"Very interesting thing about cavalry sabre." Topic

This video shows a sparring match, were one uses a nylon sword based on an infantry sabre, while the other uses one based on the 1796 light cavalry sabre.
Just watching the video you see how much slower the cavalry saber is.

But even more interesting is the video description that says besides being slower, you can't use the cavalry sabre at full force, it's just not safe even with protective gear. Now if a blunt nylon copy of the sword hits so hard that even with protection you can't use it full force.

Imagine what the real sharp thing could do.

youtu.be/6pwUyW6iCcQ

It's not obvious to me that one sword is faster – the wielder maybe.

Plus combat sports vs combat are two very different things. In the latter you are trying to kill the opponent quickly not leisurely score touches.

And I don't see a horse in the video. Granted a dismounted cavalryman would have to defend himself but you can't fault the sword for not being intended as an infantry weapon.

Plus combat sports vs combat are two very different things. In the latter you are trying to kill the opponent quickly not leisurely score touches.

Actually in real combat, you're tying to stay alive.
And this isn't a sport, it's a martial art.

Trying to improve yourself using historical techniques.
They are signaling hits, not keeping score.

It's not obvious to me that one sword is faster – the wielder maybe.

They trade swords midway, and it's quite obvious.

And I don't see a horse in the video. Granted a dismounted cavalryman would have to defend himself but you can't fault the sword for not being intended as an infantry weapon.

Some officers did use cavalry swords, they preferred the hitting power.

The 1803 infantry officers sabre was created because officers either used the LC sabre or had custom made sabers because they really really didn't like the 1796 Spadroon.

The shorter, ligher, sabre will be faster, all other things being equal, which they are usually not.

When riding on horseback, when perhaps getting one swipe at opposing infantry/cavalry on a riding pass, the heavier weapon might be deemed to be preferable, e.g. less likely to break, more energy imparted with a strike, etc., etc..

They also use the 1796 heavy cavalry sword (with the field modified spear point)
And even though its longer it's actually more nimble than the light cavalry sabre.
These nylon copies are based on the real ones, same weight, same balance points.
They handle just like the real thing.

>Some officers did use cavalry swords, they preferred the hitting power.

You have been reading too much Sharpe.

One recent interesting video om this site showing Sabre vs basket hilt sword.

The most important point is that a cavalry and infantry sabre is intended for very dissimilar use. The cavalry weapons are typically heavier and longe, and thereby slower. However, they are better suited for cavalry action.

Speaking of Sharpe,
When I see these things I am reminded of the episode where they demonstrate the difference between a fencing dual and battlefield use.

You have been reading too much Sharpe.

they used the light cavalry sabre, not the heavy cavalry sword. And the later 1803 infantry officers sabre is just a lightened shortened version of the light cavalry sabre.

I don't really get the relevance of this video. Fighting on foot with a cavalry weapon is like giving the chap a lance and seeing how he does with that. Unless you put him on a horse you're missing a vital element.

My original post made it very clear

To quote myself.

But even more interesting is the video description that says besides being slower, you can't use the cavalry sabre at full force, it's just not safe even with protective gear. Now if a blunt nylon copy of the sword hits so hard that even with protection you can't use it full force.

This is relevant for the weapon whether on foot or horse.
Also as I said some officers preferred it even on foot as the again wanted the hitting power.

If they can't use it at 'full force' IE the way it was designed….and they're not the actual items …then what are they doing comparing them at all ?

Essentially those are just two blokes wearing duvets hitting each other with plastic sticks trying to find out which 18th century weapon was better.

No, they are not trying to figure out which one is better, they are testing them.

Like you test other weapons, obviously you can't test with the real thing as it's an antique, and there has been none truly realistic reproductions until now.

So they are testing, it, it represents a test of something that might have happened.
The light infantry sword could represent many standard infantry swords including French ones.

This gives an insight how these weapons might have bee used, whether it's an infantry officer with a cavalry sword or a cavalry trooper who has been dismounted.
Even if the user can't hit full power, he still learns from it.
Just as firing any historical firearms does.

And again the fact they can't use it full force is something of interest, it tells us something.
The fact the sabre hits harder then a longsword is intresting.
Just because you don't find it interesting doesn't mean there is no relevance.

>These nylon copies are based on the real ones, same weight, same balance points.

How did they get them to be the same weight as the real one? Nylon is a hell of a lot less dense than steel, if the blade is the same size as the original, it has to be lighter. It also is a bit more flexible. I doubt there is any correlation of the mockup to the real thing in terms of performance.

The are based on the real things, both the infantry saber, heavy cav and light cav are based on the specs of real ones.
The heavy cav was exactly 1g different from an antique.
The nylons are broader but that does not affect the balance.

This video shows the evolution of the nylon infantry saber.
It shows how the early types were decent training weapons but through refinement and feedback got improved.

youtu.be/fAUkxcqNezo

thicker blade might do the trick. I am still a bit dubious. I have worked with katanas when I was a kid and training weapons never matched.

These are state of the art stuff, superior to even other nylon swords.
As the guy says if you close your eyes you won't notice a difference when wielding them and an antique.
These are people who have trained with antiques, wood, steel, older nylon stuff etc. They should know.

I have the infantry saber and 1796HC on the way, might be here tomorrow or Wednesday.

Here's a video dealing with the HC, not only the nylon version but the real one and the myths around it.

youtu.be/Lk0wF3zsXhY

"you can't use the cavalry sabre at full force, it's just not safe even with protective gear."

Not against another person, no. ;-) Have they tried it against (the getting more realistic all the time) 'human' mannequins? That would be the best way to test from horseback…