"Your favoritte/best British Napoleonic regulation Sword." Topic

There were 5 regulation swords.

In 1796 you get the Light cavalry sabre, Heavy cavalry sword, and infantry officer sword AKA the spadroon.
In 1798 you get the regulation basket-hilted broadsword and in 1803 the flank officers sword.

The Spadroon was admired and beloved for being equally useless at the cut and thrust. The blade geomotry and lightness of the blade made it a bad cutter, and the point and way way to a bendy blade made it as useless at the stab, with crossbelt and even winter coats being excellent armour against it no matter what you did with it.

As much as the spadroon was loved, the Light cavalry sabre was hated(by the french) for its the ability to dice them into small pieces. Designed by John Le Marchant who died at Salamanca, it's basically a Hungarian Hussar sabre but a bit more punch, the flared tip made it a very very powerful cutter, a bit unwieldy but when used correctly could lightsabre anything in sight.
A popular collector's item as they were made in huge numbers, both by the British and Prussians. So well-liked it was preferred in India during the entire 19th century, referred to as the "old dragoon sword"

The Heavy cavalry sword was chosen as the old guard still insisted that heavy cavalry must use a straight sword. And this is basically an Austrian Pallasch.
Because of its hatchet point, it was a bad thruster, but it was heavy and about as good a cutter/chopper as you can get a straight sword. As with the light cav version it is described as a "bit of a beast" to wield. Before Waterloo/maybe earlier they grind the point into a spear point, it shortened the sword a bit, making it lighter and also a much better thruster, and the 1796 HC became a perfect cut and thrust sword. It was now an easier sword to handle than the LC.

The Scottish being Scottish, they wanted their own sword so they got the regulation basket-hilted broadsword. Used by officers in the highland regiments. The basket means it's quite forgiving on the defence, and snipes at the hand that would be effective against the other sword didn't work on it. On the other, the basket does limit some movement. But there would often be both spadroons and flank company sabres in the highland regiments.

Since the spadroon was so super awesome and perfect, the British officers felt it was unsporty to use it.
So within a year of the regulations of 1796, the British infantry officers started to use either the 1796 light cavalry sabre or a lightened infantry friendly copy of it. This became so common that in 1803 the Flank officers sabre became standard, it was like the unofficial sabres just an infantry version of the LC sabre. Slightly shorter and lighter. None flank company officers often used them too.

Those are your picks. Now choose.

1796 Light Cavalry. I know someone with a couple of half phone books and a divided desk from one of those.

1796 light cavalry saber.

I have one, given to me as a gift from a fellow warmer many years ago. As a former fencer, I can attest this is an awesome sword to wield.

Rick

The 1796 light cavalry sabre. I have one and it is a beast to wield initially but practice makes perfect and then it is quite a weapon.

1796 for me as well – I have very nice reproduction and handled the real thing which I would love to own.

I like the light cavalry saber but for me there's just something about the basket hilted Highland sword.

IMHO you may also add the cavalry officers regulation swords of 1796, where the heavy cavalry officers sword is lighter and has some better balance than the troopers sword.
The difference between the light cavalry troopers- and officers sword is less, but the officers swords were usually of a slightly better manufacture and thus better balanced than the troopers swords.

My preference would be the light cavalry officers sabre as it would be the best overall suited for both mounted and dismounted use. However, the basket hilt sword may also be suitable for mouunted use, being quite similar to the 1755 dragoon model.

I have collected both the heavy and light cavalry swords, however, I only have an example of the light cavalry of the officers swords. My assessment of the heavy cavalry officers sword is therefore based on second hand information.

Although I have never wielded a sword mounted, I would guess that the swords made for mounted use were better for this purpose and vice versa. Therefore, preferences would probably vary whether you were an infantry- or cavalryman. The light cavalry sword is slightly faster to wield than the heavy cavalry sword, although the heavy cavalry sword is not as clumsy to wield as you may get the impression of reading about it. The big advantage with the heavy cavalry sword is that the disc guard provide much better protection of the hand and forearm than the rail guard of the light cavalry saber. The majority of injuries for cavalrymen inflicted by other cavalry weapons were exactly in this area, thus suggesting that this feature was quite important. This also indicates that the 1803 infantry sabre, with slightly larger guard and thus better hand protection, would be preferable for dismounted service over the light cavalry sabre.

An interesting anecdote is that, having compared an Austrian M1769 NCO pallasch with the British heavy cavalry sword, the Austrian original is lighter and have a better balance than the British 1796 model. The Austrian blade has two fullers, is lighter, is more flexible and have a spear point. Thus it is faster and have a better thrusting performance as well. However, I have not handled the Austrian troopers model, so it could be that this is more similar in performance to the British troopers model. I have also wielded the Austrian 1716 model troopers pallasch, which also has very good balance. The blade is quite similar to the 1769 model, although the hilt guard is different. Compared to other near-contemporary Danish/Norwegian 1750 and 1789 pallasch models I have handled, the Austrian models are both clearly distinguishable superior in balance. Compared also with the British 1755 Dragoon model (which had a kind of basket hilt), my assessment is that the Austrian models had superior balance. Although from a small sample, my assessment is still that the Austrian heavy cavalry was relatively speaking very well armed throughout the 18th and early 19th Centuries.

Two fullers might affect it's cutting ability. Like the French cuirassier sword of the napoleonic period. The double fuller makes a strong and relatively light sword for it's size(it's basically an Estoc)
But it's a lousy cutter, so bad it probably won't cut into any decent layer of clothing (but might break bones)

So if the Austrian pallasch also have two fullers it might suffer the same problem.

The Austrian pallasch was double edged towards the point and had approx the same width (from edge to edge) as the British heavy cavalry sword, and was thus very different in design to the French cuirassier sword. The Austrian pallasch was slimmer across the neck compared to the French sword and had a very good cutting performance in addition to a kind of rounded spearpoint which also provided sufficient thrusting and penetrating capability. The weapons I have are still very sharp (the sharpest in my collection, I have not sharpened any of them), probably due to the wood-lined scabbards made of metal reinforced leather. Although the French cuirassier sword had a narrower blade from neck to edge, it was a little broader across the neck giving a slightly broader base of the edge and thus not the same "knifes edge". The point though was narrower, and especially when cut down to a spearpoint shape, made for a very good thrusting weapon.

I can provide some pictures over the weekend to illustrate what I have tried to explain.