Hank Reinhardt's The Book of the Sword (27 page)

The 19th century saw the introduction of a really nice saber design, and one that I quite like, the quill back, or pipe back, blade. This blade had a round back, with the edge extending downward. The thick round portion of the blade extended almost to the point, but several inches from the point is a back edge. This gave you a slightly curved blade with excellent rigidity for thrusting, yet great strength of cutting. It had two flaws. The round back edge would prevent the sword from cutting very deeply, and it was expensive to make. Other than that it would make a fine weapon for unarmored combat.

The final saber issued for combat was a single-edged straight-bladed sword with a thick back, and really useless for cutting. To many people this signaled that the straight-bladed thrusting sword was the ultimate cavalry weapon. I would like to point out that this was also the group that sent the cavalry charging machines guns—and that was the end of the saber as a weapon of war.

This leads us to modern saber fencing. Saber fencing is based on the use of the cavalry saber. Since a cavalry saber is used on a horse, and it doesn't make much sense to cut at a man's leg when he's on a horse (except to be mean and spiteful), leg blows are not allowed. Sabers were heavy swords, usually the weight ran between 2-3/4 to 4 pounds. Now, the reality of combat dictated that a man had to be a good horseman and his horsemanship was actually more important than his skill with a sword.

Modern sport fencers use sabers that weigh 13 ounces and fight on foot. Go figure.

The advantage of a short close combat weapon has long been known. Although called by many names, the above swords are all basically the same weapon. None of the above-listed swords was ever intended to be the primary weapon of the individual. The closest would have been the cutlass. Even on the confines of a small ship the preferred weapon would have been the short pike or a brace of pistols. But going into combat with one weapon is foolish, so there was always a backup.

Reproduction Sinclair saber. HRC44.

British naval cutlass from the late 1700s, 33 inches overall length. HRC40.

The hanger was a favorite infantry weapon as well as a civilian one. Anytime there was a chance of miscreants or rascals being about, the knowledgeable gentleman might have a small pistol, plus some type of edged weapon. In the narrow streets of the European cities the small sword was favored. However, in the wilder regions of the world a good stout hanger was preferred. The very sight of such a weapon could put off an attack. Thugs are not interested in fighting for fighting's sake, they're interested in plunder. A few coins, even gold ones, are not worth a split skull or a severed limb.

Hanger.

From a military point of view the short saber was also a useful tool. It could be used in pioneer work and building fortifications. It was so popular that one version was made with a saw back, and issued to engineering and pioneer troops. It did cause some outcry, as it was really mean looking (just like mean looking "assault rifles" today) and it was rumored that any soldier found with one of these swords was shot on the spot. Since it was used in several armies, Russian, French, German to name a few, the rumor could have been just wartime propaganda.

Saw-backed short saber.

Some of these swords are really ugly, and some are quite beautiful. In the Tower of London there is a particularly nice short saber and Museum Replicas, Ltd., made a superb copy of the sword. I grabbed the first one, and still have it. It is a very effective and attractive sword. The American Cutlass, model 1862, is another sword that is really attractive. You can compare it with the last issued cutlass of the US Navy, the 1917 Model. No comparison in looks.

Reproduction US Navy 1917 model cutlass.
Photo by Mike Stamm.

Komaroff, Linda, and Stefano Carboni, editors,
The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1250–1353.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 2002.

Farwell, Byron,
Eminent Victorian Soldiers: Seekers of Glory
, WW Norton & Co., New York, 1985.

Farwell, Byron,
Queen Victoria's Little Wars,
WW Norton & Co., New York, 1985.

Of all of the two-handed swords in the world, none are as impressive as the European two-hander. Although the Japanese no-dachi is fearsome and most impressive, it is not quite as awesome as the Swiss or German two-hand sword.

In many of the action films dealing with swords that are not rapiers, the combatants are shown using their weapons with two hands. This is fine if it's appropriate to the country and period, as for instance when they show the Japanese katana or the larger European versions. But this does give a skewed version of history, as the sword and shield were the preferred weapons for most of the time when swords were used. Still, it is easily understandable when you realize the difficulties in choreographing a fight with sword and shield.

But just how popular were these two-handed weapons in reality? When did they start to be used and how effective were they?

No one is able to say for sure just how early the two-handed sword began to be used in Europe. It seems only logical that in battle when one has lost his shield to continue to fight using both hands on the sword. Given the wide range of individual preference, I feel certain that there were a very few people who actually preferred a two-handed sword. But these early medieval swords appear to have been merely outsized versions of the standard sword blade of the various periods. Rather than two-handed swords, these are called "bastard swords" or a "sword of war." These were swords that could be swung with one hand, but had space in the grip for an additional hand should the user feel it was needed.

Great sword, early 15th century, steel, 68 inches overall length.
From the collection of Glenbow Museum. R1945.285.

Although the two-handed sword had not gained any great popularity, there were still very large two-handers in existence. There is one in the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. This is a huge sword, well over 6 feet long, and weighing about 12 pounds. It dates from the early 15th century and I would consider it an important sword in the history of arms.

Two things brought about the development of the two-hand sword in the 14th century. One was the improvement of armor. As mail was superseded by plate armor, the sword became less and less effective. When an infantryman of the period was forced to face a fully armored knight, a two-hand crushing or cutting weapon was needed: a halberd, a bill, or a two-hand sword. This was also true for the fully armored knight when fighting on foot. With no need for a shield, then a two-handed weapon was the most practical. While a staff weapon was impractical to carry on horseback, a two-handed sword could easily be strapped to the saddle. All of these weapons could deliver tremendous blows capable of crushing the new steel armor that was spreading across Europe.

Reproduction two-handed sword. HRC64.