Real Sabers

[Adam]

I looked up some pictures of real sabers online, and they were all curved blades.... and the fencing saber is straight. Isnt a fencing weapon supposed to feel and handle like a real weapon?

[Peach]

Originally posted by Adam
I looked up some pictures of real sabers online, and they were all curved blades.... and the fencing saber is straight. Isnt a fencing weapon supposed to feel and handle like a real weapon?

Nope It's a piece of sports equipment.

[Inquartata]

Well, the blades may start out straight, but almost no one leaves them that way, they put a deliberate bend into them almost immediately.

Of course, it's a bend in the horizontal plane instead of the vertical like a true sabre, but then...

Anyway, the blades have to have a certain amount of flex to them, or else a cut can break bones and things. A properly curved blade would almost necessitate a flatter section than we use, making for little or no flex except from side to side, where you don't want it.

BTW, there are straight-bladed sabres from various national army issues, based on the ( I think ) 1897 British pattern, which arose out of the theory that "the cut wounds, the thrust kills" and the notion that a cavalryman would be more effective using his sabre as a lance than a sabre.

[Adam]

So are the fencing weapons at all like the real ones?

[Dav3ey]

Actually, not all sabres were curved. The standard issue U.S. Cavalry sabre for union troops during the civil war had no curve to the blade.

The curve facilitates the attacker dragging the blade across the victim and cutting during a swing.

Sabres for horse-bourne troops (like cavalry) were generally less curved than those for foot soldiers (like artillery officers), since the troops on horseback could count on their advantages of speed and height whereas troops on foot had to make do with just arm strength.

I'll take a look around the web for a straight-bladed sabre and post a link if I find one.

[searches]

OK -- here's a page from what seems to be a military antiques dealer. The descriptions, if correct, would seem to contradict what I thought to be the case (above) regarding curvature.

http://www.sharpsburg-arsenal.com/Ed...d_weapons.html

[Inquartata]

As I noted, I think the straight blades made their debut in the British Army around 1897, soon copied around the world. Here's a Spanish version, looks like the 1908 pattern:

http://therionarms.com/sold/ttoy270.html

[Sildar]

Originally posted by Adam
So are the fencing weapons at all like the real ones?

There were many kinds of sabres in previous centuries. The modern fencing sabre descended from the dueling sabre of the 19th century. Dueling sabres were lighter and had thinner blades than the cavalry sabre, and their use was modified and refined for the purpose of one-on-one duels.

If you look at practice sabre blades from the late 19th/early 20th century, you'll find that the blades were stiffer, wider, and a little heavier than modern sport sabres. The old practice sabres also had a gentle but noticeable curve to the blade in the foible; look at the photos of the weapon Barbasetti is using in "The Art of the Sabre and Epee," and you'll see a very different sabre than what is commonly used today.

And don't believe that myth about sabre target being due to conventions of the cavalry; dueling sabre was mainly used on foot, and leg cuts were taught and used. They were risky though, because they exposed the attacker to a countercut on the head or weapon arm (like the foot shot in epee).

In short, old sabre was more like the actual weapon. However, the rules have changed many times and a very different game has now been developed for the sport fencer.

[buccaneer]

Originally posted by Sildar
There were many kinds of sabres in previous centuries. The modern fencing sabre descended from the dueling sabre of the 19th century. Dueling sabres were lighter and had thinner blades than the cavalry sabre, and their use was modified and refined for the purpose of one-on-one duels.

And don't believe that myth about sabre target being due to conventions of the cavalry; dueling sabre was mainly used on foot, and leg cuts were taught and used. They were risky though, because they exposed the attacker to a countercut on the head or weapon arm (like the foot shot in epee).

In short, old sabre was more like the actual weapon. However, the rules have changed many times and a very different game has now been developed for the sport fencer.

Dueling sabre, thats right!!!!
... and please no more myths about cavalry and naval weapons!!!

[pkt]

All,

As I mentioned in another thread, I have an 1908 British trooper sabre.

http://www.militaryheritage.com/swords2.htm

1908 Pattern Cavalry Trooper's Sword.
Beautiful in its simplicity, the 1908 pattern offered the cavalryman a light weight sword [5 lbs with scabbard 3.5 without. - PK] with maximum protection, hand comfort, and thrusting ease. The sword's hilt consists of a steel bowl guard, a simulated rubber grip, and steel pommel. The blade is made of high carbon steel and is e 35 1/2 inches long. The steel scabbard has a two ring suspension system.

Lightweight if you're a 6-ft plus man! As you can see the blade is 35.5-inch long. You don't want to fight on foot with this sucker.

Alas, the edge on the one I have has been dulled before they could sell it retail. It has a leather sword chord with a dangly thing reminescent of a pine cone. My was painted green. The previous owner(s) has worn off the paint under the 2 rings on the scabbard.

There's a similar 1908 in the War Museum in Ottawa but that one doesn't have a sword chord either.

As told to me by an army friend. The 1908 British calvary sabre was the first and last sabre designed by a committee. It was designed to be used mainly as a lance. the reasoning behind it:
If one slices with a sabre, the blade might get caught in a joint or something. Meaning certain death to the owner of the sabre.
On the other hand, used as a lance, the blade goes in and out the same way, no problem with getting stuck.

On the back of the blade is an 'X'. It means the blade has been 'block tested'. Take the sabre and swing it at a block of wood and if the blade did not break it gets the 'X' stamped on the blade.

Interesting career choice:
What happens to the blades that failed? Imagine that!!! Can't be a long-lived career...

The handle is a ortho grip: (click on 'Close up of hilt)
There's a depression for the thumb.
On the other side of the thumb depression is a lump that forces one to hold the sabre in a 'thumb-up' manner: All 4 fingers together and the thumb in the No. 1, or 'Very Good!' position.

I held one of this German - Heidelberg - duelling sabres about 3 weeks ago... The sport sabre is not like the German duelling sabre at all.

As to the sabre target, I've always told beginners that in the calvary, one does not wish to hurt the horse for one simple reason:
Once the opposing calvaryman has been dealt with, you take his horse... How much truth to this I don't know. But it sounds logical.

PK

[Inquartata]

There are arguments on both sides of the cavalry debate. Good horses were always in short supply, and if you were a cavalryman without a horse what were you? An infantryman. No cavalryman wanted that. So there may have evolved a "gentleman's agreement" not to target each others' horses, though this flies in the face of self-preservation---if it's life or death, do you observe the "code" and die or do you violate it and live? You, or a horse? Which wins out?

More likely it was just practicality: while you're slashing your opponent's leg or his horse, what is his sword likely to be doing? Topping your skull like a boiled egg, of course. He may survive a leg wound or the loss of a horse, but will you survive the impromptu neurosurgery? Plus, your 19th century cavalryman often had a lot of things hanging down around his legs: scabbards, sabretaches, pistol or carbine holsters, even pioneering tools in some cases. These things might get in the way of a low sword cut or thrust. So you keep your fight above the waist, where the sword's unique ability to attack and defend more or less simultaneously is at its best, and for the same reason you'd probably do so in a duel on foot....

[Dav3ey]

Good points I think. I would add two thoughts:

First, ever since Roman times, the difference between someone who became and infantry soldier and one who became a cavalry soldier had little to do with military mind, swordsmanship or horsemanship, but rather social standing. They may have either (i) been more psycologically invested in fighting by the rules, or (ii) just too green to know that the rules don't count, or both.

Second, I'm not sure that even your above-average person could kill a horse on the spot with a sabre blow. This is not to say that one couldn't fatally wound a horse, but rather that horses have a much greater instinctual flight strength than people do. As grim as it sounds, I suspect that you could ride your moribund mount out of the fray. Which is to say, that attacking the horse is no defense against a cavalry soldier in close quarters.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by pkt

I held one of this German - Heidelberg - duelling sabres about 3 weeks ago... The sport sabre is not like the German duelling sabre at all.

As to the sabre target, I've always told beginners that in the calvary, one does not wish to hurt the horse for one simple reason:
Once the opposing calvaryman has been dealt with, you take his horse... How much truth to this I don't know. But it sounds logical.

PK

Apparently I didn't make myself clear. The Italian/French dueling sabres, the cavalry sabre, and the German dueling schlager are three different weapons; they are designed for different purposes and they are used in very different ways. By the late 19th century these really had nothing to do with each other except for the fact that they were all cutting weapons.

The kind of sabre that the sport fencing sabre evolved from was the Italian dueling sabre, which had nothing to do with horses at all; it was designed and taught as a weapon for duels fought on foot, not for battles. This is why the old dueling treatises of Lambertini and Radaelli listed footwork to be performed when using one's own legs. There is no reason to teach a stance and footwork if one is expected to use the weapon from horseback.

Even if we assume for the moment that there was a gentlemen's agreement not to kill horses, there would obviously not be any fear of wounding the non-existant horse when fencing a person who is not presently riding one. In fact, old sabre manuals (military and dueling) gave instruction on cutting an unmounted opponent's leg, from Henry Angelo in 1799 through Louis Rondelle in 1892. Hergsell and Barbasetti, in the late 19th century, both commented that cuts below the belt are prohibited in competition simply out of courtesy for the other fencer; they were writing at a time when sabre duels still took place. No mention was made of horses, imaginary or otherwise.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that any great effort was made to avoid injuring the enemy's horse in battle; on the contrary, several cavalry manuals (such as Robert Craig's in 1812) specifically advise attacking the horse's head, and teach parries for defending one's own horse from the enemy. The first reference to the horse-saving sabre target myth doesn't appear until 1962, well after men on horses with sabres had become rather useless in most combats anyway...

In short, modern sabre has nothing to do with horses, nor were any horses involved in dueling sabre for decades before the modern rules were written. That explanation is merely a rationalization without any historical evidence.

[Purple Fencer]

But...it's such a GOOD story!

Plus, it certainly DOES help beginners remember WHY they should hit above the waist.

[Sildar]

Originally posted by Purple Fencer

Plus, it certainly DOES help beginners remember WHY they should hit above the waist.

You mean not wanting to have your opponent swing a whippy blade at your groin isn't reason enough?

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Sildar
The kind of sabre that the sport fencing sabre evolved from was the Italian dueling sabre, which had nothing to do with horses at all; it was designed and taught as a weapon for duels fought on foot, not for battles.

However, the fact ( and are we CERTAIN it IS a fact? ) that the modern fencing sabre "evolved" directly from the Italian sabre does not simultaneously demonstrate that the modern sabre target evolved directly from the foot-duelling target and not the actual cavalry sabre target. This requires a separate proof, I think...nothing prevented the fellows who defined the target area from "skipping a step" and harking back to an earlier imperative ( or at least what they, perhaps mistakenly, thought was the earlier imperative...

This is why the old dueling treatises of Lambertini and Radaelli listed footwork to be performed when using one's own legs. There is no reason to teach a stance and footwork if one is expected to use the weapon from horseback.

Well, less reason, perhaps. The legs are still used for fighting from the saddle. But I concede this point. ( If you were epeemike I would continue to argue it most vigorously! )

Even if we assume for the moment that there was a gentlemen's agreement not to kill horses, there would obviously not be any fear of wounding the non-existant horse when fencing a person who is not presently riding one.

Yet all still depends upon the assumption that the persons who drew up and promulgated the rules of sport fencing were thinking specifically of the sabre duel on foot and not the mounted duel when they did so...or that they were not thinking romantically instead of practically.

In fact, old sabre manuals (military and dueling) gave instruction on cutting an unmounted opponent's leg, from Henry Angelo in 1799 through Louis Rondelle in 1892.

For this I must take your word; I have read neither, though I have a copy of Angelo ( you would not believe the number of books on my to-be-read list ). Angelo, it bears noticing, was also the proprietor of a school of equitation...

Edit: I leafed through Angelo briefly last night. There are indeed a number of plates depicting parries designed to defend the horse. Some show only the cavalryman demonstrating the position, so these could conceivably be intended to parry infantry swords or bayonets; but others show two cavalrymen, one parrying a blow from the other, and are even labelled "Horse and Thigh Defend" and the like....

I still maintain that to strike low in these circumstances would be suicidal, though. Maybe the parries were iterated only in the interest of thoroughness...



I haven't read Amberger's book, either, though I understand that he makes the same point.

But again, if the modern rule re target was drawn up using the cavalry, as opposed to the duelling, sabre as a model then the point is still moot. Those who did so may have acted perversely, but they may still have done so. Neither history nor sport are devoid of inexplicable perversity.

Hergsell and Barbasetti, in the late 19th century, both commented that cuts below the belt are prohibited in competition simply out of courtesy for the other fencer; they were writing at a time when sabre duels still took place. No mention was made of horses, imaginary or otherwise.

Out of courtesy...born of custom? Custom, perhaps born of a code amongst gentlemen of a cavalry persuasion? Possible, no?

I have Barbasetti, but don't recall the passage addressing this point. I don't suppose you could save me some research with a page number or the like?

Edit: I thumbed through "The Art of the Sabre and the Epee" last night. You are right, Sildar, there is no reference to the cavalryman's seat as a rationale for the sabre target. In fact, all he has to say about the target is "In the artistic assault, the only valid touches are those which are made above the line of the hips, including arm and head. You are forbidden wilfully to strike with thrust or cut the lower part of the abdomen." ( He also discusses the high and low, interior and exterior lines. )

That "artistic assault" business is rather vague, but...is this what you meant by "courtesy"?

Apparently, though, it was standard practice in salles not to attack the legs even in epee at one time, somewhat earlier than the period we're talking about. THAT certainly can't have had anything to do with the horseman's posture...

Robert Craig's in 1812) specifically advise attacking the horse's head,

This is the most convincing sort of evidence I have yet heard. If the attitude was general and not peculiar to a few "eccentrics" it would be definitive.

and teach parries for defending one's own horse from the enemy.

Of course, these could just as well be intended to defend the horse from the attacks of infantrymen, who as every cavalryman knows are low baseborn knaves who would scruple at no ignoble act...

The first reference to the horse-saving sabre target myth doesn't appear until 1962

Where does it occur? Who is to blame for the myth, if it is indeed a myth?

In short, modern sabre has nothing to do with horses, nor were any horses involved in dueling sabre for decades before the modern rules were written.

Wasn't there mounted fencing at one time? I can't recall where---so many message boards---but I just saw a reference to this quite recently somewhere. Someone even posted photos of men in military uniform trading blows from horseback, competitively. One of those "forgotten" fencing events, like the master event, perhaps. If I stumble across the reference again I'll post a link to it...

[Dav3ey]

What about small horses that might get in the way? You must admit that avoiding cuts down around the legs would also avoid hitting them -- and they didn't even do anything to anyone. I think that small, innocent horses should be left out of it.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Adam]

Does anyone have a link to a photo of a real italian dueling saber?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Neither history nor sport are devoid of inexplicable perversity.

My goodness...what a delightful turn of phrase.

It sound like the explanation for why certain family reunions are held at a big building with lots of bars. "Little Tommy, you know Uncle Joe has been suffering from....'inexplicable perversity'. That's why we have to visit him at his 'special house'."

Inq--maybe you can confirm or dispel a long-held belief of mine about traditional sabres. I think I read that the sabre's curve was intended to make it less like to stick in an opponent as one slashed him at full gallop, thereby saving you from an ignominious unhorsing, loss of blade or a dislocated shoulder. (I'm thinking axe blade stuck in large stump as an example.)

Yet many military sabres have little curve...while others are profoudly curved. Was there a correlation between the bowleggedness of the sabreur and the curve of his blade (as in the longer you were a cavalryman, the less you fancied a straight blade) or were there other factors at work?

Or is the more curve/less sticking theory another inexplicable perversity that we should stamp out?

[Purple Fencer]

Originally posted by Sildar
You mean not wanting to have your opponent swing a whippy blade at your groin isn't reason enough?

Well...that applies to all three weapons...particularly little kids triing to parry! OUCH!!

[Inquartata]

Originally posted by Capt. Slo-mo
I think I read that the sabre's curve was intended to make it less like to stick in an opponent as one slashed him at full gallop, thereby saving you from an ignominious unhorsing, loss of blade or a dislocated shoulder. (I'm thinking axe blade stuck in large stump as an example.)

There are a lot of theories on the physics of the curved blade vs the straight; Sir Richard Burton does a good job of arguing that the curved blade is better at cutting than the straight, particularly at slashing or drawing cuts, in his "Book of the Sword". Yet one notes inexplicable perv---er, apparent disregard of this principle, ie European executioners' swords always have straight blades.

I'd not put much credence in the sticks-in-the-opponent theory myself, with regard to cuts; thrusts are another matter, a through penetration might wedge between ribs, etc. Most cuts, especially with the momentum of a 1200 pound horse moving 35 mph or so ( double that if it's two cavalrymen charging at each other ), would either take effect through blunt force trauma in the case of a dull blade or sever things like limbs completely in the case of a sharp one, IMO. Slashing cuts wouldn't penetrate deeply enough to stick as a rule. And living bone is nowhere near as dense and hard as the wood of a tree...let alone the soft tissue of the human body.

Still, there was a reason cavalrymen looped their lanyards around their thumbs, not their wrists. It could happen, especially if the sword hit something like the adversary's saddle bow or something instead of him. I just doubt that that was the logic behind the curved blade...



Inquartata the Inexplicably Perverse