Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (26 page)
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 sword. 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.
This led to many heated debates regarding the cavalry saber. One side insisting on straight-bladed swords and the other on curved blades.
The substance of the two arguments went like this:
Straight Blade—An enemy combatant, stabbed with a sword, is highly unlikely to continue fighting. Even if the wound is not fatal, if it is in the arm it is likely to render the opponent ineffective. The straight blade can be used to cut with, if needed, and it can be used to reach down and stab an enemy lying on the ground.
Counter Argument against the straight blade—The thrust is harder to master than the cut. There is a strong likelihood that the blade can be lost in a thrust, wedged in the body, or broken as the horse moves past quicker than the blade can be withdrawn, or almost as bad, the wielder's wrist can be broken before the sword can be released if caught. In an encounter between units of heavy cavalry, the cutting sword is easier to use than a thrusting one.
Curved Blade—The curved sword is easier to use since the cut allows the arm to move in a very natural motion. With a properly curved sword it can be used to thrust as well. Aside from the hooking thrust, by turning the wrist over, you get a "natural" downward motion of the arm. By cutting an opponent, the sight of blood is likely to cause him to withdraw and tend his wounds.
Counter Argument against the curved blade—Numerous references are cited of soldiers of both sides receiving numerous cuts about the head and shoulders and continuing to fight. (No mention was made about dull swords.) Also there were rare instances of a soldier in the heat of battle striking his horse, which he was unlikely to do with a straight sword. (Although there was no PETA at the time, this was still looked on as not being proper. Even killing your opponent's horse was considered not very sporting, and something a real gentleman would not do, but okay for rankers.)
There was a small amount of logic on both sides. (Personally I prefer a curved sword, but I would also keep it quite sharp.) The arguments raged on and on, with first one side winning, and then the other.
Quill back blade; silhouette view from above shows rounded spine.