Sword Forum International | swordforum.com

Navigate

Home

Previous Menu

CAVALRY COMBAT AND THE SWORD
Sword Design, Provision and Use in the British Cavalry of the Napoleonic Era

by Martin Read

July 14, 2003

INTRODUCTION

A number of general works on Napoleonic history, and indeed some older more specialised military histories, indicate that the use by heavy cavalry of a straight thrusting sword, and by light cavalry of a curved cutting sword, was merely a matter of convention or fashion. Though a definite streak of conservatism did exist relating to the provision of sword types, these assertions are far from the truth. Throughout the Nineteenth Century a heated controversy ran through European, and particularly British, military circles as to whether a sword optimised for thrusting or one optimised for cutting was the best type to issue to mounted troops. Though British records of this controversy are most numerous for the Nineteenth Century the origins of conflict over this issue are considerably earlier, dating from the adoption of the light cavalry ethos in the armies of Western Europe.

The historical origins of the two forms of sword are quite distinct. The straight thrusting sword can be traced back to the straight two edged sword of war of Mediaeval times. Originally a cut and thrust sword, the adoption of plate armour led to specialised thrusting forms being produced. Typically these had a long narrow blade stiffened by a diamond cross-section or a medial rib. These swords eventually evolved into the ultimate thrusting weapon the rapier. Though used in war the true rapier was really a civilian phenomenon, it being recognised by most authorities that the soldier in combat required a more robust weapon. Therefore, alongside the rapier there always existed broader-bladed, slightly shorter weapons, which could be used to thrust and had sufficient weight of blade to cut. This type of sword had many minor variations and names but was known in the English Civil War as a "good stiff tuck". During the 18th century the rapier shrank in size to produce the civilian "small-sword". While from an even earlier date the straight military sword tended, because of the lessening use of armour and the universality of asymmetric hand guards (knucklebows), to adopt a single edged blade with a thickened back (a "back-sword").

The evolution of the curved sabre seems to derive from two sources. Firstly, there was a tradition of heavy bladed, single edged, cutting swords in Western Europe dating back to the Mediaeval falchion (possibly back as far as the seax of the Germanic tribes), which had evolved into the lighter "hanger" form by about 1600. Secondly, and probably more importantly, was influence deriving from the East. The Eurasian steppe seems to be the birthplace of the true sabre, and use of this form of relatively light slashing weapon moved from east to west in Europe over time¹. The Byzantines and Russians were using sabres by 1200 at the very latest, and its use was introduced, or re-introduced, to Central Europe by various steppe peoples, such as the Cumans, fleeing troubles further east. The appearance of the Mongols, and later the Ottoman Turks, in Europe must have reinforced these influences leading to more widespread use of the sabre. Whilst Central and Eastern Europe saw widespread usage of sabres in mounted warfare from relatively early times, the cavalry of Western Europe saw only minor use of curved swords before the gradual adoption of light cavalry during the course of the 18th century, in the case of Britain particularly after 1750.²

SWORD TYPES AND THEIR USE

Form and Function in Sword Design

The physics of the operation of the two types of sword is of direct relevance to how they were used in battle. The curve of a sabre, if it is pronounced enough, allows a slicing blow to be delivered. When the edge of the blade of such as sword encounters a target it moves into and across the surface of the target simultaneously. The lateral movement of the blade within the target multiplies the effect of the blow. In contrast when a straight sword used to cut, it delivers a hacking blow like an axe biting into wood. The relative efficiency of the two types of cut can be illustrated by the outcome of using a carving knife to chop at a cooked joint of meat or using the same knife to slice in the normal manner. There are a number of important results of this phenomenon on sword characteristics. A sword which is curved enough to allow the greatest cutting efficiency will of necessity be too curved to allow the thrust to be made with any appreciable accuracy or effect. If a straight sword is to have any usefulness in cutting, because it has no slicing ability, it has to have a blade of reasonable weight and a point of balance well to the front of the hilt (there is a good reason why an axe has its weight and cutting edge at the end of a long handle). The relatively light bladed rapier, despite portrayals of The Three Musketeers, if used to cut would not usually produce disabling wounds on a person wearing reasonably stout clothing. It is evident that swords with a slight curvature tend to display a performance which is sub-optimal in both methods of use, being too straight to slice effectively whilst their curvature renders accurate thrusting more difficult. Any advantage of being adaptable, though mediocre in any one method of use, is difficult to quantify.


The curve allows the sword to be moved tightly across the body from side to side, a great advantage for a cavalryman with a horse's head and neck in front of him.

In addition to the mechanics of the blade action there are a number of other qualities that distinguish curved and straight swords. Because a curved sword is not directly reliant on weight of blade to give it a cutting ability it can be relatively lighter and handier than a straight cut and thrust sword. Curvature also gives a sword relatively greater manoeuvrability length for length. The curve allows the sword to be moved tightly across the body from side to side, a great advantage for a cavalryman with a horse's head and neck in front of him. The curved sword also has an advantage that in the heat of close combat a cut is a far more instinctive blow than a thrust, so that a sword optimised for cutting will be more effective in the hands of the average trooper. The straight thrusting sword also possesses a number of advantages. If faced with an armoured foe the thrust is the only sword blow likely to result in decisive wounds³. The thrust is also the only blow to which the forward movement of the horse can be directly applied. When charging the straight thrusting sword was held in tierce, with the sword pointing directly ahead, the elbow almost straight, the hand relatively high and the blade point a little lower than the hilt, most importantly the thumb was braced and the wrist locked. With this grip the forward momentum of the charging horse powers the thrust, a little like the use of the couched lance; the cavalryman merely aims his weapon. The force of such a thrust could be awesome, and if landing accurately would kill an opponent almost instantly. However, using a sword to thrust, particularly when moving at high speed, had its own potential for disaster - that of being unable to easily withdraw the weapon from the body of ones enemy. A sword used by cavalry in the American Civil War was not nicknamed the "wrist-breaker" without reason.

Sword Shape and Combat

It is evident that the two types of sword described have properties suited to different combat situations. In cavalry versus cavalry combat the straight thrusting sword is most useful in a formal charge, especially at the first clash, whereas the curved sabre comes into its own in the confusion of a cavalry melee following a charge. The straight sword, as well as being used to harness the forward momentum of horse and rider to lethal effect, was regarded as having an enhanced intimidatory effect on the enemy. The sight of ranks of men charging with levelled pointing swords was considered a more frightening prospect for the enemy than the same number of men waving curved sabres. In contrast when groups of horsemen engaged in melee the pace of the horse was slow, usually merely a walk, so that no advantage was gained from momentum. Also there was a great deal of circling and tight pivoting of meleeing riders and horses. The resulting effect being that the individual cavalryman constantly had to shift his sword from side to side to meet ever changing threats and targets. In this type of conflict the greater manoeuvrability of the curved sword was at a particular premium.

Against infantry neither sword offers any particular advantage in regard to combat with well-motivated foot soldiers drawn up in a defensive formation. However, because of the greater reach of the majority of thrusting swords, this sword type would have some advantage over the sabre when dealing with unprepared or disordered infantry.


The sight of ranks of men charging with levelled pointing swords was considered a more frightening prospect for the enemy than the same number of men waving curved sabres.

The best illustration of the differing usage of the straight and curved sword in combat is made by reference to cavalrymen who routinely used both; these are the original hussars⁴, both Hungarian and Polish-Lithuanian. The two types of hussar were very similar, developed as they were from the light cavalry traditions of the Western Balkans, up to the fall of the Kingdom of Hungary to the Turks. Thereafter the Polish hussar became more heavily armoured and used in a shock role, and the Hungarian hussar lost his armour and embraced a famed place in irregular warfare. It was the latter type which was the ancestor of the hussars and other light cavalry of Western Europe, though the Polish hussar could be seen to have been instrumental in the retention of the cavalry lance until its widespread readoption in the Napoleonic period. Both forms of hussar carried a curved sabre hung from a waist belt and additionally a long straight thrusting sword (palasz or koncerz in Polish) attached to the left side of the horse's saddle. The Polish hussar would use his thrusting sword if obliged to charge after his lance had been broken; if he was involved in a melee or was fighting in a less ordered formation he would rely on his sabre. The Hungarian hussar used his swords in a similar manner and some of the earliest French hussars, as was described by a contemporary witness, retained this method of fighting:

The arms of the hussars are a large curved sabre…it is for sabring right and left, and for striking high to low. Some, in addition to the sabre carry a long thin sword which they do not carry at their sides but rather place it along the sides of their horses from the breast to crupper… (these) they use to spit the enemy;… when they employ them, they rest the butt against the knee⁵.

It can be seen from their use of both types of sword that the early hussars were well aware of each weapon's differing advantages in particular forms of combat.

The early hussars were usually drawn from a military and social elite; they often provided their own equipment and had an inborn pride in their martial prowess. However, the more prosaic needs of the large armies of Western Europe largely precluded the maintenance of dual-armed cavalrymen so that the type of sword used by a cavalry trooper reflected the primary role of his unit. Heavy cavalry, who existed for the close order battlefield charge, were equipped with straight thrusting swords, the light cavalry, whose major function was in the provision of piquets, scouting, screening the movements of armies and other forms of the petite guerre were given curved sabres.

(C) 2003 by SFI

SWORDS AND THE BRITISH CAVALRY

Some Peculiarities of British Cavalry of the Napoleonic Era

In the nature of its cavalry forces, as in many other ways, the British military possessed certain distinctions from what pertained on the continent. The combination of a relatively modest cavalry establishment and a countryside richly productive in good quality horseflesh led to a blurring of distinctions between heavy and light cavalry roles. On the continent careful gradations of size of mount and rider were observed and officially prescribed, the larger men and horses were assigned to the regiments of heavy cavalry, smaller men and horses to the light cavalry regiments. In Britain there are indications of an apparent recognition, due to the limited numbers of cavalry available, that all cavalry regiments should be fully capable of making an effective formal battlefield charge⁶. Additionally there existed a natural desire in regimental commanding officers (excepting for a few fraudulent officers) to obtain the best quality mounts possible. This combination of factors resulted in a situation where the difference in size of mount of heavy and light regiments was negligible.

Despite there being only slight practical differentiation in battlefield prowess and capability within the British cavalry notable distinctions between light regiments (Light Dragoons and Hussars) and heavy regiments (Household Cavalry, Dragoon Guards and Dragoons) in weaponry, uniforms and other equipment were maintained. That the two types of cavalry were given essentially identical training when part of the "Home Establishment" merely serves to reinforce the apparent logicality of this situation. This formal training extended to horsemanship, weapons drill, battlefield manoeuvres (usually conducted at the most rapid speed possible - order apparently being deemed less important than velocity) and in conducting the charge⁷. The light cavalry consequently had to learn the arts particular to their branch of the service, these being piquet and patrol work, in the hard school of active campaigning.

Examples of British light cavalry's abilities in conducting formal battlefield charges are numerous. In the Peninsular War British Hussars and Light Dragoons bested French Dragoons, a nominally heavier form of cavalry, in equal contests on several occasions, notably at Sahagun (1808) and Campo Mayor (1811). Indeed during the Battle of Waterloo a number of instances are recorded of British and King's German Legion light cavalry repulsing French cuirassiers, who were amongst the heaviest cavalry in Europe. A contemporary British officer wrote "His [the English bred horse's] impulse forward is indeed prodigious; and it has been truly said, that the lightest British cavalry is not only far more active than any French body of horse, but is, in the charge, infinitely more powerful and weighty than the heaviest squadrons of the enemy."⁸

John Le Marchant and the Arming of the British Cavalry

Prior to 1788 British cavalry regiments were armed at the whim of their commanding officers. Though broad similarities existed in the type of sword used within the heavy cavalry as a whole, and again within the light cavalry, much variation in length of blade and other characteristics were found. A Board of General Officers convened in 1788 under General Henry Seymour Conway, after examining specimens of the swords presently in use, produced two patterns of sword one for the heavy the other for the light regiments. These patterns were far from specific and the method of testing blades was far from rigorous. However, this process enabled the British cavalry to enter the Revolutionary War with a certain uniformity of cavalry sword provision. The efficiency of these swords was tested in the Low Countries campaigns conducted under the command of the Duke of York. Both forms of sword, though particularly the heavy cavalry specimen, were found to be seriously wanting, especially when compared to the swords of the allied Austrian cavalry. The swords were too long in the blade, 38 inches for the straight heavy cavalry sword and 36 for the curved light cavalry sword, unwieldy, unbalanced and liable to turn in the hand or break when in contact with an enemy sword. Indeed so unwieldy was the heavy cavalry pattern that a very unhealthy incidence of self inflicted wounds was the consequence of its use.

A witness to these shortcomings in sword provision was a cavalry officer of Guernsey origins serving in the 2nd Dragoon Guards, John Gaspard Le Marchant. A talented and intelligent soldier who, though only a captain at the time of the campaign, was to have a profound influence on the future effectiveness of British cavalry and indeed on the army as a whole. It is necessary to explain how a relatively junior officer, he was promoted to major in 1795, was able to have such an impact. His ability to influence the workings of the army was based squarely on patronage, a powerful feature of the workings of the contemporary British army. Although often vilified for promoting a number of ineffective men to positions of power and influence, it was also instrumental in the accelerated rise of such luminaries as the Duke of Wellington. For Le Marchant patronage was to come from the very top. In 1789 he was serving as a lieutenant in the 6th Dragoons when they were on escort duty to George III. At this time the ambitious, personable and thoughtful young officer came to the notice of his king and a friendly relationship ensued. Another well placed patron of this promising officer, was the prominent politician and government minister Sir George Yonge⁹.

During the campaigns in the Low Countries Le Marchant, in addition to making a critical assessment of the British cavalry's failings, took careful note of the equipment, of which he drew many sketches, and training of the allied Austrian cavalry. His observations of the decidedly superior, at least in terms of equipment and training, Austrian cavalry inspired in him a desire to make an effort to materially improve his own service. On his return to Britain he was given a superb opportunity to put his ideas for the improvement of the cavalry into effect. Now a major in the 16th Light Dragoons he was again on royal escort duty, and therefore had considerable access to King George. No doubt the king was impressed with Le Marchant's ideas and the meticulous observations he had made on campaign, for he agreed to lend him his not inconsiderable support.


In designing a new sword for the cavalry Le Marchant did not work in a vacuum, influences from Eastern Europe and more importantly from even further east can be clearly discerned.

Le Marchant seems to have developed distinct opinions as to what qualities a practical and efficient cavalry sword should possess. He regarded the type of the sword in the hand of a trooper to be of only marginal importance during a formal battlefield charge. Of far greater importance, he considered, were factors such as the quality of the cavalry's mounts, and the morale, discipline and horsemanship of the troopers. In this he was not alone, General von Seydlitz, Frederick the Great's superb leader and trainer of cavalry, was of identical opinion¹⁰. Once the lowly position of sword type within the hierarchy of factors leading to a successful charge is admitted it then becomes logical to provide cavalry with swords optimised for use in the melee, that is well-curved sabres. In designing a new sword for the cavalry Le Marchant did not work in a vacuum, influences from Eastern Europe and more importantly from even further east can be clearly discerned. It is probable that the broad bladed well-curved hussar sabres of the Austrian army had some general influence, though the form of curve in the new British sword was distinctly different. Unlike the Austrian examples (1768 pattern) in which blade curvature is essentially equal from hilt to tip, the British sword had only a slight curvature in the half of the blade nearest the hilt, while the distal half displayed a distinctly increased curve. This form of curvature is found on many Indian sabres of the tulwar type, as well as some other eastern swords. The other unusual feature of the new sword, the widening of the blade near to the tip, is identical in effect (though differing in shape) to the expanded yelman found on the blades of such eastern slashing swords as the Ottoman kiliç. Indeed, Le Marchant is recorded as referring to the "blades of the Turks, Mamalukes, Moors and Hungarians…[as] preferable to any other". A retrospective support for the influence of Indian sabres can be seen in the popularity of the British sword with Indian mounted troops throughout the Nineteenth Century¹¹. The native Indian horsemen often had British sabres re-hilted and scabbarded in the local style, in which form they appear to have used them to devastating effect¹².

Whatever the design inspiration, the prototype sword was produced as the result of a collaboration with a Birmingham sword cutler named Henry Osborn. Great pains were taken to produce a lighter, handier sword than the previous pattern, with the hilt in particular stripped of all superfluous weight. In June of 1796 a Board of General Officers approved the adoption of this sword, with a slightly lengthened blade (increased from 31.5in to between 32.5 and 33in,) as the 1796 Pattern light cavalry sword. Le Marchant was to be disappointed in one respect, his sword was not to be uniformally adopted by all the British cavalry, the heavy cavalry was to be issued with a different sword. The generals seem to have balked at giving the heavies a curved sabre and insisted on a straight sword. The probable influence of Le Marchant can, however, be detected in the design of sword adopted, which was a direct copy of the Austrian 1769-75 heavy cavalry pattern¹³. Though straight bladed, it was a dedicated cutting sword having a heavy 35-inch blade and a disc guard. This was the famed and often derided 1796 Pattern heavy cavalry sword. This sword, with its blunt hatchet point, was something of an anachronism. Being straight bladed it should have been given a tip which would at least allow the thrust to be made, even if the thrust was not the recommended form of attack. Later modifications were carried out, in a less than uniform way, on this sword which made the tip more acute and therefore more suited to the thrust¹⁴.

The two patterns of sword were manufactured by a number of cutlers, some even warranting their blades "Never to Fail", while this may be exaggeration the quality of blades was, in general, greatly improved over those of the 1788 swords. This was largely due to the introduction of a far more rigorous regime of testing and inspection before swords were accepted.

Swords of the two patterns saw extensive use by foreign countries, either through direct exportation of swords from Britain or by the adoption of identical models for local manufacture, or a combination of both; these countries included Portugal, Spain, Prussia, Sweden and the USA.

The Training of British Cavalry in Swordsmanship

At the time that Le Marchant was noting the poor quality and design of British cavalry swords the level of swordsmanship shown by the average trooper was also making an unfavourable impression. This was highlighted by the disparaging remark an Austrian officer made to him that British sword fighting was "entertaining" but reminded him of a "farmer chopping wood." Unlike the infantry and artillery the British cavalry did not have a uniform weapons drill. Whilst sword use could not be codified as easily as the more mechanical procedures of loading and firing smallarms or cannon, it was apparent that the cavalry would benefit from a rigorous and universally applied system of practical training in swordsmanship.

Current with his development of the new sword, and of equal or greater importance, Le Marchant wrote a manual of mounted swordsmanship. This was published, in 1796, as the "Rules and Regulations of the Sword Exercise of the Cavalry¹⁵." There was a considerable body of previous work in a broadly similar vein in existence in the form of fencing manuals and also tracts intended as advice for officers on the employment and training of cavalry, which often included some instruction in the use of weapons. Indeed as far back as the early Seventeenth Century there were a number of manuals of this sort published in English, including John Cruso's influential "Militarie Instructions for the Cavallerie¹⁶." However, the new manual, unlike previous 'advisory' publications, had the enormous advantage of being enforced within the army as a corpus of officially prescribed regulations. Indeed, this work had the effect of producing a minor renaissance in British swordsmanship treatises. In 1798 C. Rowarth published a manual that effectively transposed Le Marchant's work for use on foot (The Art of Defence On Foot with Broadsword and Sabre); exercises for the 'Hungarian and Highland broadsword' and naval cutlass were published within the following two decades, both of these being the work of the famed fencing master Harry Angelo¹⁷.

As has been mentioned previously Le Marchant had a decided preference for the use of the cut and this is reflected in his sword exercise. He considered the thrust as of very limited use in combat with a mounted foeman. There was only one way of delivering a thrust, with the sword-point punched directly at the target. This, in Le Marchant's estimation, would allow an agile trooper to anticipate the thrust in order dodge or parry it. If the defending swordsman managed to get inside the guard of the thrusting trooper the tables would be quickly turned and, as the original attacker would be unable to block, he would be lucky to escape without receiving a debilitating wound. It is worth noting that the delivery of a thrust in fencing on foot involves considerable movement from the legs and feet to make it effective. A mounted man in melee combat does not have this mobility; he is wholly reliant on the extension of the arm and a degree of leaning from the waist to enable him to execute a thrust. This is a considerable handicap, whereas the technique, and facility, in delivering a cut does not greatly differ whether mounted or on foot.


Great emphasis was laid on the cut being executed using the flexing of fingers and wrist with additional movement only from the shoulder, the arm being held straight.

Against enemy cavalry the manual prescribed six offensive cuts and eight guards for defence. The cuts were to be aimed towards the left ear of an opponent, the first was forehand cut diagonally downward, the second the same but backhanded, the third was diagonally upward on the forehand and the fourth the corresponding backhand motion. The fifth and sixth were horizontal cuts on the forehand and backhand respectively. The guards included an initial position from which the others, or indeed a cut, could be easily effected; this was with the sword in tierce held horizontally, point somewhat to the fore, at the level of the trooper's eyes. Next were left and right protect, horse nearside and offside protect, then two guards designed to protect the bridle arm and sword arm, and finally a guard where the sword was held crossways above the head to protect from downward slashes.

Great emphasis was laid on the cut being executed using the flexing of fingers and wrist with additional movement only from the shoulder, the arm being held straight. This ensured the greatest reach for the stroke, but more importantly ensured that the elbow was not exposed. It was considered that a bent elbow was particularly vulnerable, being outside the protection of blade and guard, to a cut that could be administered by an enemy at negligible risk to himself. Only against infantry could a cut with a bent elbow be employed with no danger to the trooper. The manual also included a number of points (thrusts) which could be used against infantry. It was also allowed that the thrust could be used to great effect, and without hazard, against a fleeing enemy cavalryman. Additionally the regulations described a parry employing the back of the blade to be used against infantry bayonet thrusts. Considerable weight was placed on the correct use of the sword knot to prevent accidental loss of a weapon in the heat of combat. Le Marchant recommended that only the final 6 inches of the sword blade be fully sharpened. This was both to impress on the trooper where the optimal part of the blade for cutting was located and also to limit the difficulties of extraction of the sword which could result if a substantial length of blade became locked in the body of an enemy.

The cavalry trooper was initially taught the sword exercise on foot, facing a target painted on a wall. Troopers executed cuts and parries in unison on being given specific commands. Sequences of attacks and defences were built up with fluglemen (experienced swordsmen acting as demonstrators) setting an example of style for the others to imitate. Once the drill was mastered on foot it was transposed to horseback, initially executed with the horse at a slow walk before the pace was incrementally increased. The use of a number of physical targets supplemented mere swiping at air to give the cavalryman experience of cutting against resistance as well as improving both weapon skills and the necessary levels of horsemanship to make these effective. These targets included the 'edge post,' consisting of a willow wand set vertically on a stand, and also a turnip similarly mounted (in the latter case the target presumably provided food for man or beast afterward). The height of the target could be easily adjusted on the specially constructed wooden support. A further training method - running the ring - was also used; this was particularly good for improving the cavalryman's control of his mount. A ring of varying diameter (the smaller the ring the more difficult the exercise) was mounted on a form of miniature gibbet at a variable height. The trooper charged the target at high speed aiming to thrust his sword point into the ring. The ring had a line of finite length attached to it, which would pay out until it reached a stop. If the trooper had not managed to bring his horse from a gallop to a complete halt before this happened his sword might be ignominiously twitched from his hand. Effective though it was this was not a wholly new concept, an almost identical method is illustrated in Cruso's early 17th century cavalry manual but here it was for the training of the fully armoured horseman in the use of the (already outmoded) heavy knightly lance.

Finally, the troopers' training included placing them in various simulated combat situations which they were expected to react to with a degree of initiative; this was intended to oblige them to "think for themselves and act independently of each other; which on service are inestimable qualities." Thus Le Marchant's training was not intended to produce sword-wielding automata but to promote the technical skill, self-confidence and freedom to use initiative, which make fighting men truly effective. In many ways this is an exact parallel of the contemporary training of British infantry in skirmishing and other light infantry tactics.

British Cavalry Swords in Use

The use to which the British cavalry swords were put is best illustrated by quoting the comments of those who wielded them and other eyewitnesses.

The following passages refer to the 1796 pattern light cavalry sword. The first shows a rather unorthodox use of swordsmanship, though the effectiveness of the sword in cutting is well illustrated. The third and fourth quotes describe vertical cuts to the head delivered to great effect. These were not cuts prescribed in the regulations, which illustrates that although the regulations formed a framework for the cavalry's swordfighting they were not slavishly adhered to in the heat of combat. Indeed this was in accord with Le Marchant's intentions, personal initiative being a key element in his combat philosophy. However, the final quote is a textbook example that could have been taken directly from the Rules and Regulations. The thrust of a French trooper is parried and once inside his opponent's guard the British cavalryman makes a cut to his enemy's face resulting in a severe and disabling wound (evidently cut 5 or 6).

Lieutenant William Hay, foraging during the Peninsular War.

In an instant we were amongst the unfortunate sheep, and one fellow's head off his body from the powerful blow of my friend's sharp sword. Just at this moment a tremendous hollering commenced in our rear, there were the shepherds coming to the rescue. No time was to be lost! The Duke of Wellington's orders were most strict on the subject of anything bordering on plundering the inhabitants.¹⁸

William Tomkinson, 16th Light Dragoons, Villagarcia/Llerena 1812.

The prisoners were dreadfully cut, and some will not recover. A French dragoon had his head nearer cut off than I ever saw before; it was by a sabre cut at the back of the neck. ¹⁹

An officer of the 13th Light Dragoons, Campo Mayor 1811.

The French colonel (Chamorin, 26th Dragoons)…...was killed by a corporal (Logan) of the 13th; this corporal had killed one of his men, and he was so enraged, that he sallied out himself and attacked the corporal - the corporal was well mounted and a good swordsman, as was also the colonel - both defended for some time, the corporal cut him twice in the face, his helmet came off at the second, when the corporal slew him by a cut which nearly cleft his skull asunder, it cut in as deep as the nose through the brain. ²⁰

Pte. George Farmer 11th Light Dragoons, involved in a skirmish on the Guadiana River 1811.

A) Just then a French officer stooping over the body of one of his countrymen, who dropped the instant on his horse's neck, delivered a thrust at poor Harry Wilson's body; and delivered it effectually. I firmly believe that Wilson died on the instant yet, though he felt the sword in its progress, he, with characteristic self-command, kept his eye on the enemy in his front; and, raising himself in his stirrups, let fall upon the Frenchman's head such a blow, that brass and skull parted before it, and the man's head was cloven asunder to the chin. It was the most tremendous blow I ever beheld struck; and both he who gave, and his opponent who received it, dropped dead together. The brass helmet was afterwards examined by order of a French officer, who, as well as myself, was astonished at the exploit; and the cut was found to be as clean as if the sword had gone through a turnip, not so much as a dint being left on either side of it

²¹

Lieutenant George Woodberry 18th Hussars, Morales de Toro 1813.

French artillery

²²

The next two quotes describe the use of the 1796 pattern heavy cavalry sword. The second of these excerpts shows the manner in which this sword, undoubtedly with a modified point, could perform against the lauded Klingenthal thrusting swords of the French cuirassiers. Both of the British cavalrymen concerned appear to have been very practised and effective swordsmen. Probably a good pointer to the excellence of the swordsmanship training they had received.

Sgt. Charles Ewart, 2nd Dragoons (Scots Greys), Waterloo 1815.

²³

William Morris, 73rd Foot, observing combat between the Life Guards and French cuirassiers, Waterloo 1815.

²⁴

Finally, the following is the view of an enemy cavalry officer on the use of British cavalry swords. He exaggerates the width of blade of the British swords, though not their cutting effect.

Captain Charles Parquin, Chasseurs a Cheval of the Imperial Guard.

We always thrust with the point of our sabres, whereas they always cut with their blade which was three inches wide. Consequently, out of every twenty blows aimed by them, nineteen missed. If, however, the edge of the blade found its mark only once, it was a terrible blow, and it was not unusual to see an arm cut clean from the body. ²⁵

Contemporary Perceptions

Le Marchant approached the design of cavalry swords and the provision of training in swordsmanship within an eminently reasoned framework, it may therefore be surprising to note that a good deal of deprecatory comment was directed at the 1796 swords and their prescribed mode of use. This comment was directly connected to the general controversy over whether the cut or the thrust was the most effective way of using a sword. The following quotations are typical of the criticisms of British swords and swordplay.

"An Officer of Dragoons", writing in 1831.

²⁶

Captain William Bragge, 3rd Dragoons, in his letters 1811-1814, referring to the action at Villagarcia 1812.

It is worthy of remark that scarcely one Frenchman died of his wounds, although dreadfully chopped, whereas 12 English Dragoons were killed on the spot and others dangerously wounded by thrusts. If our men had used their swords so, three times the number of French would have been killed.²⁷


It could be argued that the use of these swords was merely a whim of fashion, though logically these swords would not have become popular if their inherent quality had not been recognised.

These views are in strong contrast to the comments of George Farmer (11th Light Dragoons) quoted above. It is notable that whilst the proponents of the thrust whose opinions are recorded here were both officers Farmer was a private soldier, albeit a remarkably literate one.²⁸ The distinction is, I think, an important one. Rankers would usually join the army with little or no familiarity with swords, not so the average young officer who would have had considerable prior experience. Young gentlemen of the time were expected to have mastered a number of what might be termed social skills; these included music, dancing, card games, a knowledge of the French language, horsemanship and fencing. The style of fencing most commonly taught made use of specialised fencing foils or modified small-swords. In either case the swords were light, straight, slim-bladed and dedicated to the thrust, instruction in their use emphasised the point and taught that the edge was to be despised. It is therefore not surprising that young men with this background would find both the broad-bladed cutting swords of the cavalry and their prescribed method of use contrary to their previous training and inclinations. It would probably be inaccurate to attribute the "pro-thrust" attitude on the part of some officers wholly to their youthful instruction in "gentlemanly fencing," though early training is often regarded as being particularly influential on later opinion.

Indeed a trend in total opposition to this can be discerned amongst the officer class, namely the great popularity of those eastern (Ottoman or Indo-Persian) curved cutting swords broadly classed as "Mameluke-hilted." These swords were made popular amongst officers, light cavalry officers and senior officers in particular, through the involvement of both the French and British in Egypt, though the longstanding British presence in India cannot but have had an influence as well. It could be argued that the use of these swords was merely a whim of fashion, though logically these swords would not have become popular if their inherent quality had not been recognised. It is also evident that these swords were regularly used in combat by light cavalry officers and, with war being an uncertain occupation, senior officers would hardly have encumbered themselves with merely decorative swords. On occasion even commanders in chief had to resort to drawing their swords.²⁹

It is clear that the oft-quoted contemporary remarks about the superiority of the thrust and of thrusting swords, and the deprecation of the cut, were an expression of opinion of only a section of British cavalry officers and soldiers. Undoubtedly a considerable body of the British military was appreciative of the utility and combat advantages of the cut, and of the worth of swords designed to deliver it.

(C) 2003 by SFI

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Though there exists an air of chivalry around the use of the arme blanche, particularly when associated with the spectacle of the thundering charge of massed horsemen, we should not ignore the fact that sword fighting was a vicious business. Melee fighting, consisting as it did of men vigorously engaged in attempting to kill one another with yard-long bars of sharpened steel, can only have been searingly brutal to participate in or to witness. In these days of long distance combat, when the pull of a trigger kills at yards or hundreds of yards distance, or indeed the push of a button will send missiles to kill many miles away, it is difficult for most to imagine how it must have felt to fight hand to hand. Sword combat was very intimate; it took place at a distance where the expression on the face of an opponent could be clearly seen and where death or injury was inflicted directly by the strength of arm of the combatants. It is almost a cliché, but is still worth stating, that the people of the Napoleonic era were of a different stamp to the people of the developed world today. They lived in times where casual brutality was relatively more common and this cannot but have had a profound influence on their outlook. It was a less squeamish age by far, and one where death was a more familiar occurrence in day to day life than is the case in the modern world. The society in which these people lived, with its public executions, widespread corporal punishment, bare-knuckle fighting and many other sanguinary aspects perhaps goes far to explain how so many participated in hand to hand fighting with, apparently, so few qualms. It is clear that alongside psychological distinctions to today's population other differences are discernible; there are many examples of the people of the Napoleonic period showing phenomenal physical toughness. Frederick Ponsonby, commanding the British 12th Light Dragoons at Waterloo, was wounded and unhorsed in melee by French lancers, he sustained incapacitating wounds to both arms, a severe sabre blow to the head and suffered a lance thrust which pierced his back. He survived in this state, lying in the open, from around 2:30 pm on the 18th June to 8:00 am the following morning before being taken for treatment. That this treatment largely consisted of repeated bloodletting is further testament to his robust constitution.

In addition to the possibility of death in combat, sword wounds could leave a man crippled or appallingly disfigured for life. A prominent example of the effect of sword wounds is the fate of the French general Durutte at Waterloo. During the collapse of his division (part of D'Erlon's corps) in the closing stages of the battle Durutte was attacked by a Light Dragoon of Vandeleur's brigade, he lost his right hand to a sabre cut and in this defenceless state received a severe blow to the head and face. This blow left him physically debilitated and blind in the right eye. However, he survived his injuries and lived to a reasonably old age. Despite their often frightful appearance sword injuries were usually much cleaner, both in regard to the extent of tissue trauma and the likelihood of infective material being introduced into the wound, than those inflicted by smallarms or artillery. Sword wounds were therefore easier to treat and much less likely to lead to post-operative sepsis and gangrene.


The availability of swords of good quality and workmanlike design and especially the provision of thorough and intelligently designed sword fighting training were, I would maintain, the greatest factors in the British cavalry successes of the period.

The importance of effective weapons training and the self-confidence this engenders in the cavalryman cannot be over emphasised. Mounted combat was inherently more fluid than combat on foot and had a higher tendency to sudden reversals of fortune; cavalry were a potentially devastating battlefield tool for a commanding general, but one which was distinctly less resilient than the infantry. A cavalry arm that was confident in its weapons and skill in using them was a great advantage. Whatever other faults the British cavalry had, notably a tendency to run out of control in pursuit of a broken enemy, these advantages it had in great measure. In the actions of Sahagun and Benevente, and in later clashes the British cavalry seem to have asserted a level of moral superiority over their foes. Indeed after Campo Mayor the French cavalry in the Peninsula operated with less confidence and elan when faced with substantial bodies of British cavalry than was their wont in other theatres of war against other mounted forces. Not that the French cavalry fought badly, in general they stood up well to the charge of the British. For example at Campo Mayor British and French cavalry repeatedly charged and threaded one another and it was not until a general melee developed that the French were broken and put to flight. This action, I feel, is an exemplar for many others, seldom indeed did the French cavalry break before contact, and they seem to have taken the shock of the impact of a charge well. It is only in the subsequent melee that, on many occasions, they were bested and subsequently put to flight. The quality of mounts, collective discipline or skill in manoeuvring of a body of cavalry had no substantial impact on the result of a melee. It was the horsemanship and more importantly the swordsmanship of the individual combatants which decided it. The availability of swords of good quality and workmanlike design and especially the provision of thorough and intelligently designed sword fighting training were, I would maintain, the greatest factors in the British cavalry successes of the period. Both of these advantages were the direct result of the insight and applied intelligence of John Le Marchant.

Following his practical involvement in teaching the sword exercise to both regular and yeomanry cavalry Le Marchant was rewarded with a lieutenant colonelcy in the 7th Light Dragoons (Hussars) in 1797. However, his penchant for military education soon took him away from active service. He became convinced that there was a need for a central military college to educate officers in the art of war. Despite opposition from some quarters he succeeded in enlisting the decisive support of the Duke of York and the Royal Military College was brought into being. This later became the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst which educates British army officers to this day. Le Marchant was transferred from his position as the Lieutenant Governor of the college in 1811 to return to active soldiering; he was given command of a brigade of heavy cavalry in the Peninsula. It was here that he had his first opportunity to see both his sword and swordsmanship training in action. At Villagarcia Le Marchant led the 5th Dragoon Guards in a charge which ensured the rout of Lallemand's French cavalry (2nd Hussars, 17th and 27th Dragoons). Later, at the Battle of Salamanca, Le Marchant led his dragoons in one of the most devastating charges ever made by a single brigade of cavalry. The irresistible onset of his scarlet-coated troopers converted the imminent defeat of the left wing of the French army into an utter devastation. At the end of this epic attack, after personally cutting down half a dozen enemy soldiers with the sword of his own design, he fell struck in the groin by a shot. In this undeniably heroic manner died a soldier who perhaps deserves to be more widely remembered, especially by the nation he so notably served.

A finer epitaph could not be written than the following quote.

An officer of the 13th Light Dragoons, Campo Mayor 1811.

The French certainly are fine and brave soldiers, but the superiority of our English horses, and more particularly the superiority of swordsmanship our fellows showed, decided every contest in our favour.³⁰

Notes

1) The history and typology of swords in Mediaeval Eastern Europe is a poorly developed field. The pagan Magyars certainly used sabres, and some continued use of curved swords throughout the Middle Ages is highly probable, though the dominance of Western European straight swords following the conversion of Hungary is well attested.

2) The first French regiment of hussars was raised in 1692; numbers of these cavalrymen were gradually increased but didn't achieve really significant levels until the 1740s (totalling seven regiments in 1745). Britain lagged behind in the development of light cavalry, short-lived experiments in the 1740s led to the first permanent establishments of light cavalry in the 1750s. The earlier forms of light cavalry found in Western Europe, such as stradiots, jinetes, hobilars or 'Border Horse', had been gradually lost over the course of the 17th Century when the wearing of armour was progressively reduced and "the horse" became increasingly undifferentiated (though differentiation between "the horse" and dragoons was rigorous). These troops seem to have had no direct influence on later light cavalry types.

3) This only applies to a fully armoured man, such as a 17th century cuirassier, the Napoleonic cuirassier was open to cuts to the face, throat, neck, arms and legs. Wounds to the limbs might not be immediately fatal but would be disabling.

4) The origin of the word hussar is more probably from the South Slavic "gussar" meaning bandit, itself perhaps deriving from the Latin cursarius of the same meaning, than from the Hungarian term for the number twenty (husz).

5) Père Daniel (R P Daniel). Histoire de la Milice Française (Paris 1721).

6) Queen's Regulations of 1844 stated: "both Heavy and Light Cavalry should be equal to the Charge in Line." This was merely the belated official recognition in print of what already pertained, and had been a recognised fact, throughout the history of British light cavalry.

7) Cavalry manoeuvres and tactics were based on Sir David "Pivot" Dundas' Instructions and Regulations for the Formations and Movements of the Cavalry, printed for the War Office in 1796. This was required reading for all cavalry officers - though several recorded unfortunate incidents indicate that a number of senior cavalry officers were largely ignorant of it.

8) Fletcher , Ian (1999) p 31. Quoting from 'British Cavalry,' in The Royal Military Chronicle, October 1811.

9) Sir George Yonge (1731-1812) a lord of the Admiralty 1766-1770, Secretary at War 1782-1794 and Master of the Mint 1794-1799.

10) Von Seydlitz stated that in the charge the trooper "should bear in mind the unshakeable resolution to ride the enemy down with his horse's breast."

11) The 1796 light cavalry sword had a very long history of use in India. Though officially superseded by a new pattern of sword in 1821, photographs show it still in use, even by European troopers, during the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58.

12) Nolan, Louis. Cavalry: its History and Tactics (Bosworth 1853, Pallas Armata facsimile reprint 1995). The author, a British cavalry officer, was killed in the Charge of the Light Brigade (Crimean War). In his work he describes the high incidence of horrendous wounds (decapitations and severed limbs) caused by refurbished British P 1796 light cavalry swords when wielded by troopers of the army of the Nizam of Hyderabad (serving as British allies).

13) The exact sequence of events in the adoption of the 1796 swords is difficult to ascertain. There is, however, a considerable amount of evidence that Le Marchant intended that his curved sabre should be adopted by the British cavalry as a whole. Being disappointed in this desire it is therefore reasonable to suppose that, considering his prior experience of the sword, he probably put forward the Austrian heavy cavalry sword as an alternative model. From Le Marchant's point of view it was a good compromise, whilst being straight bladed it was nevertheless a dedicated cutting sword. Had the Board decided on a longer, narrower bladed weapon in the French tradition of thrusting swords then the "Rules and Regulations" would have been scarcely applicable to the heavy cavalry.

14) The P 1796 heavy cavalry sword had its hatchet tip ground down to produce a more acute point in a variety of ways. It has been suggested that this was done at the regimental level. However, existing swords and a near contemporary painting by Denis Dighton (in the collection of HM The Queen), of the capture of a French eagle by the Scots Greys at Waterloo, where troopers bear both spear-pointed and hatchet-pointed swords, give the distinct impression that such modifications may have been made at the level of the troop or even the individual soldier.

15) Rules and Regulations of the Sword Exercise of the Cavalry, Adjutant Generals Office, 1st December 1796.

16) Cruso, John. Militarie Instructions for the Cavallerie (Cambridge, 1632).

17) Henry "Harry" Angelo was the master of a very fashionable fencing school or salon; he taught more than one of King George III's sons the "noble art."

18) Hay, Captain William. Reminiscences under Wellington (Ed. Mrs SCI Wood, 1901).

19) Tomkinson, James (Ed). TheDiary of a Cavalry Officer in the Peninsular War and Waterloo Campaign, 1809-1815 (London, 1895).

20) Fletcher , Ian (1999) p 141. Quoting from The Courier 20th April 1811.

21) Farmer, George. The Light Dragoon (Ed. George Gleig,, London, 1844).

22) Fletcher , Ian (1999) p 199. Quoting (with some omitted words restored) from Woodberry, Lieutenant George. Manuscript Journal of the 1813 Campaign.

23) Cotton, Edward. A Voice from Waterloo (6th Edition, London, 1862).

24) Morris, Sergeant Thomas. Recollections of Military Service in 1813, 1814, and 1815 (London, 1845).

25) Parquin, Charles. Military Memoirs (Trans. and Ed. BT Jones, London 1969, reprinted Greenhill Books 1987).

26) "An Officer of Dragoons". United Service Journal (vol. II, 1831).

27) Bragge, W. Peninsular Portrait: The Letters of Capt. William Bragge (Ed. SAC Cassels, London 1963). An investigation of the relative casualties at Villagarcia does not support Bragge's thesis very convincingly. The British suffered 14 killed and 37 wounded, not a particularly high proportion of dead to injured. The French lost 53 killed and wounded (not discriminated), and 4 officers and 132 men captured. Casualty figures taken from Smith, Digby, The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book (London 1998).

28) Rankers in the British cavalry were properly styled privates, this usage pertained in some regiments into the 20th century. The term 'trooper' is used elsewhere in this article as convenient shorthand for 'private cavalry soldier.'

29) A famous instance of this occurred a few days before the battle of Salamanca when Wellington, Beresford and their staff were caught out by an unexpected French cavalry charge, all were obliged to draw their swords and shift for themselves (see 'Salamanca 1812' by Rory Muir ). Wellington's favoured weapon, which he wore at Waterloo, was a well-curved sabre of Indo-Persian origin, its hilt was of the general "Mameluke" style but was unusual in being wholly of gilt metal and having a knucklebow. It can be seen today at Apsley House in London, and is prominent in Sir Thomas Lawrence's 1824 portrait of the duke.

30) Fletcher , Ian (1999) p 130. Quoting from The Courier 20th April 1811.

Bibliography

Brzezinski, Richard. Polish Armies 1569-1696 Vol. I, Osprey (London, 1987).

Bull, Stephen. Chopping Wood, Military Illustrated 117, pp 43-47 (Feb 1998).

Chandler, David. The Art of War in the Age of Marlborough. Batsford (1976). Reprinted Spellmount (1990).

Chandler, David. Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars, Simon and Schuster (New York, 1993).

Fletcher, Ian. Napoleonic Wars Wellington's Army, Brassey's History of Uniforms (London, 1996).

Fletcher, Ian. Galloping at Everything, Spellmount (Staplehurst, 1999).

Fosten, Bryan. Wellington's Light Cavalry, Osprey (London, 1982).

Fosten, Bryan. Wellington's Heavy Cavalry, Osprey (London, 1982).

Haythornthwaite, Philip. British Cavalryman 1792-1815, Osprey (London, 1994).

Haythornthwaite, Philip J. Napoleonic Cavalry, Cassell (London, 2001).

Hibbert, Christopher. Corunna, Batsford (1961).

Holmes, Richard. Redcoat. The British Soldier in the Age of Horse and Musket, Harper Collins (London, 2001).

Le Marchant, Dennis. Memoirs of the late Major General Le Marchant (London, 1841).

Morgan, John D. "The British Heavy Cavalry Trooper's Pattern 1796 Sword" Classic Arms and Militaria In three parts: Vol.8 issue no.1, pp 22-25, Jan/Feb 2001. Vol.8.issue no.2, pp 26-29, March/April 2001. Vol.8.issue no.3, pp 30-33, May/June 2001.

Muir, Rory. Salamanca 1812, Yale University Press (New Haven and London, 2001).

Noble, Duncan. Cut or Thrust, Military Illustrated 122 pp 37-39 (July 1998).

Nosworthy, Brent. Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies, Constable (London, 1995).

Robson, Brian. Swords of the British Army, The Regulation Patterns 1788 to 1914, Revised Edition (London, 1996).

Thoumine, R.H. Scientific Soldier, A Life of General Le Marchant, 1766-1812, Oxford U. Press (1968).

Editor's Note

This article originally appeared on the The Napoleon Series, which has hundreds on articles on the Napoleonic Era.

Scroll to TOP