carefully. YOu are not a duellist, you don't walk the
> streets wearing a sword.
>
> The people who *did* don't do what you say.
>
> Who is more likely to be wrong, the armchair theorist or the experienced
> fighter?
>
> Zebee

My honest tought is that if they learned much the draw we would find more
explanation on its process.


"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> a écrit dans le message de
news:zM1Xc.59$is1.2279@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Theory do often reach the practice, and fencing is about theory as well as
> practice. May I be wrong, may I be right, I know that my drawing improved
> doing this and who can tell what poeple did so long ago, paintings of the
> time are proved to be sometime far from reallity, as are those of today.
And
> swordsmaster were often a lot better with the sword than they were artist.
> So it's hard to tell what do they really did. Maybe there was little use
to
> draw the sword fast. And fencing was constantly on the change as the
weapon
> were. But as the guard evolved it was just natural that the first guard
> position was named after the first position you had after drawing, that
> doesn't simply means that they leanrned how to draw.
>
>
>
> "Zebee Johnstone" <zebee@zip.com.au> a écrit dans le message de
> news:slrncip7d4.dqb.zebee@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
> > In rec.sport.fencing on Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:47:35 -0400
> > Trim Plus Expert <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > Even then, I keep my two cents on the true edge up for a rapier, try
> this
> > > exercise. I hope I can explain myself well enough that you will
> understand
> >
> >
> > Think very carefully. YOu are not a duellist, you don't walk the
> > streets wearing a sword.
> >
> > The people who *did* don't do what you say.
> >
> > Who is more likely to be wrong, the armchair theorist or the experienced
> > fighter?
> >
> > Zebee
>
>

[lenahan]

Originally Posted by William Black

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:eldci0dumbhpfvnpuf4f5vrh0hqc3hf5kv@4ax.com...


Swords aren't really a 'primary weapon' on a battlefield, but either a
badge of rank or a secondary weapon to get you home iof you got seperated
from your friends, plus instant rabbit skewer/wood chopper/shopkeeper
indimidator.

The way they were worn is a matter more of fashion than anything else.

The sword belt seems to have started to give way to the baldrick around
1600, although there is certainly a sword belt in the V&A collection from
the 1640's.

well, yes and no. it depends on the situation. The armies of the British empire were primarily reliant on their muskets, in the American civil war, soldiers relied on their rifles. However, on sailing ships, cutlasses were used both for fighting and for everyday odd jobs on ships, such as cutting ropes, reaching for things, etc... BUt edged weapons, swords and bayonets, were used commonly in naval combat between individual ships, bayonet charges that the English were skilled at, etc... until they were replaced by more efficient repeater, semi automatic, and finally fully automatic firearms.

Originally Posted by William Black

"Ken" <cprstn54zz@att.net> wrote in message
news:8q1ci05g2p1e8r13h0bjeflb125d667tro@4ax.com...
> I have a Cold Steel 1917 saber. The scabbard had a belt fitting.
> See: http://www.coldsteel.com/19serswor.html
>
> I find this arrangement impractical. There is too much weight on the
> belt and the sword swings around. Is this something only for
> dress/cavalry? How was this used for a cutlass aboard ship?

By 1917 nobody was using edged weapons on ships for anything but looking
good. I doubt anyone wanted a weapon with a blackened hilt to wear to look
good. Are you sure that this is an authentic weapon?
[/color]

Two things: 1: i have a 1917 naval cutlass , and it is a beautiful weapon, although as mine is not from cold steel (gift from my uncle, he had it since childhood) i l do not have a scabbard, unfortunately. Onboard ships, however, cutlasses were used to cut ropes, other things, etc... in addition to combat uses. I know from experience that the blade is perfect for cutting the plastic that holds together soda 6-packs.

2: the last reported use of a cutlass to kill someone was in Inchon.

Originally Posted by William Black

"Trim Plus Expert" <trimplus@bellnet.ca> wrote in message
newsRKXc.33630$DG.1651357@news20.bellglobal.com. ..
> If you saw the discution topic we were now speaking about what kind of
> weapon were in use for self defence 17th 18th century.

In the seventeenth century society changed from being a place where every
man carried an edged weapon to a place where the smallsword became a piece
of male jewellery.

In real terms people didn't go around in fear of their lives,
swords/rapiers were worn if you were doing something that may have put you
in peril. Remember, going out late drinking in some English cities can
still be a dangerous business.

What happened is that going out became a lot less dangerous, and the
weapons became a sight more lethal.

This sounds odd, but it isn't.

A rapier or a small sword is a very lethal weapon, the earlier 'back sword'
isn't. A rapier will put a hole in you, it's designed to. A back sword
will give you a very nasty slash.

You probably won't die of a nasty cut, you may have a scar, or even loose
a few fingers or the use of an arm, but you probably won't die.

backswords were not designed for the thrust. Rapiers and Smallsword (the latter being my personal favorite sword) were designed for the thrust, and thus is very sharp at the point. other than as jewelry and status, they were used otherwise only for the duel. Backswords, sabres, cutlasses were designed more as a hacking and defense weapon. The thick, broad blades offered defense and the cutting edge is meant more to be hit against the target with much force, which, while not very lethal, could cause pain and temporarily stun your opponent. But keep in mind that a small cut in the pre-penicillin era could kill you from an infection. But the blades of smallswords and rapiers are very sharp, designed to run through there target in an in and out movement.