What makes cutlasses the worst sword ever made?

[Andy Lee Chaisiri]

I've read http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html

and John mentions:

Many types of European sabers (broadswords, cutlasses, and spadroons) with either "light" or "heavy" blades were developed in the 18th and 19th centuries, and 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.

Where can I read more on that?

[Kevin Reicks]

I would like more info on that myself. Good question Andy!

I will say that I have heard that American Civil War swords were terribly blade heavy and gained the nickname "old wrist breaker". On a theoretical note, naval cutlasses were made for the common soldier. That very well could mean very broad, very bad, edge geometries as less time spent in to making them. Also the steel and heat treatment might not be all that great as again for cost cutting.

There is another ARMA article with the late Hank Reinhardt mentioning how the English deliberately kept their swords dull in India. Some of the Indians used their older ones, sharpened them up, and were doing a lot more damage with them.

http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/hrinterview.htm

[LafayetteCCurtis]

The key word here is "some." There was an enormous variety of designs among both military and civilian sabres and cutlasses, so it makes perfect sense that some designs would have been quite good (like the British P1796 Light Cavalry sabre) while some were rather on the mediocre side (such as the unmodified version of the P1976 Heavy Cavalry sword). One particular sword type that has ignited much controversy is the spadroon, essentially a light straight sabre that partook of some characteristics borrowed from the smallsword. Some gentlemen of the era (18th and 19th centuries) liked it as a self-defence weapon that combined the versatility of the sabre with the lightness and agility of the smallsword, while others reviled it as a sword too heavy to be used nimbly like a real smallsword but too light to have the cutting power of a proper broadsword or sabre.

You're not going find any objective "truth" in this matter--only opinions from people with a wide variety of fencing/swordfighting backgrounds (including a few pedants who didn't seem to know much about swordplay at all), and that's just looking at the contemporary sources. Once you put modern ideas and interpretations into the stew, you might just as well discard all hopes of arriving at any sort of universal consensus.

[David Howard]

My thoughts and experiences with swords of that era run along these lines.

By the 18th and 19th centuries, the armies of the world are gearing up into the Industrial Revolution. Firearms are being produced en mass, and before long cutlery begins to fall along these same lines. Granted, this en mass Revolution has been a build up a techniques quested after from the beginnings of production, at least since man has been crafting metals into weapons.

Anyhow, blades begin to be designed by military thinkers instead of frontline soldiers, then produced by production experts instead of dedicated craftsmen using traditional and hard learned techniques. This culminates in the mass production of sub-par sword things that flood the market today. The loss of our historical fencing techniques and knowledge fell to the same demons.

Specifically, the 183(?) "Old Wrist Breaker" is a 4' rough overall length single handed saber that weighs in close to five pounds. I would not have been as generous with the nick name.

[Glen Cleeton]

A modern made spadroon can be found reviewed here with a snippet from Robson;

the following account by General Cavalié Mercer:

Nothing could be more useless or more ridiculous than the old Infantry regulation [sword]: it was good neither for cut nor for thrust and was a perfect encumbrance.

The Lutel shown in that review shows a spadroon that is about half a pound heavier than the half dozen or so period spadroons I have racked here.

So there is a likely point regarding Clement's thoughts on early modern military sidearms.

One could consider also the French evolving cast brass hilts and mass produced blades from bar stock, some with a lot finesse than others but carried by troops into the 20th century in one fashion or another. Those brass hilted cutlasses often regarded as cutlasses, so that might be another facet of John's muse. To be truthful regarding cutlasses, one needs to consider the masses made and also used shipboard as secondary weapons used with fair effect, also stowed aboard navies into the 20th century.

Wow, useless

Then the "wristbreaker" affectation and one might consider what other swords were used in the US prior to the adoption of the Prussian made French mle 1822 sabre. The previous regulation sword being the 1833 dragoon sword based on a lighter English 1821 cavalry sword.

David Howard here quips;

"Specifically, the 183(?) "Old Wrist Breaker" is a 4' rough overall length single handed saber that weighs in close to five pounds. I would not have been as generous with the nick name.

That is a truly amazing lack of education and realization regarding the Prussian made French 1822 cavalry types and it shows how easily misinformation can spread. I can only assume David has never handled one (French or Prussian). My generic Prussian made 1822 weighs about 2.5 pounds (4 pounds in the scabbard).

My generic wristbreaker

With scabbard 4 lbs
Without just shy of 2.5 lbs

Length in scabbard 43.75"-110 cm
Without scabbard 41.75"-105 cm
Blade length 35.75"-91 cm
Blade width at guard 1.25<"-30 mm
Blade thicknes@guard 3/8 " - 9 mm
Mezzo/halfway 9/32" - 7mm
Ten inches from point 1/4" - 6mm
Fuller ends ^14cm-5.5" 3/16" - 4mm
Spine at tip (no false grind) 1/16"

Most with experiences of both the French and Prussian swords (mle 1822) will favor the more hilt biased French swords and when the US adopted the form, they chose the Prussian contractor and likely so due to costs. Ames was then the first and only US maker of the m1840 so labeled the wristbreaker. Scads (hundreds of thousands in war time, millions over the centuries) of swords were imported to the US. Mythology of swords in the American Civil War and film accounts only bolster the misconceptions most reserve for western medieval swords.

My generic with a French 1854 dragon (the shorter of the French pallasches at the time), a sword not quite less than deadly and useful. Again the forms of both used into the 20th century. Not quite useless




I guess I could go on somewhat endlessly about the merits regarding several types of early modern swords. Some truly useless and hilts on a stick but one might be surprised at how many quite light swords were made to maim and kill, with a good number sharp from the get go.

Spadroons? Well, I might be a little biased in feelings but they are not the only swords I collect. Short sabers and lighter mounted artillery/cavalry types of the 18th and 19th century were often razor sharp (I have some) and even a sharp spadroon might be something to reckon with. Average spadroon weights are maybe four ounces heavier than a lot of 18th century small swords. Even an ACW m1840 nco spadroon with a brass hilt comes in at less than two pounds.

Anyway, I fully agree with Clement's thoughts if considered in context and understanding he means that some were the worst, or considered so by some. He could have expanded his text at that point and provided source material.








The term wristbreaker was possibly coined in regard to the larger sword the US troops were handed. During the trials before going with the Prussian sword, the French made sword was considered more user friendly/lively; then the first contracts of Prussian swords might have been the initial reaction by troops getting a less lively sword. Truth be told, I find my generic "1840" quite handy but that is compared to the bulk of what we see as medieval reproductions. Many familiar with even the best medieval reproductions often regard early modern swords as toys in feel. I would counter with a brass hilted long light militia mounted artillery saber compared to the heavy 1854 palllasch shown above. Both sharp by the way but different tools for different jobs. One a melee weapon, the other for massed line charges.


It is the note that a wristbreaker was four feet long and five pounds that causes my reply but John's comment/quote needs to be understood.

Cheers

GC