SWORD LORE IV: BRITISH 1796 LIGHT CAVALRY SABER

 

Contemporary print of a British Hussar trooper wielding a 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. 

Greetings, dear reader(s). Life events have been rather bumpy and interrupted hobby attention lately.  I'll eventually piece together some content from the starts and stops that have been going on, but in the meantime, I thought I'd put up another Sword Lore post.  In this one, we'll be visiting the Napoleonic era and examining one of the most famous swords of that period: the British 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. For anyone new to these sword lore posts, each of them focuses on a particular sword in my modest collection of antique service weapons (not reproductions) from the era when swords were still relevant as actual combat weapons.  As usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX in this post. 

THE SWORD

Sword Plus Scabbard

The Blade

Above are shots of my 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. In this case, I have both the sword and the scabbard. The complete sword, from pommel to tip, is roughly 38 inches. The blade by itself, from the hilt to tip, is about 33 inches. Being curved, this falls into the "saber" category. More particularly, this is a cavalry saber: designed and meant to be used mounted. I'll be discussing these points in more detail later, but for now this will serve as an introduction to get things started. 

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

At the conclusion of the 18th Century, the British Army was in the process of to standardizing its equipment. Specific to the mounted arm, it introduced heavy and light cavalry saber patterns in 1788. Those are not the topic of this post, so I won't go into detail on them other than to say that during the campaigns in the Low Countries in the 1790s against Revolutionary France they were found to be lacking; it was evident that a change was needed. 

Maj General John Gaspard Le Marchant

And the man of the hour who would step forward and transform the British mounted arm, from weapons to sword drill, was John Gaspard Le Marchant. He was a cavalry brigade commander during the Revolutionary Wars in the low countries and would continue to serve with distinction in the British Army, meeting his end in combat at the Battle of Salamanca in 1812. 

Austrian Hussar of the French Revolutionary Wars era.

Going back to the revolutionary wars, the Hungarian Hussars were making a deep impression on everyone at this time, with all nations adopting their own versions and adjusting their approach to light cavalry because of them.  Le Marchant was also impressed with them, and he brought back nuts and bolts lessons from a soldier's-eye view. Marchant not only rewrote the British Army's cavalry manuals to improve swordsmanship, but...

Austrian 1768 Light Cavalry (Hussar) Saber.

....working with the Osborne cutlery firm, he redesigned the British light and heavy cavalry swords based upon the Austrian models. The two resulting swords were both adopted and became famous: the 1796 Heavy Cavalry pallasch (or broadsword), so called because it is a straight-bladed thrusting weapon.  And the (even more famous) 1796 Light Cavalry Saber (the subject of this post). The heavy cavalry saber was pretty much an exact duplicate of the heavy cavalry sword wielded by the Austrian cuirassiers and was carried by the British heavy dragoons. The light cavalry saber was derivative of the Austrian light cavalry (hussar) model, but was more of a redesign--and became one of the most successful swords in history.  

                                              Hussars                       Light Dragoons

                                    King's German Legion       Prussian Cavalry

In the British Army, the 1796 Light Cavalry Saber was issued to the Hussars, Light Dragoons, and the cavalry regiments of the King's German Legion. It would be the sword that was carried throughout the Napoleonic wars.  The gunners of the Royal Horse Artillery also carried the 1796 Light Cavalry Saber.  In addition, the post-1813 Prussian cavalry (minus the cuirassiers) were armed with the 1796 Light Cavalry Saber--produced and exported to them from Britain (see the Sword Lore: 1811 Blucher Cavalry Saber post for more). 

THE SWORD

A sword is discussed in terms of its parts, the two major ones being the blade and the hilt. Each of these has its own sub components and variants. We'll follow this model to discuss the points of interest of this sword (all images are of the sword in my collection). 

THE HILT

    Like many light cavalry sabers of its era, the 1796 has a single-barred "stirrup" guard (the part that protects the hand), so-called because in shape it resembles a stirrup. However, the very distinctive modification that the 1796 brought to this feature was the bulge towards the rear (sometimes called a "D" shaped modification). Nobody knows exactly why this was done; conjecture is that it would allow for an alternate grip, one where the last two or three fingers would be on the rear part of the guard, below the pommel. 

    Other signature features of the 1796 are the two shield shaped langets (these seat the sword in the scabbard)--there are some versions with different sized or shaped (rectangular) langets, but the shield shaped ones depicted in this sword are the most common. Another feature is the continuous backstrap that runs over the handle, ending in a curve at the back of the handle (the pommel), with a reinforcing "ear" about 2/3 of the way forward. The purpose of this ear is to reinforce and secure the blade to the hilt with a rivet that runs through the handle and tang (an extension of the blade that runs under the handle ending in the "peen" at the back--under the pommel on the 1796).  The backstrap and ear make for a very secure hilt/blade combination. Despite its age, the blade of the sword in my collection has zero movement in the hilt.  

    Moving on, there is a ferrule between the handle and the guard, and a bar that extends above the handle (the quillon) that ends in a curl.--these latter features are common to the 1796 (and should be looked for), but they are not unique to the 1796 Lt Cav saber. 

THE BLADE

This is where things really get interesting...

The blade has a single, wide, shallow fuller running nearly its entire length. As I've mentioned before, the fuller is sometimes referred to as a "blood channel" but that is not its purpose. It is a design feature that both lightens the blade and (depending on type, number, placement, and other configurations) lightens, balances, and reinforces the blade. In this case, the placement of the fuller at the top of the blade, near the spine, renders a ridge near the cutting edge, making the edge more rigid and stiffer. It also certainly lightens the blade and makes it more agile (more on that in a bit...).

                                                   Hatchet Point                        Spear Point

The 1796 was designed as a cutting/slashing weapon, consistent with the doctrines of the era: light cavalry delivered slashes and cuts while heavy cavalry delivered thrusts. The 1796 has a long cutting edge ending in a "hatchet point"--meaning that the tip is not symmetrical and does not end in a point. As such, it is not very effective at delivering a thrust. A spear pointed blade, on the other hand, is more familiar (to the contemporary eye) and has a symmetrical point; an example of a spear-pointed, straight bladed heavy cavalry pallasch-type sword is on the right for comparison. The light cavalry were more "swordsmen" in this way, sometimes circling in single combat in order to get in position to deliver slashes rather than charging straight ahead. Of course, when catching infantry in the open, they were as devastating delivering cuts as heavy cavalry were thrusts (it is a myth that only heavy cavalry engaged in "battle" and light cavalry only in "skirmishing" but I digress). But now, on to the really fascinating feature of the blade and 1796 Lt Cav Saber...

Profile Taper

The profile taper is a measure of the change in the width of the blade from hilt to point, affecting its outline and handling. In most swords, the profile taper gets smaller as it goes, hence the name, "taper"--in other words, when we think of swords, we think of the blades being wider at the handle and thinner at the point.  However, the 1796 Lt Cav Saber is the opposite: it gets broader.

Distal Taper

The distal taper is a measure of the thickness of the blade as it extends from the hilt to the point (the cross section of the blade when looking top down). The 1796 blade is quite sturdy at the hilt, but thins to just barely over 1mm for the last 1/4 of its length  (slimming from 3mm to 1+mm along its last 1/3). 

 

    As an aside, this is where reproductions (except for a few special cases) go wrong: they are good to the eye, but usually have these proportions incorrect (to include the fuller). In short, they look the part, and to be fair, that is what they are designed for (and also to be affordable). But in terms of handling, they are basically long bars of metal that don't have the same feel. The originals are much more agile and balanced than reproductions, surprisingly so if you ever have the chance to compare--this sword in particular is very light and agile in the hand. The craftsmanship and effort that went into producing these weapons becomes obvious when you handle them: in most cases, they may not have been turned out at a single point of mass production, but they were all produced to specific patterns intended to render deliberate performance profiles. 

Deadly Slashing Weapon

The combination of the long, shallow fuller, the widening profile taper, and the characteristics of the distal taper make for a cleaver-like slashing weapon, with a deadly, sharpened edge broader at the tip than the base. Troopers were taught to cut with the last 1/3 of the blade and block with the first 2/3. There was also a sharpened "false edge" along the last 1/3 of the top of the blade.  Anecdotes tell of limbs being severed by single blows from these swords. The downside was that the most effective blows had to be square on to the target for these effects. The more the blade was turned, the less effective the blow. The combination of these features (the long shallow fuller and the distal taper) also make the 1796 Lt Cavalry saber the most agile and balanced sword in my collection.  

AUTHENTICATING THE SWORD

Having discussed the sword's characteristics, we now move on to a discussion of what we can tell about this specific sword: how can we authenticate it?  The first steps involve checking its characteristics: whether the parts--the hilt and blade-- conform to what is known about the pattern. In the case of this particular sword, I can say with certainty that these are consistent with the historical record in terms of shape, size, and other tenets. The materials and their condition also seem to be consistent with its age  (but those can be faked--in this case, my sense is that they are not).

The next thing to look for are any markings. Not all swords will have them (particularly if it is a private purchase sword).  However, my focus is on service swords: fighting swords issued to troopers.  In the case of the British Army of the era (Napoleonic), there aren't many markings (and any sword that is festooned with letters and Georgian script should be given a hard look).  However, there are two things to definitely look for.

  

    Ordnance Mark: The first is an ordnance mark: a crown over a number stamped on the outside of the blade at the ricasso. (The outside of the blade is the one facing away from the body when the sword is held in the right hand, point up; the ricasso is an unsharpened part of the blade next to the hilt).  This sword has the correct stamps, in the correct form (numeral 11 under a crown), in the correct location. This indicates that the sword was inspected for compliance with the characteristics for the pattern and accepted into the Army inventory: in other words, a service sword that would be issued to a trooper.  The number, at the time, was probably associated with a particular inspector (possibly on a temporary basis).  Unlike French inspector and controller marks, there is no record that I am aware of recording the assignment of numbers to inspectors (or inspection timeframes). So, in terms of authentication, the presence of the number under the crown is what matters: the significance of the number itself does not.  

    Manufacturer: the second is a manufacturer's stamp. It is true that not all British swords may have a manufacturer's stamp, but most would. So having both an ordnance stamp and a manufacturer's stamp is better than just having an ordnance stamp. There were multiple contractors who provided 1796 light cavalry sabers to the British Army--and this accounts for some variation in the swords. Each conformed to a specific "pattern" but might vary within the specifications (the example of the rectangular langets, for instance, as opposed to shield shaped). The manufacturer's stamp should be on the spine of the blade near the hilt: and this sword has a manufacturer's stamp in the correct place: "ThosCraven".

What Else Can we Determine?

    So far, so good. We have both kinds of mark on this sword, and both are "right" in terms of form and placement. Combine these with the physical characteristics of the sword and we can feel pretty confident that this sword is "right."  We can glean a bit more information based on the manufacturer:

    Thomas Craven was a sword maker in Birmingham,  and the firm was in operation from 1797 to 1820. However, from 1803 through 1818 there was a partnership, and the firm was known as "Cooper and Craven" during this 15-year stretch. Given that the manufacturer's stamp on this sword is only "Thos Craven" we can surmise that it must have been produced in one of the two non-partnered timeframes: 1798-1803 or 1818-1820. The presence of the ordnance stamp tells us that this sword was produced for the government and not for export or private purchase. Given that the Napoleonic Wars had ended in 1815, it is not likely that it would have been produced to fill a government contract in the 1818-20 timeframe, particularly given that the 1796 was on the threshold of being replaced by then (see below). It is more likely, therefore, that this sword dates from 1797-1803. 

SERVICE LIFE AND LEGACY

The 1822 Light Cavalry Saber

Like its counterpart in Prussian service (the 1811 Blucher), it was replaced by a pattern with better hand protection (a three bar hand guard) and a more universal blade--still being a cutting weapon (a saber), but with a less curved blade with a spear point: the 1822 Light Cavalry Saber.

Prussian 1811 "Blucher" and the British 1796 Light Cavalry Saber

I mentioned earlier in this post that the post-1813 Prussian Army was equipped with the British 1796 Light Cavalry Saber. This made such an impression on them that they designed their own version, the 1811 "Blucher" that they manufactured to become the standard weapon of the Prussian cavalry until mid-century, being replaced by the Prussian 1852 Cavalry Saber in a move that was happening in general across all nations, to swords with better hand protection and more universal blades. (You can follow the links for posts on each of these Prussian swords). 

US 1812 Starr Cavalry Saber

I think there is no doubt that the US cavalry saber of this timeframe (above) owes much to the British 1796 as well (clipped point and absence of langets aside). 

Excelsior!

SERBS FOR ONE HOUR SKIRMISH

 

The latest contingent in my Balkan collection: Serbs, circa 1877-78 (and later)

Greetings, dear reader(s).  I am gratified to report on the addition of the Serbs for my One Hour Skirmish Muskets to Rifle variant. For anyone stumbling on this blog for the first time, my focus is on the age of the rifle--post-Napoleonic to pre-automatic weapons. My Balkan focus is on the era roughly from the Russo Turkish War through the Balkan Wars.  As with a good number of others in the collection, these figures are from the Outpost Miniatures Russo-Turkish line: now available at Badger Games in the U.S. 

The Serb "People's Army" uniform of the era--the only difference between this uniform and that of the regulars was the collar (the regulars had a standing collar), so as far as the look on the table, they would be the same. As can be seen, the signature look is brown over blue, with a blue cap--in sources, the blue is variously described as a light or gray blue (per the above right image from Helion and Company From Musket to Maxim, 1815-1914,  #55, The Serbian Army in the Wars for Independence from Turkey 1876-1878). Images of actual surviving uniforms, like the above left, indicate a more robust blue. More on that in a bit...

My contingent consists of three poses plus command (as usual, you may clix pix for BIG PIX in this post)...

Serbian Line Firing

I used a wash of black and a drybrush of lighter blue to bring out the details of the cap lines in the sculpts. 

Serbian Line Advancing

I struck a balance between the dark and light blue options by using a mid-blue, Humbrol World War One Blue, for the trousers and caps. I decided to go with black belting rather than brown to add a bit more detail. Speaking of which, on a utilitarian uniform such as this absent any trappings, I add detail by emphasizing the strapping and equipment--first underpainting it in black and then going over it in the respective colors, with an eye towards bringing out points where straps cross  or equipment is nested together, like the water bottles over the haversacks. 

Serbian Line Charging

This sculpt is my favorite in this line: very animated and finely detailed, right down the facial details. 

Serbian Command

Given that One Hour Skirmish is a very low level game, I needed an NCO, so I took the standard bearer and gave him a guidon, something appropriate for a small unit: both he and the musician can serve as NCO leaders as needed.  Of course, since I had him I also worked up the officer.

Figure Comparison

Outpost Serbs next to Outpost Montenegrins.

I have previously posted about the variation in sculpts within the Outpost Russo Turkish line. The Serbs are among the smaller figures: they are "true" 25mm. I would guess that they are from the same artist who sculpted the Montenegrins. 

Three Foot View

The collection as seen at gaming distance (the colors in the picture are a bit washed out). 

The Serbs round out my collection of forces for the Balkans. Most conventionally, they would be put on the table in games against the Ottomans starting with the Russo Turkish War of 1877 and continuing through to the Balkan Wars. However, given the troubled history of the Balkan region and the small scale actions represented in the One Hour Skirmish system, they could be put on the table against just about any of the other contingents in any number of plausible scenarios. The possibilities are nearly endless. 

Excelsior!

LOGISTICKS

 

An uncharacteristic foray in DIY terrain for the Meanderer: stacked log piles. 

Greetings, dear reader(s). In this post, I will show not only the latest bit of hobby production 'round here, but how a trip down the rabbit hole brought me to the "need" to create such an eclectic bit of terrain.  As you can see from the above, these represent limbed and stacked logs.  Read on for why and how I wound up doing such things.

Well, doctor, it all started when I completed my "Jager" project: a contingent of Prussian and Austrian Jagers (left and right above, respectively).  Although certainly suitable for other scenarios in my One Hour Skirmish Musket to Rifle variant, I wanted to pit these two contingents against each other as a classic confrontation of the 1866 Austro-Prussian war.  It didn't take me long to find a suitable battle and sector where direct action between Austrian and Prussian Jagers did indeed happen...

...in the heavy, back and forth fighting in the Swiepwald (above) during the Battle of Koniggratz  (above image of one phase of the fighting from the superb Battlefield Anomalies Blog: highly recommended). 

...this is another view of the Swiepwald as shown on the Kriegspiel map. The Austrians were pushing in from the right (east) and the Prussians from the left (west).  I wasn't really interested in a fight "in" a forest as a game. So, upon first blush, I was thinking of looking at the fighting near the Swiepwald as opposed to in it. But upon further study (it's always good to have books and references)...

...I found that the Swiepwald was not a monolithic piece of forested terrain, but  variegated, with some open meadows (in green), new growth and old growth areas, a gully (shown in brown in the upper right), and most of all, an area that had been cleared where the trees had been harvested and stacked into log piles (shown as the lighter green area at the lower right with the stacked log piles in brown). The above map came from the Prussian staff study of the battle (the image was found in the Wargaming in History series, Volume 12, Koniggratz, 1866, by John Drienkienwicz and Andrew Brentnall)

This cleared area became known as the "Meadow of Death" as units from both sides were fed into it and fought back and forth across the stacked log piles (the above image was found on the aforementioned Battlefield Anomalies blog--it is a motion picture still from a movie on the battle).  My sense is that during the battle there were few if any standing trees in this sector (as opposed to the above picture--which is a good representation of the action, otherwise). 

So, now I had to find me some stacked logs suitable for 28mm gaming. Being a lazy sod, I first scanned the model railroad terrain sites for likely subjects: long story short, there was only one, and it was expensive and consisted of plastic logs that I would have to assemble and paint, anyway.  Confronted by the fact that I couldn't buy these ready made, I contemplated the sober realization that--one way or the other--I would have to fabricate them myself.  I then thought about all the articles, blogs, and youtubes I had viewed of more industrious fellows than me who had gathered sticks and whatnot from 'round their houses to use as scatter terrain. It was then that the 40- watt bulb of inspiration started sputtering above my head...

...and looking at the "back 40" behind our house, I came to the astounding realization that I had my very own Swiepwald out there...

...complete with ready made log piles (well, piles of branches and sticks that I had stacked to clear the paths: but you get the idea).  I then went through these and picked out likely suspects of similar diameter and reasonable straightness (not as easy as it sounds). I then cut these into 6" and 4" lengths (for longer and shorter log piles). Then--when the wife was out--I baked them in the oven at 250 degrees for 15 minutes to kill any creepy crawlies that might be lurking...

...and from these, I created a series of two-level log piles, with the base being  three sticks with two sticks for the second level.  Knowing that white glue by itself would not be sufficient, I pinned the top level onto the lower level using snipped lengths of florist wire and then slobbering white glue all over the pins and any other parts of the sticks that contacted one other... 

...for the lower (base) level, I drilled three horizontal holes through the sticks and threaded florist wire through them, then pulling them together tight and then tucking the wire out of sight on the underside (shown above). Once completed, I sprayed them with a generous coating of Scenic Cement  (lazy man's white glue mixture) to seal them and keep the bark and other bits from flaking off (or at least to minimize shedding).

Of course, I had to produce enough of these beasties to sprinkle over a 4 foot by 6 foot area, which took me about a week to do (sheesh).  When this all started, I didn't even know that I needed (or wanted) a single log pile, much less a bunch of them. But now I am outfitted to set games in the Swiepwald--and I reckon that I may be able to find other uses for these as well.  

Excelsior!