Hollywood has often shown Our Hero fighting a Dastardly Villain with rapier. He makes a sudden, very mysterious move, and the villain's sword goes flying off into space. Ah, would that it were so! But there are two disarms that are effective, and amazingly simple. One is to parry a thrust to the left side, and as the blade passes beside the body, the left arm is locked to the side, while the forearm is brought under the blade then up and out. This forces the man to relinquish the sword or risk having his fingers broken. The other is even simpler. A lunge is parried, again to the left of the body, and the the left hand is shot out, grabbing the swept hilt or the cup, and yanking it out of the man's hand. There is a counter to this, where the other fellow replies by grabbing the hilt of his opponent's sword. There has been some speculation that this is the way the swords were intended to be exchanged in the climactic duel in Shakespeare's Hamlet.
Rapiers became slimmer and slimmer, usually cup hilted, usually Spanish, until they were nothing but long thin rods of steel. These are pretty fast, as it was found that the lighter the sword, the faster it became. (It followed the same silly path as rapier length did, so that today you have fencing "swords" that weigh 13 ounces or less.) This quickly led to the development of the small sword. In the hands of a knowledgeable swordsman, it can be quite deadly, especially when facing an opponent who has only a single heavier weapon. However, let your opponent add a small shield, cloak, or dagger, and things change.
Two things to consider here: it has been stated, and proven, that a light, fast thrusting weapon is much quicker than a cutting weapon. This is true provided that both start from the same position! But what happens when the man holding the cutting sword has it in a ready position over his head? The cutting sword may have further to travel, but it is moving much faster! If the left hand is held out to ward off a thrust, or it has a dagger or shield, then there are real problems for the small sword. It can only thrust, and a thrust is not all that hard to parry.
Let me repeat a theme that occurs throughout this book. The main consideration is the men behind the weapons. If you look on a man as an army, and his mind as the general, then you can apply Talleyrand's comment, "I had rather face an army of lions led by a sheep than an army of sheep, led by a lion." In short, it doesn't matter how physically imposing an individual happens to be. What is important is how tough, strong and smart his head is.
Suggestions for further reading from Hank:
De Joinville, Jean. His memoirs can be found in The Chronicles of the Crusades, translated by Margaret Shaw. Penguin, London, 1963.
Hutton, Alfred, The Sword and the Centuries, or Old Sword Days and Old Sword Ways. Grant Richards, London, 1901.
Norman, A.V.B., The Rapier and the Small Sword: 1460–1820, Arms and Armour Press, London, 1980.
Silver, George, Paradoxes of Defense. First published in 1599.
Fiction:
Dumas, Alexandre, The Three Musketeers. First published in 1844.
Rostand, Edmond, Cyrano de Bergerac. First published in 1897. Hank preferred the Bryan Hooker translation. The Modern Library, Random House, New York, 1923.
Sabatini, Rafael, Scaramouche. First published in 1921.
Suggestions for further reading from the editors:
Bryson, Frederick Robertson, The Point of Honor in Sixteenth-Century Italy: An Aspect of the Life of the Gentleman. Publications of the Institute of French Studies, Inc., Columbia University, New York, 1935.
Franzoi, Umberto, L'Armeria del Palazzo Ducale a Venezia. Canova, Treviso, 1990.
[1] Hank was working on changing that. He developed a curved sparring sword and patented it; but the manufacture was done after his death and no royalties have been paid to his estate.
—Editor
8: European Swords: The Saber
The saber is another of those swords whose very name generates confusion. Like the rapier, the form is so varied as to render meaningless the term "saber." It can mean a sword straight or curved, single- or double-edged, with a wide or narrow blade. You have cavalry sabers, artillery sabers, and infantry sabers. I feel sure that if underwater "SEAL" type warriors had been developed in the 18th century, you would have had an "underwater saber."
A Napoleonic uniform.
Originally the term meant a curved sword used on horseback. It gained great popularity beginning in the late 16th century and by the early 19th was the weapon of choice for that most romantic of dashing soldiers, the cavalryman. This was also the period of some of the most flamboyant uniforms ever worn on a battlefield. The German Landsknechts were possibly a little more florid, but they didn't wear uniforms, they were just wildly dressed individuals. I could appear cool and aloof and make some disparaging comments about the many styles of uniforms worn by the various groups before, during and right after the Napoleonic Wars, but I'd be lying. Frankly, I think they all really looked sharp! When you were being bayoneted, sliced with a saber, stabbed with a lance, or torn apart by cannon shot, at least you looked good while dying!
The saber had its origins on the vast plains and steppes of Asia. From horseback, a slightly curved sword offers a definite advantage when dealing with infantry. You can cut down easily and quickly and usually the sword won't get stuck in the enemy. If you have a good seat, you can reach down and stab someone lying flat on the ground. While possible, it was a technique rarely used, as a horse does not like to step on people, as they're all soft and squishy.
The development of the stirrup (usually guessed at about 300 AD and somewhere in Central Asia), gave much greater security to the rider. But it not only allowed him to feel more secure in his seat—it let him strike a harder blow with his sword, and even to thrust with it. This led to varying degrees of curvature, and over fifteen hundred years later, a heated debate in the military halls of the United Kingdom. But I get ahead of myself.
Modern shasqua, 38 inches overall length. HRC322.
Many consider that the saber has to have a guard to qualify as a saber. It doesn't matter whether it is a simple D guard, or a full or half basket. But then, what do you call a shasqua, which is a saber pure and simple in use, and has no guard whatsoever? I will leave this up to the reader. I have given up trying to get all things to fit into a nice clean and simple pattern. (Fifty years of study, and I still can't get people to write "mail" rather than "chainmail." Oh well, they still say "La Brea Tar Pits" which, equally redundantly, translates to "tar pits tar pits.")
Magyar saber.
One of the first true sabers to make it into Europe came in the hands of a wild, conquering horde of horse archers that called themselves Magyars. These were Finno-Urgrian peoples who originated somewhere deep in Asia, possibly Siberia. In the Imperial Treasury in Vienna there is a sword that tradition says was a gift to Charlemagne from Haroun El Rashid. It is no such thing. It is a very typical Magyar saber that they used from their first incursions into Europe and until much later when they had settled and ceased being nomads and horse archers. We know them as Hungarians, and they were a tough, bloodthirsty bunch. They gave Europe a foretaste of what was to happen in a few hundred years when the Mongols came on the scene.
The Hungarian was a lightly armed horse archer whose specialty was the bow. He frequently carried a light shield, one or two bows, obviously arrows, knife, small axe and sword. The sword is of primary interest in this book.
The blade of the Magyar sword was slightly curved, ending in a good sharp point. The last third of the blade was always double-edged. Blade length varied, but on average was about 35–36 inches long, with a width of one and a quarter inches. This allowed for easier penetration in a thrust and made backhand slaps also effective. The grip was short, with small projections ending in small knobs. This short grip was down curved, with a metal cap and secured to the tang by small rivets.
This is an excellent design for a sword used in the hit-and-run tactics of the horse archer. The Magyars rarely had to engage opponents who were heavily armored. If faced with a knight in full armor they always t
ried to avoid closing. However, as they settled into what is now Hungary, they gradually abandoned their nomadic life style, and this necessitated changes in both armor and weapons.
A few years ago a sword was discovered in what is now Iran. The sword dates from about the middle of the 13th century and is in excellent physical condition. It was displayed at the Metropolitan Museum along with many other artifacts and can be seen in the book The Legacy of Genghis Khan. (It was promised that something would be printed on this sword in the near future, but to my knowledge it has not been released.) This is a very beautiful sword, and looks to be an improved version of the Magyar sword. The blade is slightly curved and somewhat wider with a serviceable point. The grip is missing, but the tang is slightly inclined toward the edge of the blade, and is pierced by rivet holes. The guard appears to be a forerunner of the type of guard so popular in the Near East, with two small langets extended from the crossguard, one toward the blade, which would secure the sword in the scabbard, and the other into the grip which would make both grip and guard more secure.
Mongol sword.
The sword is very similar to swords excavated over the years, all of which are considered to be Cuman sabers. It should be noted that although curved swords show up all over the world at various times, they were not prevalent in the Middle East until after the Mongol Invasions. The primary swords used by the Arabs in their expansion and conquests were straight double-edged swords, wide-bladed, flat and capable of delivering a fearsome cut. I know it hurts to think that Hollywood has lied to you all these years, but the classical scimitar didn't come until later.
Antique cutting sword, 37 inches overall length. HRC29.
The Magyars did not simply fade away or blend in with the rest of Europe. Although they abandoned their nomadic ways and settled into a sedentary existence, they still maintained an interest in cavalry. By the 15th century they had developed light cavalry which they called "Hussars." (No one knows for sure where the name came from, but the most logical etymology seems to indicate that it referred to the number of peasants needed for the nobleman to supply one horseman.) This cavalry unit was quite effective, and in a few years most all of the countries in Europe had groups of Hussars, though not all were lightly armed. It should be noted that the sword or saber was either the primary or secondary weapon for these units. If the unit of cavalry was armed with firearms or lances, then the sword was secondary. But often the sword was primary. Sometimes the lance would break, or the gun misfire or run out of ammunition, and then the cavalryman had to rely on his sword, so great attention was paid to the weapon.
Karabela.
One group that I have to comment on is the Polish Winged Hussars. This is probably the most flamboyant of any group of fighting men. You could find them with steel breast and backplates made of overlapping lames of steel, heavy and made to try to withstand musket balls, lobster-tailed helmets, steel shoulder and arm guards, and—fashioned to the back of the backplates—huge curving pieces of wood with feathers projecting like wings! This must have been quite a frightening sight to see this group coming at you, and it wouldn't matter whether you were infantry or cavalry. Regardless of the fear factor, there is one thing for certain: they could fight. For about a hundred years they dominated Northeastern Europe, defeating many armies, some when they were heavily outnumbered. Interestingly, they carried two swords. One was the karabela, a broad-bladed single-edged curved sword that was an excellent cutting weapon. The other was a long stiff-bladed sword very much like a tuck, and really excellent for use against armored units.
By the beginning of the 18th century, firearms, both hand-held and field pieces, had improved to such an extent that the sword and lance were being relegated to second-class weapons for the infantry, but in the cavalry they still were quite important. Eighteenth-century battles were frequently set pieces and waged on open land. Hills and woods were still used for flank protection, but space was needed for cannon. The relationship between cavalry and infantry is curious. Good, solid infantry pikemen whose pikes were longer than the lances of the cavalry could never be broken if they held firm. Should the lance be longer than the halberds, such as happened with the Swiss at Arbedo in 1422, then it becomes a near run thing.
The advent of gunpowder changed this equation, but only slightly. The development of the British square, with successive ranks firing while others reloaded, could easily withstand a charge of horse. The withering firepower, coupled with the horse's reluctance to charge into a line of men, made the square a ferocious defense. But let the square be broken, for whatever reason, and then there was hell to pay. An accurate cannon shot of grape or chain, or just one or two men who lost their nerve and ran—and once the square is broken the infantryman stood very little chance.
Reproduction Polish saber. HRC369.
During the Napoleonic Wars a battle occurred when French cavalry came upon a square of Prussian infantry. It was a very wet, ugly day. The ground was muddy, and the gunpowder of the Prussian infantry was damp. The French could not charge, but could only walk to the square. The Prussians fixed bayonets and held them off repeatedly. The horse was no advantage in those conditions, and the sword could not reach the Prussians, but the Prussians could reach the horse and the man. This went on for a spell, and then some French lancers showed up, drove a wedge into the ranks, and that did it for the Prussians.
Sitting comfortably in a well padded and well used chair, it is easy to conjure up ways of defense to withstand the most awesome of attacks. However, if you use your imagination and think of being the warrior or soldier facing a charging horseman who is armed with a sword or a lance, you can sense that it is a most terrifying event. It is not just the imminence of death, but that you can see and feel the sword or the lance as it kills you.
As the 18th century wore on, more and more the swords became standardized and mass-produced. Hilt forms varied from full basket hilts that gave full hand protection, to simple stirrup guards. Blade shapes also changed on an almost yearly basis. There are a few general officer's swords in Great Britain, as well as some French Hussar swords, that are so deeply curved as to be almost useless. They are often wide-bladed, but are obvious copies of the Persian shamshir.
During the Napoleonic Wars two types of swords were quite popular. One, used by German and Polish forces as well as the British, surprised me quite a bit when I first encountered it back in the late 1950s. It was the 1796 Pattern Light Cavalry saber. The sword had a simple stirrup hilt, a nice curve, a wide blade that ended in a rather rounded point. What amazed me at the time was that the blade thinned all the way to the point, so that the last 5–6 inches of the blade was quite thin and very flexible. So flexible that should you bend that section of the blade, it would stay bent. But it was rather simple to straighten it back out. This was rather puzzling to me at first, since I was of the opinion that a spring temper was essential to a sword. But the more I thought about it, and the more I played with the weapon, I began to see the logic. The sword was quite light and quite fast. It was a light cavalry weapon. Light cavalry was used to harass troops, to engage other light cavalry, to charge troops making them form a square and thus delaying them, and in other movements requiring quick action. The sword was perfect for this. Armor was not worn by the infantry, so for penetrating heavy cloth and flesh this was excellent. One of the problems facing a cavalryman is getting his sword caught in his victim. When slashing at an opponent the sword may not cut through and can be caught in the body. On a running horse this can result in a lost or broken sword. However on the 1796 pattern, it was easy for the sword to simply bend and then be pulled out. If the tip was bent, it could be easily straightened with the hand. (If you worry about handling a bloody blade, then you shouldn't be in the cavalry to start with. And those gaudy uniforms did include gloves.)
Reproduction British 1796 cavalry saber made by Windlass Cutlery. HRC224.
Photo by Charlotte Proctor.
The other sword was the 1796 heavy cavalry s
word. This has been described as a "butcher's blade" and a rather apt description it is. It has none of the grace and beauty of other swords. It is straight, heavy, single-edged, with a good solid point, and the weight of the blade makes it an efficient cutter. Heavy cavalry was used to charge and hit the enemy with great force. Armored with breast and backplate and a stout steel helmet, they were a formidable force if they closed with the enemy. Although this is a book about swords, it should be mentioned that not all heavy cavalry wore breast and back plates. The Austrians wore only a breastplate, and that caused them much grief in several encounters. Keeping your front to the enemy sounds nice, but it is easy to bring a sword back around to strike the back. And once you try to retreat, you leave yourself open with almost no protection. The sword was almost never used for defense, but to hack and stab whenever the opportunity presented itself.
French heavy cavalry sword.
The French heavy cavalry was armed with a very similar sword. The arrangement of the fullers was slightly different and the guard was three branched, but in essence it was the same sword.
Slightly before the Napoleonic Wars, the swords began being sheathed in metal scabbards. Now, it is possible to keep a sword sharp in a metal scabbard, but it is difficult. You have to be careful each time you draw or sheath the sword. Once the edge encounters the steel of the scabbard it becomes dull. But metal scabbards are cheaper, and the military powers that were decided that you didn't need a sharp edge anyway, that the force of a three-foot piece of steel striking a person was enough to split the skin and probably severely wound or kill. This became such an entrenched dictum that it was considered downright mean to sharpen your sword. So much so that Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest was highly criticized for having his men sharpen their sabers, this in the Civil War in the 1860s.
Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword Page 14