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 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 actual combat weopons.  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 trying to standardize its equipment. Specific to the mounted arm, it introduced standardized heavy and light cavalry saber patterns in 1788. Those are not the topic of this post, so I won't go into detail 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 weapon to sword drill, was John Gaspard Le Marchant. He was a cavalry brigade commander during the Revolutionary Wars in the low countries and (sword designing aside)  would go on 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 went down to the nitty gritty and took back lessons from a soldier's-eye view. Marchant not only rewrote the British Army's cavalry manuals on 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 in fact 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, all 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 rectangular langets, but the shield shaped ones are the most common. Another feature is the continuous backstrap that runs over the handle, ending in a curve at the back (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 and secured by the the "peen" under the pommel).  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 roll.--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 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 (on almost all swords) go wrong: they are good to the eye, but usually have these proportions incorrect (to include the fuller). In short, they look the part, but they are long bars of metal that don't have the same feel and handling. 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 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), and unlike the French inspectors and controller marks, there is no record of any association of a particular inspector with a number in the British system. 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!