Sword transition

[master of the puppets]

No real haste on this one. Just found myself wondering, when did western european armies trade off straight swords for sabers. Or did naval always carry them and it just became an infantry thing too.
ty

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, sabres did evolve from scimitars and eastern curved blades. While I'm not terribly well versed on this subject, I would imagine that they simply came to the west as a slashing weapon was needed instead of a bludgeoning weapon - I can say from personal experience that a medieval broadsword is a lot heavier than a sabre. Without armour, there wouldn't be much use for it anymore.

[Joeokar]

Well, sabres did evolve from scimitars and eastern curved blades. While I'm not terribly well versed on this subject, I would imagine that they simply came to the west as a slashing weapon was needed instead of a bludgeoning weapon - I can say from personal experience that a medieval broadsword is a lot heavier than a sabre. Without armour, there wouldn't be much use for it anymore.
I rarely if ever post but... http://www.thearma.org/essays/weights.htm go here read this.

[Innocentius]

Just like Joeokar already demonstrated with the link to thearma, swords didn't weigh very much at all, so that was hardly the reason. From personal experience, I can tell neither broadswords nor sabres are very heavy at all:clown:

The question in the topic was when, though. Falchion's were popular already in the 12th century, so curved swords have always been around (likewise, straight swords have always been around in regions often assoicated with sabres, such as the Middle East). The abandonment of the rapier and lightsword in favor of the cutlass and sabre (mostly used by the cavalry, since the infantry had bayonets by this time) happened sometime during the period 1750-1850. It's hard to get any more precise than that I'm afraid.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Just like Joeokar already demonstrated with the link to thearma, swords didn't weigh very much at all, so that was hardly the reason. From personal experience, I can tell neither broadswords nor sabres are very heavy at all:clown:


Must be my examples then, as my claymore (Medieval) is heavier than my rapier.

[Furious Mental]

Well a claymore would be, it's bigger.

[Watchman]

"Claymore" as in the Medieval two-hander or the Early Modern basket-hilted cut-and-thrust sword, anyway ?

Leaving that aside, sabres proper were an eastern affectation imported from Hungary with the concept of Hussar light cavalry in the 18th century. Body armour was getting pretty rare at that point, being worn only by some heavy cavalry (I know Swedish horse still had breastplates under their coats in the early 1700s, and Frederik the Great put forth the "Napoleonic" cuirassieurs in the latter half), so the problems such "draw-cut" blade designs had against armour were of little concern. Cavalry liked them because, well, the whole blade type was developed for mounted use (by the Avars of the Pontic steppe in the 7th century AD or thereabouts IIRC), although "heavy" cavalry tended to stick to straight blades anyway, and the infantry liked them because they were easier to carry as sidearms and made better bush knives.

I've a hunch the cutlass was originally closer related to the medieval falchion - a cheap, sturdy and rather effective if quite unsophisticated single-edged "chopper". Such weapons are mentioned in naval contexts already in the 1600s if not earlier as mass-produced cheap-and-cheerful cold arms distributed to the crew from the ships' armouries for boarding actions, and unless they were copied off sabre-type blades encountered in the Mediterranean my money'd be on falchion ancestry. Not in the least owing to the short average lenght.

The later ones show some pretty distinct sabre influence though, probably being derived from the standard-issue short sabres of the infantry.

Note also that in post-Early Modern contexts cavalry "sabres" were in fact often straight blades, although single-edged and nigh invariably with the characteristic "bent" hilt almost universal to curved blades (I understand the design improves handling and adds power to the cut). But, then again, around that period European military cutlery kinda began to suck in general - people apparently kind of forgot blades cut better when sharp, for example. Certainly one point in favour of the latter in the good old "cut vs. thrust (http://www.thearma.org/essays/thrusting_vs_cutting.html)" argument - a thrusting weapon doesn't need to have a particularly sharp point to be effective. (European armies liked the cutting weapons probably above all because the movements involved were more intuitive and easier to drill into the troopers.)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

"Claymore" as in the Medieval two-hander or the Early Modern basket-hilted cut-and-thrust sword, anyway ?


I have an example of both, actually, but I was referring to the Medieval. The rapier is a Pappenheimer-style.

[Watchman]

Yeah well, two-handers sort of tend to be a wee bit bigger and heavier than one-handers for some reason.

Incidentally, AFAIK what is usually referred to as a "Pappenheimer rapier" was in fact just one of the many forms of cut-and-thrust cavalry swords of the 1600s (this one named after a noted Imperial cavalry commander and condottiere of the Thirty Years' War) - which were quite different beasts from rapiers in spite of the often similar appereance of the two. Rapiers were purely civilian weapons - and often in fact rather bulky due to their enormous lenght, and little different from the average period military one-hander in weight.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Yeah well, two-handers sort of tend to be a wee bit bigger and heavier than one-handers for some reason.


:laugh4:

[Furious Mental]

A cutlass to me most resembles a messer, although messers were probably an evolution of the falchion anyway.