Civil War Question - Swords/Sabers

I recall reading a report sen to the Army's Quartermaster Corps by a cavalry officer complaining that their newest batch of swords wouldn't take an edge; it seems to me that it was written some years prior to the ACW, but given that I find references to Indian War cavalrymen needing their swords sharpened, I can't imagine that this 'dull sword' thing would have gotten much traction amongst the end users.

Add to this that cavalry saber training and doctrine emphasized using both the point and the edge of the weapon.... and the pommel, if it came to that, as an impact weapon.

Forrest was known as a man who did what worked. Sharp swords worked.

He was also known as a man who knew when a thing stopped working. That's why he tried to disband the KKK in 1869.

SOP for most European saber-wielding cavalry seems to be to sharpen the saber for war and blunt it during peace time service. Makes good sense to me.

What Sam said.

Even in the US Army of the 1970's there were discussions about troopers having sharp things. Some units we worked with did not even sharpen their entrenching tools even though the book said to sharpen the left side and both sections of the point for fear that peace time troops might use them as a weapon (having been struck in the gut with a sheathed e-tool I have to wonder if the folks that wanted unsharpened tools have ever been in a fight as I might easily have been killed with a hankercheif afterwards). At one point an officer in a unit we supported was appaled when he found our bayonets were sharpened even on the "false edge" In my unit were did not just train as we did security for the Pershing system six months of the year so we kept everything sharp. We did not only the boring tower guard duty but also alert teams for inside and outside the wire and performed armed patrols every night out to a distance of 1.5 k on foot or 3k mounted ("jeeps" or Mutts the official name no one used). The value of things sharp to folks with limited ammo and support was well understood.

When I was relatively new I found myself ranking man in a six man room and so responsible for the room. Our CO had an early tour in VN as an Infantry Officer, then had swung a last minute tour as a helo driver. After the Army needed fewer pilots and when folks had to promote in field he returned to an Infantry job. He tended to take our work seriously. During an inspection my guts sank when he snatched from the wall locker next to mine a Switch blade knife which was a big no-no. He examined it and then rather than saying anything to the knife's owner turned to me and growled "What is the meaning of this? I can not believe you let your buddy keep a knife in such poor condition and hardly suitable to cut butter! And it is FILTHY!" and he tossed it on my bunk rather than the actual owner's. When he found my file and two sided stone in my locker he bristled at me for having the tools and not using them and told me to bring the knife to him before close of business "ready for use" I did. and that weekend I sharpened a host of pocket knives, sheath knives and e-tools from my platoon. Monday found me in the Arms room checking and more often than not resharpening the platoon's bayonets......of course the reward for doing a good job was I "got" to do the other three platoons bayonets as well.....

Before I left we had a general officer inspect us. As it happened or first shirt decided we would fully paint our e-tools right up to the bevel of the sharpened area to avoid dealing with rust (amazing how much more practical old SF troopers are than regulation) rather than having the traditional 1/2 inch boarder of unpainted steel. When this visiting officer could find nothing wrong with my fire team he noticed our e-tools not being painted in the traditional manner and snatched mine up and pronounced it "UNSHARPENED" and tossed it on the floor. Top came back later and told us the General was going to inspect us up again next week and that his biggist gig was, after having noticed mine, that ALL our e-tools were not sharpened.

So every e-tool in the two platoons in the rear then got stripped, taped and properly repainted to show 1/2 inch of bare steel on the front ad left side and checked for sharpness. Feeling a bit silly I was curious to see just how sharp an 1945 Ames Entrenching tool could be made. The answer is shaving sharp.

Friday the general strode into our barracks and yelled and snorted in the two rooms before mine. Walking in our bay he noticed me and remembered the unsharpened e-tool. Grinning evilly he reached over my display and snatched up my e-tool by the blade.....got a surprised and anguished look, dropped the e-tool, examined his bleeding palm and rushed from the room and then our area bound for the post hospital.

We never had another General Officer Inspection while I was there.

-kBob

I've never heard that. The closest thing I can recall is during WWI something about cutting a sawtooth pattern on the back of your bayonet. Probably not an official policy, but more like guys you just charged with that thing not taking prisoners because of the more terrible wound that bayonet would make. I don't know if that was a real thing or just made up later.

Click to expand...

I think the story was garbled in translation. There was an extensive and vicious propaganda campaign against "German Kultur", creating a beastly image of Germany and Germans. If the Allies had thought of Baby Cannibalism I am sure that charge would have been laid against the Germans. I can recall claims that the Iraqi's turned off baby respirators in Kuwait, and that propaganda campaign lasted around 6 months, imagine what the propaganda was like in a four year long world war!




As it was, anything , true or not, anything that could make the Germans more beastly was put into the popular culture of the allies. The saw back bayonet was one of the things that was used to defame Germans. Sawback bayonets were issued to Engineer battallions as a dual use item: it had a saw which could cut wood. I have a Swiss sawback, the teeth are very sharp, still, I think it is too wide to be a useful saw. I don't remember if the British and French had sawbacks, it is probable they did, but that would have been forgotten, along with all the sawbacks in issue elsewhere, because it made for a good atrocity story against the Germans. It was said at the time that the sawback was proof of the nasty evil nature of Germans, it was claimed the saw teeth were there to make a bayonet wound worse.

I am certain the teeth would not have made any bayonet wound any better, but the teeth were there to cut wood.

Based on reading actual accounts of the times, diaries, recollections, etc, if a German was caught with a sawback, he was shot.

Lots of prisoners were shot by the British for lesser reasons, such as escorts deciding it was too much work to walk across muddy bogs on a cold day and deliver prisoners to the rear. Many such incidents were committed just at the point of surrender and after surrender in both world wars. I am have heard family stories of American's shooting Germans in WW2, and there is a reason why we took very few Japanese prisoners. A Uncle of mine was told to get rid of his Japanese prisoner or he would have to pull KP. He did not pull KP, so you can guess what happened.

Though, except for Fort Pillow, and the shooting of black Soldiers by Confederates, the Civil War has surprisingly few atrocity stories.


Anti German feelings were raised so high in WW1 that having a German name could get you beaten in the US!

As for swords, the Confederates were well known for keeping theirs sharp! Many Union swords are dull. Ninety nine percent of the sharp edges on period swords were done by enthusiasts after the sword was sold on the civilian market. Service swords were dulled after a conflict because of accidents. One story I read, of a new British Cavalry officer, he was in a warlike mood and sharpened his sword prior to mounted sword practice. He managed to cut his horse's ear off!

The 43rd Battalion, Virginia Cavalry (Mosby's Rangers) often risked being summarily shot, but not because of sharpened sabers. They didn't carry sabers. Each man carried 2-4 revolvers which often placed saber-wielding Union cavalry at a distinct disadvantage.

I think opinions sometimes become fact when they are passed on enough. It may very well have been some military officer's opinion that sharpening swords was unfair or unsportsmanlike, that doesn't mean the military didn't sharpen swords. Of course one also asks the question of "why wouldn't you sharpen a sword? Wouldn't you want every advantage in a fight?"

http://www.academia.edu/205649/Sabre_versus_Revolver_Mounted_Combat_in_the_American_Civil_War

Sabre versus Revolver: Mounted Combat in the American Civil War
by Gervase Phillips

A brief article looking at the factors that affected mounted combat during the American Civil War, including training; tactical doctrine and the condition of the mounts. In particular, I focus on the utility, and limitations, of both the the modern revolver and the traditional cavalry arm, the sabre.
Research Interests: Military History, American History, and History

I have read a number of personal Civil War books and accounts. The cap and ball revolver really made a huge difference in cavalry tactics. Having six shots to shoot someone before they got within saber distance significantly changed horse cavalry combat. There were still plenty of accounts of saber conflict but there are also plenty of accounts of horsemen being shot out of the saddle.

I can recall one book, “Life in the Confederate Army” by William Watson. Mr Watson’s infantry outfit was charged at close range by Union cavalry with the sword. The Confederate infantry had just enough time to form a line and according to Mr. Watson, they decimated the Union cavalry and broke the charge. Even though the Confederates only had muskets, it is apparent that by the time you get to the Civil War, charging line infantry armed with rifled muskets was suicidal for cavalry. A book I read by a trooper in Custer’s Civil War outfit, they had been issued the Spencer carbine. Confederate cavalry were basically out matched against Union cavalry who had seven shots and a quick reload capability. I do recall the author said they had regiments which were “sword regiments”. These sword regiments had shown a high degree of cohesion and coordination during a sword charge, so Union Cavalry still had sword charges, I guess it was when it was absolutely necessary to force the issue.

Now that I think upon it, I've read a number of ACW-era references to a trooper's rein's getting cut in combat, leaving him without a way to control his horse. A tautly-drawn piece of harness leather would be difficult to part with a dull sword, even with a fierce stroke. A loose rein, even more so.

OK, here is the final authority. In The Outlaw Josey Wales, in the scene where Josey kills Captain "Redlegs" Terrell, the Capt. attempts to draw his sabre. Josey grasps it by the blade, stops the draw and forces the blade back into Capt Terrell's body, killing him. The important thing is that Josey did not cut his hand! The blade must not have been sharpened.

JRH for the win!

Sharp or blunt sword is apparently the 19th century version of 9mm or 45.

Personally if I had to go to war I would want sharp pointy objects I am using for fighting to be sharp and pointy just in case.

Neat story, but it is a good bet that those CW sabers were sharpened and meant to be used as a cleaving weapon as well as a thrusting one. At least the surviving ones I have seen were sharp, in a couple of cases very sharp. The saber was heavy, a cutting and cleaving weapon, not a rapier to be used for only thrusting.

A note. In that period, the saber was considered the primary cavalry weapon and most training concentrated on its use. The saber was carried on the left side to be drawn with the right hand; the pistol was carried on the right, with its butt to the front, to be drawn and used with the left hand. Readers might note that there was no extra hand for the reins; riders were trained to control the horse with the knees and of course, horses were trained to respond to that. That kind of intensive training was one reason it took so long for Federal cavalry to reach a standard where they could challenge Confederate horsemen.

Forrest reportedly exclaimed during a Union cavalry charge, "Here come those damn fools with their sabers again, shoot them." His men proceeded to do just that. On the other hand, a Federal horseman was asked which he liked, the saber or the pistol.* His reply was the saber because it didn't "run dry."

Edited to add: The pistol was not usually employed at long range as the enemy approached. That was done only when dismounted cavalry was fighting as infantry, when both carbines and pistols were used. Normally, cavalry was trained to close on the enemy cavalry, using the saber for the main attack weapon, and the pistol on riders or horses at very short range, the barrel almost touching the target.

*The term is "pistol" - the "revolver" vs. "pistol" argument didn't come about until almost a century later.

Jim

At least the surviving ones I have seen were sharp, in a couple of cases very sharp. The saber was heavy, a cutting and cleaving weapon, not a rapier to be used for only thrusting.

Click to expand...

The way I've heard it you would leave your sabre unsharpened so that it would not stick in bone when striking the enemy. Instead it would work more like a club.

Just a note on the saw back bayonet thing....the British Army was surprised by the propagandists and polititians attack on saw back bayonets as at the time their own engineer/pioneer troops used such a blade and it had been suggested that every squad have one issued to cut barbed wire fence posts down with. The Germans asked if it was alright to shoot UK troops found with such weapons of terror as well......

Non military folks really should find out what is really going on before leaping into things......

As a kid a friend had a Swiss Pioneer bayonet and I can tell you it worked just fine as a saw even on green wood though not a fast as my machete hacks but more neatly.

-kBob

Off-topic here but the saw-backed bayonet is also called the "Swiss" or "Swiss-pattern" bayonet. Has anyone else noticed that while the Switzerland never seems to join the Geneva and Hague conventions, they often adopt the weapons outlawed by those conventions. May be just another part of the reason no one invades them.

I wonder how much a decent saber cost during the Civil War era? Revolving pistols cost somewhere between $15.00 - $20.00 depending on make and model.

ThorinNNY said:

I wonder how much a decent saber cost during the Civil War era?

Click to expand...

$8.50 was the government cost for sabres delivered in 1862-1863.

Thanks, Sam Cade. After watching a number of episodes of Antiques Road Show, and the current values attributed to Civil War Sabers, I began to wonder just how much they might have cost in relation to a revolving pistol.
Apparently the effectiveness of a cavalry saber during the Civil War was determined by how well the trooper was trained in its use AND the condition of his mount. Duh, I guess I should have figured that out on my own.

OK, here is the final authority. In The Outlaw Josey Wales, in the scene where Josey kills Captain "Redlegs" Terrell, the Capt. attempts to draw his sabre. Josey grasps it by the blade, stops the draw and forces the blade back into Capt Terrell's body, killing him. The important thing is that Josey did not cut his hand! The blade must not have been sharpened.

Click to expand...

I realize you're being facetious, but it does bring up the issue of how sharp a sword really was. It would surprise a lot of people to know that bare-handed grasping of sharp sword blades was not at all uncommon, at least in earlier times. Indeed, a lot of the Renaissance fight manuals that survive show numerous illustrations of "half-swording" where a fighter will grasp the blade halfway down toward the point with one hand, and even techniques where the fighter would grasp the blade with both hands and use the hilt like a hammer. And these swords were sharp.

But they didn't have the same kind of edge geometry as the knives that most people are used to. Swords had a thicker edge bevel. They were not shaving sharp, but they were sharp. And the reason for this was that swords have a different job to do than knives, and have to withstand shocks and impacts that knives don't. A thicker edge was more durable, and stayed sharp better in combat than a really fine edge could ever do. And it was still sharp enough to inflict deep cuts when swung with sufficient force. This was even more true for cavalry swords, which would have the weight of the charging horse behind the blow. But this kind of edge could be grasped with a bare hand, as long as you gripped the blade tightly and didn't let your hand slide along it. Though half swording and such like was never done with cavalry sabers as far as I know (not being a particularly useful technique on horseback), the edge geometry of swords was much the same as those earlier Renaissance era swords, and for the same reason.

In addition, Billy, gauntlets or gloves were often commonplace equipment for swordsman in both medieval and civil war times and times in between.

They were, but again, it wasn't uncommon for these techniques to be employed barehanded. You can see illustrations of exactly that in Talhoffer's manual. Surviving swords which still have an edge, demonstrate that wider edge bevel that made this practical. It wouldn't be practical if swords had an edge like a good hunting knife, but as I said, a sword edge has to withstand abuse that a hunting knife doesn't, so it needs a more robust edge (and it doesn't have to do the fine cutting a hunting knife does), just as a hunting knife has to withstand abuse that a straight razor doesn't, so it needs a more robust edge than the razor (and it doesn't have to do the fine shaving a razor does). Swords (most of them), knives, and razors are all blades designed with cutting edges, but each is optimized to its particular purpose, and the edge geometry reflects this.