Later military sword practice and it's roots.

[Joseph Scott]

I hope this isn't considerd off-topic. My question is, how much direct relationship is there between sword techniques used by cavalry, naval personnel and other military personnel of the 18th and 19th Centuries who used heavier (non-smallsword) type weapons, and their Renaissance predecessors?

It would seem to me that the older techniques designed for the battlefield would have more direct application in these areas than the more duelling/sports styles that became popular in civilian society from the 17th Century, since such weapons as cutlasses or cavalry broadswords seem (to my novice eye, anyway) to have much more in common with older weapons than with smallswords or rapiers.

[Allen Johnson]

Good question and one that will be met with varied results. It might be a little easier to pick a specific time and place to look at and then analyze the accounts from that time period. The one good thing about doing research from the 18th century on up is that there are lots of good sources and the language isn’t quite so archaic.
John and I have had a few short discussions on the degradation of sword training and ability from about the mid 18th century on. There are accounts of people in the American Revolutionary War in the late 18th century of officers having swords that don’t cut. Around the same time in Scotland, two Englishmen named Johnson and Boswell went on a journey of the Highlands and recorded their trip. They comment on talking to a Scottish Chieftain and him lamenting that their troops have swords but don’t know how to use them. Then there are the manuals themselves. It's very obvious that they take on a much less aggressive approach and don’t seem to be on par with similar weapons of the past. This is a discussion that could go on for days so I'll let others comment as I gather more info and sources.

[John_Clements]

I'm writing a book on this very topic (still in work).
It's long been an interest of my research.
In my opinion, given what I have gathered ---the answer is not much.

Increased ritual and sportification came as self-defense and military aspects declined.

Given the changed military, martial, and social environment and tactical conditions fighting men were called on to perform under with swords and associated weapons, later styles reflect a narrowing and specializing of older skills---a strong thesis can be argued that they were not any refinement or improvement (as once believed) but, in effect, a fragmentation and even degeneration of earlier more inclusive and dynamic Renaissance martial arts.

Over time, there were simply fewer and fewer fighting men practicing fewer and fewer styles of fighting using fewer and fewer varieties of arms and armor under fewer kinds of lethal close-combat. Thus, a disconnect occurred as older traditional martial skills altered, atrophied, or were abandoned --at the same time they became more and more concerned with form, aesthetic, ritual, and etiquette. Without the necessity of a variety of life and death encounters to inspire training, the old skills in time were abandoned or ultimately deteriorated and atrophied into mere game.

I'd love to engage this more, but that's all I have to say on the topic at present.

JC

[Joseph Scott]

For clarification, which of these statements would be more accurate:

a.)later military swordsmanship was a sterile, formalized descendent of Renaissance battlefield techniques, similar to what occured in Japanese martial arts after the end of the Warring States period.

or

b.)later military swordsmanship was merely adapted from popular contemporary civilian fencing styles, regardless of how inappropriate they may have been for it.

Or is there a c.)?

[Nathan Dexter]

Hi!
Swords in use with cavalry generally need to be able to slash while passing at high speed, therefore need to be curved.(sabers)And for the most part, cavalry swords have mostly been dress items. The primary weapons in that time period for cavalry was the gun,(of various types) and before that the lance/pike/spear.

[Joseph Scott]

Actually Nathan, that isn't quite true for the period I am looking at. In the 18th Century/Napoleonic Era, and even sometime thereafter, most European heavy and medium cavalry (Curassiers, Carbiners, Dragoons, Horse Grenadiers) used a straight bladed broadsword, mostly basket hilted, which bears a strong resemblence to the Highland broadsword it shared the period with. Furthermore, it had become the rule since Gustavus Adolphus that the primary arm for cavalry was the sword, something reinforced by the repeated defeats of French pistol wielding cavalry by British and German horse relying on swords in the War of the Spanish Succession.

Except in unsual circumstances, heavy and medium cavalry would rely on swords as their primary weapons until the conoidial bullet of the mid-19th Century came along. Even light cavalry (who did usually use the curved sabre you refer to) only tended to use firearms for picket duty, skirmishing, and the occasional dismounted action.

Therefore sword technique was of primary importance for cavalry. It has been said that the Prussian cavalry,in the Silesian and Seven Years War often triumphed over their Austrian opponents because, though the Austrians were usually better horseman, the Prussians were better trained in swordsmanship.

Their weapons may not, thanks to the decline in martial arts, been as efficient as their Renaisance predecessors, but they were not show pieces. They were most distinctly made with the intent of violent use.

I thank you for your feedback, however, I am fairly familiar with the weapons themselves. My main concern in this thread is their method of employment, and what forms and techniques it may or may not have shared with earlier battlefield practices.

[John_Clements]

I couldn't agree with your A or B on that. Sorry. It's more complicated. Each is a product of the necessities of its environment. Some were simply more demanding and challenging than others when it came to close-combat hand-weapons.

[John_Clements]

Yes, many 19th century cavalry sources stressed thrusting as more effective than cutting, and stiff straight swords for mounted combat were being advised since the early 17th century.

Many types of curved or semi-curved European sabers (broadswords, cutlasses, and spadroons) with either “light” or “heavy” blades were developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and some were quite effective weapons. But among them are considered some of the worst and most useless sword types ever devised—even being criticized in the very era they were used.

[Allen Johnson]

many 18th and ever very early 19th century broadswords were made with "rein holes" in the basket so the rider could hold his sword and reins in one hand. Almost all of these are straight blades.

http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=19&pos=52
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=19&pos=127
http://www.myarmoury.com/albums/displayimage.php?album=19&pos=204

[Nathan Dexter]

Sorry,
Cavalry is not my strongpoint.