Martin Read

1. Scimitar and Straight Sword: History and Introduction

In the past, some historical works on the Napoleonic era, and even some professional military history works, considered the heavy cavalry and light cavalry of that era to be equipped with straight-edged swords and curved swords respectively as a mere habitual choice. Pen @ fun @ pavilion wWw. ｂｉｑUｇE。 infoAlthough there is certainly some tendency to be relatively conservative in the choice of weapon models in the military, the actual facts are far from what we have previously believed.

In fact, throughout nineteenth-century Europe, and especially in England, there was a fierce debate about whether cavalry units should choose sabers for assassination or slashing. Although Britain has the most records of this controversy, the origins of this controversy can be traced back much further, to the time when the light cavalry first appeared in the armies of Western Europe.

The origin of these two forms of saber in history is quite clear to us. The straight-edged saber of the Napoleonic era was supposed to be a double-edged straight sword that could be stabbed and slashed in the Middle Ages. Later, the advent of plate armor facilitated the development of swords dedicated to piercing it, which had a narrow body and a diamond-shaped cross-section, sometimes with a raised ridge in the center of the blade to increase strength. These swords eventually developed into rapiers, which specialized in stabbing. In fact, in actual warfare, almost only civilian personnel wore and actually used the kind of slender and long sword, and what soldiers needed in battle was a more powerful weapon, that is, a slightly shorter broad-edged sword in addition to the long sword. This sword can be used both for assassination and for slashing. It later took on many different shapes and had various names, such as the "good stiff tuck" (good stiff tuck, tuck, tuck, good stiff tuck, "good", a homonym for a slender sword). Then, while the length of the sword was gradually shortened throughout the eighteenth century to accommodate the common man, in an earlier era, with the decrease in the use of armor on the battlefield and the increase in the use of asymmetrical cage gauntlets, military swords began to tend to have a thicker, single-sided blade.

The situation of the curved saber looks a little more complicated, and it may have two origins. First of all, there was already a single-edged heavy falchion in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, and if we go back even further, this kind of curved broadsword may have been a seax used by Germanic tribes in classical times. Around the early 17th century, the curved broadsword evolved into a lighter weapon known as the hanger (from the Arabic word khanjar), which resembled the later sabers. But the second, and probably more important, source of the arc-bladed saber is the East, and the endless Eurasian steppes are likely to be the true homeland of the curved sword. Over time, the influence of this sharp weapon expanded from east to west,[1] and in fact the Byzantines and Russians were already using sabers in the 13th century at the latest. Later, this weapon was brought into Central Europe several times by steppe peoples such as the Cumans, who had come to Europe to escape the threat from the farther East. The appearance of the Mongols and later the Turks in Europe undoubtedly strengthened this influence, promoting the use of the saber on a much wider scale. All these made the people of Central and Eastern Europe realize the broad application space of these weapons in cavalry warfare very early. In contrast, it was not until the eighteenth century, with the gradual spread of the light cavalry branch, that the true practical value of the curved saber began to be recognized. This process was particularly slow in England, and began only gradually after the middle of the eighteenth century.

Concentrate:

[1] The study of the development of sword systems in medieval Eastern Europe is still a virgin land that has yet to be cultivated. What we can be sure of is that the main weapon of the Magyars was the sabre. It is likely that some people in medieval Central and Eastern Europe continued to use curved swords, although the Western European style of straight swords has proven itself well in actual combat since Hungary was occupied by the Turks.

[2] The first hussar regiment was established in France in 1692. Although the strength of this branch continued to increase for some time thereafter, it was not until the forties of the eighteenth century that their numbers increased to a significant point (in 1745 there were seven hussar regiments in France). In contrast, the British lagged behind in the development of light cavalry. Only in the forties of the XVIII century did a short-lived attempt take place, and only in the fifties was the first permanent hussar regiment created. Other early forms of light cavalry in Western European armies, such as stradiots, jinetes, hobilars 'border horses', etc., slowly died out by the 17th century. Because as cavalry on the battlefield used less and less armor, the difference between the various types of cavalry became smaller and smaller (although the distinction between cavalry and dragoons was still very strict at that time). These early forms of light cavalry do not seem to have had much influence on the later development of light cavalry in Western Europe (Stradiots: light cavalry from the Balkans, a type of Turkish attire introduced to Italian mercenaries around the 80s of the 15th century).

Jinetes: The earliest refers to a type of light cavalry formed in Spain under the influence of Muslim light cavalry, which used weapons such as javelins

Hobilars: A type of British light cavalry during the Hundred Years' War, also known as the "Border Horse". ———— the above three articles are translations. ）

2. The basic design concept and characteristics of the saber:

A few simple physical principles can explain why there is a big difference between the use of straight and curved blades in combat. I'll try to explain it clearly: the curved saber provides a cutting blow. When the edge of this type of blade hits a target, it continues to slash into the target while also slicing across the surface, increasing the damage dealt by the initial slash. In contrast, a straight-edged weapon provides a blow when slashing more closely to an axe to a wood. For example, what's the difference between chopping a steak with a dinner knife and cutting it the way you normally would? That's the difference between the two swords in terms of slashing effect.

This difference has a very important influence on the design of the sword. A curved saber can provide an extremely effective cutting slash while being too curved to perform a precise and powerful stab; On the other hand, the light-edged sword described by Alexandre Dumas in The Three Musketeers, if used for slashing, probably would not have been able to inflict any serious damage on a man in an ordinary coat. Since it does not provide a cutting effect, if a straight-edged sword is to be slashed, its center of gravity should be in the front of the hilt and it must have sufficient weight. As mentioned earlier, the chopping of a straight-edged weapon is very similar to the chopping of an axe, so imagine why an axe is so heavy and its mass is concentrated at the tip of a long handle? It's not hard to understand. Finally, it is worth mentioning the swords with slight arcs (such as the Montlaurensian grenadier saber worn by the French Guards Grenadier and Guards Dragoons). This sword clearly leans towards a golden mean that works in both ways. This practice of wallgrass resulted in the sword being too straight to cut effectively, and its arc made it more difficult to stab accurately. While it may seem like a sword of this shape is mediocre in any situation, it still has room for survival because it has an adaptability advantage that is difficult to quantify.

In addition to the skill of use, there are other differences in the characteristics of the straight-edged bayonet and the curved sword. The curved saber cuts fluidly without relying on its own weight and inertia to slash the enemy, so it can be made lighter and easier to handle than a straight-edged stabber, and the shape of the blade gives the weapon another convenience: the curved saber can be easily moved from one side of the body to the other, which is extremely advantageous for a cavalryman with the head and neck of a horse in front of him. What's more, in white-hot melee combat, slashing is a more instinctive action than a stab, so in the hands of an average cavalryman, a slashing saber is more effective than a stabbing sword.

But the bayonet also has its own advantages. For example, when facing an enemy with armor on top and bottom, a stab is almost the only means of striking that can deal decisive damage to the opponent[3]. In addition, the stab is also the most effective way to make use of the kinetic energy of the horse's forward impact. In fact, when charging, the cavalry should start in a third-third, hold the sword in a tierce, straighten the elbow so that the tip of the sword is pointed straight ahead, raise the hand slightly so that the tip of the sword is slightly below the hilt, clasp the thumb and lock the wrist joint (which is very important). This sword grip position allows the kinetic energy of the horse's charge to greatly increase the power of the stab. This is somewhat similar to the way a rifle is used, in that the rider only has to aim at the target without bothering to exert force, because the power of a stabbing blow with the mere force of a horse is already terrifying: if the stab is accurate, the opponent will almost certainly be killed on the spot. However, while they can be terrifying, stabs, especially in high-speed charges, are potentially dangerous. There is a high chance that the saber will get stuck in the enemy's body and cannot be withdrawn, which in the most optimistic case will also cause the rider to lose his weapon. If you're wondering what a "worse scenario" is, I'll tell you that it's not for nothing that the sabers used by cavalry in the American Civil War were called "wrist breakers."

Concentrate:

[3] This phrase was only for 17th-century cuirassiers, such as the cuirassiers. The cuirassiers of the Napoleonic era were only partially armoured, with their face, throat, neck, legs and feet exposed. An attack on the limbs may not be fatal, but it is enough to render them hors combat.

3. Saber shape and combat application:

As can be seen from the above, it is clear that these two swords have their own uses in actual combat. The straight sword plays its best role in a regular cavalry-to-cavalry charge, especially in the first burst of impact. Moreover, the straight sword can play a greater psychological intimidating effect on the enemy because it adds the kinetic energy of men and horses to the lethality of the sword, and the row after row of cavalry with flat sword bodies rushing forward is a more terrifying scene than the same number of cavalry brandishing swords. Conversely, the scimitar has the upper hand in the melee after the charge. When a cavalry team gets caught in a melee, their horses slow down, often in fact just pacing, so that the stabbing loses its power advantage, and the rider has to do a lot of loops and quick circles in the melee, so that each cavalryman must constantly move his sword from one side of his body to the other to deal with the threat of rushing from all directions, as well as to attack targets around him. The lightweight and nimble curved saber clearly has a greater advantage in this type of fighting.

The above speaks of a battle between the cavalry. When fighting infantry, neither of these sabers had any special advantage over the infantry that formed a phalanx and had high morale. However, since straight swords usually have a longer blade and are capable of killing targets at a greater distance, they have some upper hand over scimitars in battles with infantry.

Perhaps the best illustration of the difference in the use of straight and scimitar is those who used both, such as the early Hungarian and Polish-Lithuanian hussars[4]. At the time of the fall of the Kingdom of Hungary under the iron heel of the Turks, the two hussars, both from the Western Balkans, with a tradition of light cavalry, were essentially similar. But then the equipment of the Polish hussars became heavier and began to play the role of a battlefield assault force. At the same time, the Hungarian hussars abandoned their armor and began to resort to the irregular methods of warfare that made them famous. Eventually, it was the latter who became the ancestor of the later hussars and all the hussars of Western Europe, while the Polish hussars can only be seen in the spear, a cavalry weapon widely used in the Napoleonic era. Both hussars first wore a curved saber on their belts and a long, straight bayonet on the left side of the saddle, which the Polish hussars used when their spears were broken and drew their sabers if they were going to fight in a melee or in a chaotic formation, as did the Hungarian hussars. According to some contemporaries, the hussars formed in the early days of France also used such weapons in this way:

"The hussar's weapon is a large scimitar,...... This weapon is used to swing left and right or slash from top to bottom. Some carried a long, narrow sword, which they did not hang by their side, but tied it to the side of their mount, from the chest to the hip...... They charged at the enemy with (this sword,...... When they use it, they put the hilt of their sword against their knees. ”[5]

This shows that the early hussars had a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of both weapons, and knew which one to use and when.

Croatian/Hungarian hussars of the 17th century, note the two weapons they carry at a glance.

The early hussars were often the elite of the military and society, and they had a natural pride in their prowess, and at the same time generally solved the problem of equipment themselves, so they could afford the high training and financial costs of using both weapons. Later, with the further development of the form of warfare, the Western European army's emphasis on quantity rather than quality naturally eliminated this expensive double-equipment cavalry. By this time, the weapons carried by the cavalry reflected their role in the army: heavy cavalry charged in close formations armed with straight swords, while light cavalry chose sabers for minor battles such as patrolling and monitoring enemy movements.

[4] The word "hussar" may be of Yugoslav origin as "gussar", meaning robber. "gussar" itself may have come from a Latin word "cursarius" that had the same meaning, and the Latin word later became the Hungarian form of "husz", which originally meant "twenty".

[5] Pierre• AISE) Paris, 1721.

4. British cavalry in the Napoleonic Wars

The British cavalry, like the rest of the country's armed forces, was in many ways different from those on the European continent. The British had little cavalry tradition, the cavalry units they built were relatively unassuming as their counterparts in other countries, and the ability of the British countryside to provide a large number of high-quality horses made the line between heavy and light cavalry in the British army less clear. In the armies of continental Europe, however, it was customary to carefully divide the size of horses and men into ranks, and to stipulate that taller men and horses should belong to heavy cavalry regiments, and smaller ones to light cavalry regiments. In the UK, the situation is different. Men and horses were of course welcomed, but due to the limited number of cavalry, the British army did not take the cavalry as seriously as it did on the mainland, and instead the commanders of the British cavalry regiments were eager to equip their regiments with the best horses possible, and demanded that each cavalry regiment be capable of launching a formal battlefield charge[6]. In this way, of course, they would not be keen on distinguishing between light and heavy cavalry according to their size.

For these reasons, although the British light cavalry regiments (including light dragoons and hussars) and heavy cavalry regiments (including the royal guards Household Cavalry, Guards dragoons and dragoons) were equipped with different weapons and uniforms, their effectiveness on the battlefield was similar and the training they received was similar. Formal training included various drills such as riding practice, the use of weapons, battlefield maneuvers (where speed is far more important than formation, and riders often drive their horses to maximum speed) and charging [7]. In addition to this, the hussars had to learn to perform some other tasks in the harsh school of the battlefield, such as patrolling, raiding, and so on.

There are quite a few examples of the ability of British light cavalry to charge on the battlefield. During the Peninsular War, notably at the Sahagun in 1808 and Campo Mayor in 1811, the British light dragoons and hussars defeated the French dragoons on several occasions under similar conditions, a theoretically heavier cavalry unit than them. At the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, some records suggest that the light cavalry of the British and British German legions even repelled the attacks of the French cuirassiers, who were probably the most heavily equipped cavalry units in Europe at the time. One of the then British officers wrote: "...... The force with which he (and here the British-bred horses) charged forward was enormous, and to be honest, not only were the British light cavalry much more active than the French light cavalry, but even our lightest cavalry was more powerful in the charge than the enemy's heaviest cavalry squadron. ......"[8] (This is certainly an exaggeration, but the British light cavalry is certainly not weak)

Light dragoons of the British army in the Napoleonic era

[6] In 1844 the Queen issued a decree stipulating that "light and heavy cavalry should be able to charge in formation at the same time." "And this is nothing more than a belated official written document, and what it prescribes has been a fait accompli throughout the history of the development of British light cavalry.

[7] The training of cavalry in maneuvering and other tactics was mainly based on the regulations and instructions for cavalry formation and movement (published by the British War Office in 1796) by Sir David "Pivot" Dundas, Davy•. The manual was supposed to be a compulsory reading for all cavalry officers, but some unfortunate incidents showed that some senior cavalry officers were completely ignorant of the manual.

[8] Fletcher Ian, 1991, p. 31. Quoted from the chapter "The British Cavalry" in the Royal Military Yearbook, published in October 1811.

5. John • Rah• Matthew (John Le Marchant) and the English cavalry of the new age

The equipment of the British cavalry regiments before 1788 depended only on the whims of their commanders. In general, the heavy cavalry regiments were armed with similar swords, while the light cavalry regiments used a variety of weapons that differed in length and other aspects. By 1788 this had changed. General Henry•Simon•General Henry Seymour Conway formed a committee of cavalry officers, carefully examined the various forms of sabers in service, and finally selected two of them, one for heavy cavalry regiments and the other for light cavalry regiments. Although the two styles of sabers proved to be far from perfect, and the methods of the expedition were far from rigorous, they nevertheless enabled the British cavalry to fight with uniform weapons in the Revolutionary War. The Battle of the Low Countries under the command of the Duke of York in the war gave a good opportunity to test the effectiveness of these cavalry sabers, but the results were disappointing. Both sabers, especially the heavy cavalry swords, had serious flaws in battle. This flaw is especially evident when compared to the sophisticated weapons used by their Austrian Allied cavalry. Their blades are too long (38 inches for the heavy cavalry and 36 inches for the light cavalry), bulky, poorly balanced, and prone to slipping or even breaking when they match the enemy's blades. In fact, the heavy cavalry sabers of the time were so clumsy that the cavalrymen often injured themselves in use.

A cavalry officer who served in the 2nd Guards Dragoon Regiment witnessed the defects of these weapons, and his name was John•Gaspa•La•and John Gaspard Le Marchant, a native of Guernsey. He was an intelligent and talented soldier, and although he was only a captain during the Revolutionary War, he was about to have a profound influence on the development of the British cavalry and thus the entire British army in the future. I think it is necessary to explain how this junior cavalry officer, who was only promoted to major in 1795, had such enormous influence. It is fair to say that this influence of his was achieved by relying on the protégarian system, a system that played a large role in the personnel work of the British army at that time. Although the Protectorate was criticized for promoting useless people to important positions, it also enabled geniuses such as the Duke of Wellington to rise through the ranks of the military. Especially for Ramathew, his protector is the most honorable man in England. In 1789, when he was a lieutenant in the 6th Dragoon Regiment, he and his team were responsible for escorting King George III, who noticed and formed a friendship with this officer of great bearing and ambition. At the same time, this promising officer had another high-ranking protégé, Sir George Yonge, a prominent British statesman and cabinet minister at the time• [9].

During the Battle of the Low Countries, while assessing the defeat of the British cavalry, Lamathieu also carefully recorded the training and equipment of the Austrian cavalry in the Allied army, and made many sketches. The observation of these Austrian cavalry, which was at least significantly superior in equipment and training, sparked in him a desire to improve the cavalry units in active service in England. As soon as he returned to England, he was given an excellent opportunity to turn his vision into reality. Now he was a major in the 16th Light Dragoon Regiment and was once again on the duty of escorting the royals, giving him the opportunity to get close to King George. After his efforts, King George was impressed by his grandiose vision and meticulous observation, and promised him support that he could not have imagined before.

It seems that Ramathius has his own unique opinion on what kind of sabers should be equipped with in cavalry units. He believed that in a formal charge during a battle, the weapons in the hands of the soldiers were not the most important, but the more important things should be their mounts, morale, discipline, and riding skills. He was not the only one who held this view, as Frederick the Great's fine cavalry general and instructor von #8226 and General von Seydlitz shared this view[10]. Since he believed that weapons were a secondary factor in a successful charge, he was naturally inclined to equip his cavalry units with curved sabers suitable for the ensuing melee. Ramatius did not design the new cavalry saber behind closed doors, and the ancestry from Eastern Europe and further East can be clearly seen in the form of the English saber. The broad-bladed swords used by the Austrian hussars may have had some influence on his design, but the new British sabers apparently had a different arc. The arc of the Austrian 1768 saber is uniform from the tip to the hilt, while the English saber has only a flat arc on the front half of the hilt, and the curvature of the arc of the blade begins to increase significantly at the end of the shaft, a form of design that can be seen on many Indian scimitars and other Oriental swords. Other notable features of the new saber, such as the widening of the blade close to the tip, can be said to be the same as the Yelman of the Kilic in the East. In fact, records indicate that Ramatieu had referred to "Turkish, Mamluk, Moorish, Hungarian" ...... In short, keep improving". The ancestry from the East can also be seen in the popularity of the English saber among Indian cavalry throughout the nineteenth century [11]. In fact, Indian soldiers often repaired their English sabers with locally-style hilts and scabbards to make them look like the ones they had used in the past[12].

Regardless of where the saber was inspired, its prototype was made with the assistance of a Birmingham cutler's namesmith named Henry Osborn•. In order to create a knife that was lighter and more comfortable than the previous model, they took great pains to remove all the excess weight from the hilt. In 1796, a review committee of generals decided to adopt the new saber and named it the 1796 Hussar Sabre, which was increased in length from 31.5 inches to 32.5-33 inches in length. However, Ramatieu was still a little dissatisfied, because the saber he designed was not uniformly adopted by all British cavalry regiments, and the generals seemed reluctant to let the heavy cavalry use this weapon as well, insisting that the heavy cavalry regiment should be equipped with straight swords, so the heavy cavalry regiment had to be equipped with another straight-edged saber. Nonetheless, the influence of Ramatheus can be clearly seen in this weapon, modeled after the heavy cavalry sabers used in Austria between 1769 and 1775[13]: although it had a straight blade, it was specially designed for cutting, with a heavy 35-inch-long blade and disc-shaped gauntlets. This is the famous, and much-mocked, heavy cavalry saber of the 1796 style. This saber and its blunt flat-headed tip are simply anachronistic. Even though a stab is not the recommended form of attack, it is no wonder that as a straight sword it does not provide a point that can be used to stab, it is no wonder that it is unacceptable. [14] However, a non-uniform modification of the weapon was later made in the army, making the tip sharper to make it suitable for stabbing attacks.

1796 style hussar saber hilt

These two styles of sabers are manufactured by different knife makers, several of whom even guarantee that their blades will "never break". Of course, this guarantee is exaggerated, but on the whole the quality of the blades manufactured at this time was much better than in 1788, thanks in large part to the introduction of a stricter system of inspection and testing before the weapons were officially installed.

Both sabers are also widely used outside of the UK, with some countries importing directly from the UK, others copying the same style in their own countries, and some countries having both. These countries include Portugal, Spain, Prussia, Sweden, and the United States.

[9] George•, Sir Young (1731-1812), Lord of the Admiralty from 1766 to 1770, Secretary at War from 1782 to 1794, and Master of the Mint from 1794 to 1799.

[10] General von Saiditz had instructed his cavalry to "keep in their hearts an unshakable conviction in their hearts to knock down the enemy with the chest of your horse." ”

[11] The 1796-style light cavalry saber has a long history of use in the Indian army. Although it was officially replaced by a new model in 1821, surviving photographs show that it was still in use after that, and even some European soldiers continued to use it during the battles to quell the Indian rebellion of 1857-58.

[12] Nolan•Lewis, Cavalry: History and Tactics (Nolan, Louis. Cavalry: its History and Tactics, published in Bosworth, 1853, Pallas•, and republished in 1995 by Pallas Armata. The author of the book was a British cavalry officer who was killed in the Crimean War in the world-famous "charge of the light cavalry brigade". In this book he describes a number of works by the Nizam of Hyderabad (Hyderabad is the kingdom of India, and Nizam is the title of monarch). The Kingdom of Hyderabad, then an ally of the British, inflicted horrific wounds on the resharpened Type 1796 hussar sabers used by Indian cavalry, including severed heads and detached limbs.

[13] The exact order in which the two 1796 sabers were adopted is difficult to determine. But there is considerable evidence that at the time Ramacheu insisted that all British cavalry regiments should be armed with curved sabers of his design. Given his previous experience, it is natural to expect him to offer the Austrian-style heavy cavalry saber as a compromise when his efforts in this regard were frustrated. In Ramathew's opinion, this was a good solution: it was a saber designed for chopping, and at the same time it was a straight-edged saber. The Commission had considered equipping the heavy cavalry with the French tradition of a longer, narrower bayonet with a blade, but the heavy cavalry regiment was not enthusiastic about it.

[14] There are many theories about the improvement of the flat-headed tip of the 1796-style heavy cavalry saber, with one suggesting that this improvement was made at the regimental level. However, the surviving object and the painting of the Scottish Grey Dragoons capturing the French eagle flag at the Battle of Waterloo by Denis Dighton (1792-1827), a contemporary•Denis Dighton (1792-1827), show that both flat and pointed knives were in use at the same time. It can be inferred from this that this modification may have been made only at a lower level of formation, or even by the soldiers themselves.

6. Swordsmanship training of the British cavalry

Just as Ramatieu noticed the inferior design and quality of the British cavalry sabers, he must have also noticed the poor level of swordsmanship of the British cavalry. This is evident in the contemptuous comments of an Austrian officer at the time, who told Ramathew that the English cavalry was fighting with swords as if they were "entertaining," reminding him of "a farmer chopping wood." The British cavalry did not have the same uniform training in the use of weapons as infantry and artillery, and the skills of using sabers could not be easily codified in manual entries like mechanical processes such as loading-firing-loading, so it was clear that cavalry needed to receive more rigorous and systematic practical swordsmanship training.

While developing a new cavalry saber, Ramathieu was also doing an equally or even more important thing: compiling a training manual for horse swordsmanship. The manual was published in 1796 under the title Rules and Regulations of the Sword Exercise of the Cavalry[15]. In compiling his work, he drew heavily on previously published manuals on swordsmanship, as well as several manuals for officers on the training of cavalry units, which often included some aspects of the use of weapons. In fact, as early as the first half of the 17th century, a number of manuals were already published on the subject, including the influential Militarie Instructions for the Cavallerie by John Cruso.16 But Ramathew's new manual is different from previous publications for consultation purposes, it is an official code of conduct that the troops must follow. In fact, the handbook also brought a small revival to the theoretical study of the field of swordsmanship in England, which was published in 1798 by C. Rowwatts. Rowarth published a handbook that effectively translated Ramathieu's achievements into infantry combat, entitled "The Art of Defence On Foot with Broadsword and Sabre", and over the next two decades, the famous swordsmith Harry • and Harry Angelo published several books on "Hungarian and Highland Broadsword" and writings on the practice of using the Navy's scimitar [17].

As mentioned above, Ramathew has a clear preference for slashing attacks, and this is naturally reflected in the swordsmanship he wrote. According to the manual, the effect of a stab in cavalry combat is very limited, as there is only one way to launch a stabbing attack, and that is to have the tip of your sword stabbed straight at the target, which in Ramathieu's opinion could be expected and dodged by an agile cavalryman. If the cavalry in a defensive position is able to dodge the attack and get within range of the cavalry that is attacking, the situation changes immediately. If the previous attacker couldn't make a block in time at this time, then it would be quite lucky if he could get out of it now. At the same time, he pointed out that the stabbing action in foot swordsmanship requires many movements of the legs and feet, and a cavalryman on a horse who is engaged in a melee obviously does not have this condition, and he can only rely entirely on the reach of his arms and the inclination of his waist to complete the stabbing action, which is a considerable disadvantage for the stabbing action. On the other hand, there is not much difference between the slashing movements performed on horses and those performed in foot combat, either in terms of skill or dexterity.

Ramathew's manual specifies six offensive slashing moves and eight defensive defensive moves in cavalry combat. The first is a diagonal downward forehand slash, the second is a diagonal downward backhand slash, the third is a diagonal upward forehand slash, the fourth is a diagonal upward backhand slash, and the fifth and sixth styles are horizontal forehand and backhand slashes respectively. The defensive move starts with a starting position that makes it easy to do most parrying moves: start in a third, bring the sword to the level of the wielder's eye and keep the blade level, with the tip pointing slightly forward. This is followed by a defensive move to protect the left and right sides of the body, a defensive move to protect the horse's left front (nearside) and right front (offside), then two defensive moves to protect the reins and the sword-wielder, and finally a sword across the head to block a top-down slash.

The manual emphasizes that only the shoulder joint should be used to perform a slash with force, the fingers and wrists should be relaxed, and the arms should be kept straight. This ensures maximum range of the slash, but more importantly it also keeps the wielder's elbow from being exposed. This was very emphasized in the swordsmanship training of the time, because the bent elbow was outside the protection of the blade and the gauntlet, and was very vulnerable to enemy weapons, and it was only when facing the infantry that the elbow could be bent without danger when swinging. In fact, Ramatius also admits that stabbing can be more lethal and less risky when attacking fleeing enemy cavalry (presumably because the stabbing has a larger reach, and the ideal pursuing force is the lancers). The manual also includes several stabbing attacks to use against infantry, as well as a way to block infantry bayonet thrusts with the back of a knife. The manual also emphasized the proper use of the swordknot, which was used to tie the sword to the arm and was also used as a decoration, so that the cavalrymen would not lose their weapons in the heat of battle. Finally, Ramathew also recommends that only the last 6 inches of the saber be fully bladed. This is both to make it easier for soldiers to remember that this blade is the best part of the blade to perform a slashing attack, and also to make it easier to pull out the knife when the entire blade slashes into the enemy's body and gets stuck (anyone who has ever played with a knife should know that the thinner and sharper the blade, the easier it is to get stuck).

At the beginning of the training, the soldiers were not riding horses when they were taught swordsmanship and practiced against a target painted on the wall. Once instructed, they try to chop or dodge as neatly as possible, with a fluglemen (an experienced swordsman acting as an instructor) demonstrating the order of attack and defense, and others imitating it. Once you have mastered the various movements on the ground, the training is transferred to the horse's back. At first, the rider only paces slowly while the rider completes the movement, and then gradually increases the pace. When practicing slashing techniques during drills, several physical targets are used in addition to slamming the air to make the rider feel the reaction force of the slash, so as to improve the swordsmanship of the soldiers as well as their riding skills, making the swordsmanship skills more effective. One of these targets is called an edge post, which consists of a willow pole inserted vertically into the base and a cabbage tree (after which the cabbage presumably becomes food for men or horses), and the height of the target can be easily adjusted by a specially made wooden frame. In addition, there is a further training method, the famous "running the ring" exercise, which in particular improves the rider's control of his mount. A set of rings of different diameters (the smaller the rings, the more difficult it is) is placed on a set of wooden shelves of different heights that resemble a shrunken gallows, and this exercise is made to carry out this exercise, so that if the rider is not able to restrain the horse galloping at full speed before the rope is tightened, the saber in his hand will be awkwardly and suddenly removed. Of course, it's even more humiliating if you don't get the stab at all. This training method is quite effective, but it is not a new play. An almost identical form of training was described in Crusoe's cavalry manual as early as the 7th century, except that the rings were used to train hoplites in full armor and carrying knightly spears, which were almost completely obsolete.

Finally, the training that soldiers receive also includes placing them in a variety of hypothetical battlefield situations, allowing them to react to a certain degree of initiative depending on the specific situation at the time. This enables them to "think of themselves and to have the ability to act independently, and this is invaluable in the course of service". It can be seen that Ramathew's training is not inclined to develop the kind of soldier who can only swing the sword mechanically, but aims to improve the skill, self-confidence and initiative of the soldier at the same time, all qualities that allow the soldier in battle to make the most of his combat effectiveness. In many ways, this method of training was carried out in parallel with the training of contemporaries of British infantry in raid warfare and light infantry tactics.

[15] "Rules and Codes for the Exercise of Cavalry Swordsmanship," Adjutant Generals Office, December 1, 1796.

[16] John • Crusoe, Military Guidance for the Cavalry, Cambridge, 1632

[17] "Harry" Henry•Angelou was the headmaster of a very popular sword school or sword salon at the time, and he once taught George III's sons what he called "the art of nobility".

7. The actual combat use of the sabers of the British cavalry

There is no one more qualified to judge the saber than those who have wielded it on the battlefield or witnessed it on the battlefield.

The sabers mentioned in the following quotations are all 1796-style hussar sabers, the first of which shows a non-combat use, although its slashing effect is well documented. Paragraphs 3 and 4 describe the striking effect of a top-down vertical slash to the opponent's head, which is notable as not the offensive maneuvers prescribed in the Drill Manual, which shows that although the Code of Conduct provides a basic framework for sword maneuvers, the soldier is not completely bound by this frame in a fierce battle. In fact, this coincides with Ramathew's intentions, and personal initiative is a key part of his fighting system. However, the example described in the last quote is as perfect as an example taken directly from the drill code: the French cavalry was dodged from a stabbing attack, and the English cavalry entered his defense and slashed his opponent in the face, instantly rendering him incapacitated.

William•Lieutenant William Hay, while gathering grain during the Peninsular War:

"In an instant we rushed into the midst of the unfortunate sheep, one of which was detached by the blow of my friend's sharp saber. It was then that a loud cry came from behind us, and it was the shepherds who had come to save their flock. No more time to waste! The Duke of Wellington was particularly harsh on those who robbed the local population. ”[18]

William Tomkinson, of the 16th Light Dragoon Regiment•, at the Battle of Villagarcia/Llerena in 1812:

"The prisoners of war were all suffering terrible knife wounds, some of which will never recover. The head of a French dragoon had almost fallen, caused by a saber cut from the back of the neck, something I had never seen before. ” [19]

An officer of the 13th Light Dragoon Regiment, during the Battle of Campo Mayor in 1811:

"That French colonel (Colonel Chamorin, French 26th Dragoon Regiment) ......, was killed by one of the corporals of the 13th Regiment (Corporal Logan Logan); The corporal first killed one of the colonel's soldiers, and the enraged colonel drove his horse to attack the corporal—the corporal rode a good horse and was skilled in swordsmanship, and so did the colonel—and after a few rounds of each of them defended for several rounds, the corporal struck his opponent twice in the face, and in the second slash the French colonel's helmet fell off, and then the corporal struck a fatal blow that nearly split his head in half, cutting off his entire brain, all the way to the nose. ”[20]

George Farmer, a soldier of the 11th Light Dragoon Regiment, on an encounter that took place on the Guadiana River in 1811:

"A French officer leaned down in front of the corpse of his countryman. In the previous battle, the Frenchman quickly crouched on his horse's neck, stabbed Harry•Wilson in the body, and successfully stabbed his target. I was sure that poor Wilson would die instantly, but though he could still feel the sword piercing into his body, he continued to focus on the enemy in front of him with superhuman fortitude, and rose from his stirrup and delivered a devastating blow to the Frenchman's head, slashing through his opponent's bronze helmet and skull, and the Frenchman's head was cut all the way to the chin. I've never seen a slash of such great power. Wilson then fell to his death along with his opponent. After the battle, a French officer ordered the inspection of the slashed bronze helmet, and he was as surprised as I was, for the cut in the helmet was so clean that it was like a cut made by a saber when cutting through a piece of kohlrabi, and not just a dent like the old chopping marks on either side of the helmet. ”

"The injuries suffered in such skirmishes are terrible. For the French, the wounds inflicted entirely by the saber were mainly on the head and face, which made the unfortunate ones who were cut extremely horrifying. Actually, the condition of our wounded was not much better, but at least the penetrating wounds looked more decent than the wounds caused by the slash in most cases. It is worth noting that the French cavalry would use their stabbing nine times out of ten, while our cavalry would use the blade swing, which seemed to be much more effective in my humble opinion. Still, I'm pretty sure of the fact that the wounds on the French are much more disgusting than ours. However, it is fair to say that the proportion of serious injuries on both sides is about the same. ”[21]

Lieutenant George Woodberry of the 18th Hussar Regiment at the Battle of Morales de Toro in 1813:

"I myself just cut down an enemy. The tip of his knife was stabbing at me, and I dodged it, and then slashed his cheek across both eyes, I think it cut his eyeballs out. In this way, even if he doesn't die, he will be broken forever. But in the confusion caused by the enemy's first fire (French artillery), he and many other prisoners ran away. ”[22]

The next two quotations describe the use of the 1796-style heavy cavalry saber in actual combat. The second quotation shows that these sabers, certainly undoubtedly those with improved edges, were perfectly comparable to the famous "Klingenthal" style of swords, which were used by the French cuirassiers. The two English cavalrymen mentioned in the article appear to be experienced and efficient swordsmen, which probably indicates that their training in swordsmanship was excellent and complete.

Charles • of the 2nd Dragoon Regiment (i.e. Scottish Grey Dragoons), Sergeant Charles Ewart, at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815:

"It was during that charge that I captured the enemy's eagle banner (the eagle flag of the French 45th Infantry Regiment, which later became the regimental flag of the British Grey Dragoons. Prior to the scene described in this text, Sergeant Evatt had already cut down four flag bearers and one flag bearer. I had a fierce fight with a Frenchman for it: he first stabbed me in the lower handicap, but I dodged it and slashed him on the head, cutting him down. Then a lancer charged at me, and I let the spear pass through the right, and then slashed him in the jaw, up to the teeth. Then there was an infantryman, who fired a missed shot at me, so he rushed forward with his bayonet, and once again I was lucky enough to dodge and cut him down on the head, thus ending the fight once and for all. ”[23]

Dennis Deaton's work, which depicts Sergeant Ivatt seizing the Eagle Banner, takes a closer look and will be mentioned below

William Morris of the 73rd Infantry Battalion •William Morris, observing the battle between the Life Guards and the French cuirassiers at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815:

"I noticed a Guards cavalryman who was attacked by two French cuirassiers at the same time, and he bravely fought this unfair battle, and one or two minutes later he killed an opponent by stabbing him fatally in the throat. His battle with another enemy lasted about five minutes, and then, the Guards cavalryman's backhand slash struck his opponent, sending the man's helmet flying along with the head in the helmet. The horses galloped away, the headless rider still sitting upright in the saddle, blood splattering out of the arteries like a fountain. ”[24]

Finally, an enemy cavalry officer's opinion of the British cavalry saber. He exaggerated the width of the English sabre, but did not exaggerate the power of its chopping.

Charles of the French Guards Chasseurs•Captain Charles Parquin:

"Our cavalry are accustomed to stabbing with the tip of their sword, and the enemy is always fond of slashing with their three-inch-wide blades, so that nineteen of their twenty attacks miss. However, once the enemy's saber finds its target, it will be a terrible attack, and it is not uncommon for the arm to be cleanly chopped off by it. ”[25]

VIII. Some Contemporaneous Comments: Ramathieu established an unusual framework for the design of the English cavalry saber and the conduct of cavalry training, so you may be surprised to note that there was a lot of opposition to the 1796-style cavalry saber and its modifications. In fact, these opposing voices were directly related to the debate among the generals at the time about whether the thrust or slash was the more effective way to attack. Here are some criticisms of the use of British sabers and sabers typical of the time.

"A Dragoon Officer", written in 1831:

"The French dragoons were armed with a long, straight sword with a heavier hilt and a lighter shaft, which allowed the tip to lift naturally and effortlessly, and made the whole sword easy and easy to hold in the hand. The French Chasseur's saber, though not as long and slightly curved, is actually not much different from the heavy cavalry saber, it can also be used for thrusting, and it is also very lightweight. In contrast, the saber of the British heavy dragoons was a heavy, clumsy, and poorly designed weapon. It's too heavy, too short, too wide, too much like the household stuff we saw when Giuseppe Grimaldi cut off a row of children's heads on stage. The design of the old hussar sabers was nothing more than a provocation to Marshal Saxe and his vision, and it was made in the opposite way of what he suggested, and what we can only be sure of when it was used as a burning stick. ”[26]

Captain William Bragge of the 3rd Dragoon Regiment in his letters from 1811-1814 mentions the combat operations at Vilicacia in 1812:

"It is noteworthy that almost no one died from these wounds, despite the terrible slashes of many Frenchmen, and that 12 British dragoons were killed by the French stabbing during this reconnaissance, and some were very dangerously wounded. If all of us had been able to wield sabers as the French did, the French army would have three times as many casualties as it does now. ”[27]

These views stand in stark contrast to the comments of George •Fam of the 11th Light Dragoon Regiment cited above. It is worth noting that the two proponents of the assassination recorded above were both officers, while Famm was only a soldier, although he was also a very cultured man[28]. I think that's an important difference. Rankers often joined the army unfamiliar with swords, while ordinary young officers may have had considerable experience with weapons before joining the army. In those days, every young gentleman was required to master several social skills, including music, dancing, card games, some French, horsemanship, and swordsmanship. When learning swordsmanship, they use special practice swords or specially modified small swords (these training swords are the precursors of modern fencing), and the common characteristics of these swords are lightness, straightness, elongated blades, and specialization in stabbing. It is conceivable that the use of the tip of the sword was inevitably emphasized at the expense of the blade in the teaching of swordsmanship using these swords, so that young officers in the army often found that their broad-bladed cavalry sabers and the methods prescribed for their use were contrary to their previous training. Therefore, it may be difficult to attribute the preconceived notions of stabbing in the minds of some officers to the results of their early training in "gentleman's swordsmanship", but the experience of youth usually has a very important influence on the formation of later ideas.

But at the same time, there was also a completely opposite trend, and that was the popularity of the oriental curved sword among the officers of the time, especially those of high rank and hussar officers. These popular styles range from Turkish to Indo-Persian, but they are all called "Mameluke-hilted" because the British and French only really knew these weapons in Egypt. Of course, the British had been in India for a long time before that, and the famous scimitar there still made some impression on them. It is worth exploring whether the popularity of these styles was a whim or a deliberate choice. Although theoretically they would not have been popularized without proven utility, one thing is clear: it was usually the hussar officers who used the Oriental style of swords in battle, and for those who were high-ranking officers, there were few official rules preventing them from decorating their weapons, and sometimes almost every major commander wore an Oriental saber with an elaborate carved pattern. [29]

It should be pointed out that these criticisms, which are often flattering to stabbing and stabbing and reproachful of slashing, are only the experience of some British officers and soldiers. We can affirm that the emphasis on the slashing role of cavalry sabers, as well as the design and manufacture of sabers for this purpose, played a very large role in the establishment of the entire British military system at that time.

Concentrate:

[26] An Officer of Dragoons, United Service Journal, 1831.

[27] William• Barrag, Peninsular Portrait: The Letters of Capt. William Bragge, SAC•, collected in C.A. Cassels, London, 1963. It should be noted that some studies on the casualties of the Vila Garcia skirmish do not support Baragu's claim. According to Smith•Smith Digby's Greenhill Napoleonic War Data Series (published in London in 1998), 14 men were killed and 37 wounded on the British side in this battle, which is not a very high casualty/casualty ratio. At the same time, the French suffered 53 casualties, and 4 officers and 132 soldiers were captured.

[28] The term "Ranker" was used in the British cavalry at the time as private, and was used by some teams until the 20th century. Another word, "trooper", is often used as a simple term for "cavalry warriors with the rank of private".

[29] There is a very famous illustration of the tendency of high-ranking officers to choose sidearms. A few days before the Battle of Salamanca, Wellington, Lord Carr Beresford, and their staff officers were spotted during a surprise attack by the French cavalry, all of whom were forced to unsheath their swords and prepare to defend themselves, and the knives they wore were almost always oriental-style scimitars. Wellington's favorite weapon was an Indo-Persian scimitar with a so-called "Mamluk" hilt, but covered in gold and equipped with a Western-style knucklebow. The handle is prominent in Thomas•'s 1824 portrait of Wellington by Sir Thomas Lawrence, and is still on display at Apsley House in London.

9. Conclusion

When it comes to arme blanche, it's easy to associate it with valor, honor, and passion, especially when it comes to the thunderous cavalry charges in museums, movies, and novels. Still, we should not ignore the fact that fighting with a sword or other cold weapon is not a romantic thing. A group of big men with a yard of sharp metal in their hands rushed into each other frantically, each thinking only about how to kill the other, the kind of thing that only the cruel of nature could participate in or witness. The Napoleonic era and the world we have developed into today are different, and although this is a rehash of the same old tune, it is worth pointing out again. In modern warfare, a flick of the trigger can kill a person standing a yard away or hundreds of yards away, and a flick of a button can effortlessly kill thousands of people thousands of miles away. It's hard for modern people to imagine what it was like to have fighters who had to fight face-to-face in the past. In a fight with cold weapons, you can clearly see the face of your opponent, and you must use the strength of your arm to kill him, and in addition to the possibility of being killed on the spot in battle, the wounds caused by the sword are enough to cripple you or leave you with terrible scars forever for the rest of the day. A case in point is what happened to the French general Durutte at Waterloo. His division was crushed by the British counter-attack, and he was attacked by the light dragoons of the British Vandeleur Brigade not far away, first his right hand was cut off by a saber and he was unable to resist, and then he was stabbed in the face, which left him disabled for life and lost his right eye. However, he miraculously recovered from such a serious injury, and it took a long time. This suggests that wounds inflicted by cold weapons, despite their horrific appearance, are generally cleaner than those inflicted by bullets and shells, with less tissue damaged and less likely to become infected. As a result, knife wounds are easier to recover from than other types of wounds, and secondary sepsis and gangrene are less likely to occur.

The importance of efficient training in the use of weapons and the cultivation of soldiers' self-confidence in cavalry units cannot be overemphasized. Cavalry is inherently more uncertain and likely to be overturned than infantry, and for a good commander, cavalry is a battlefield force that has the potential to inflict devastating blows on the enemy, but they are far less durable than infantry. Thus, a cavalry unit with full confidence in the weapons in their hands and the skills in their hands would have a huge advantage over the enemy, and no matter how many other aspects of the British cavalry were (such as the frequent loss of control in the pursuit of a fleeing enemy), these advantages could not be erased. In the Sahagan, Benevente, and in some of the encounters that followed, the British cavalry seemed to demonstrate a sense of spiritual superiority over their enemies, though it had yet to be proven. In fact, after the Battle of Campomayer, the proud French cavalry had already discovered the fact that, despite their excellent performance against the cavalry of other countries in other battles, now, on the Iberian Peninsula, they began to lose confidence and sharpness in the face of the strong English cavalry. This was not because the French cavalry fought badly, but in general they were able to withstand the onslaught of the British cavalry very well, for example, in the Battle of Campomayer, the cavalry of both sides only repeated the action of charging each other - passing through each other's formation - turning around and charging again, until the French cavalry finally entered the melee and did not flee. I think this example can tell us a lot: the French cavalry rarely broke at the touch of a button, and seemed to be able to neutralize the charge of the opposing side very well, but many times they were overwhelmed by our cavalry in the melee that followed, and fled. In a dogfight, neither the quality of the horses, nor the discipline of the team, nor the skill of the commander can have a substantial impact on the final outcome, in which case only the riding and swordsmanship skills of a single soldier can make the difference between victory and defeat. I believe that the quality and intricateness of the sabers, the choreographed swordsmanship training program, and above all the adequate logistical support for the cavalry weapons were the main factors in the success of the English cavalry during this period, and all of this is due to the visionary and down-to-earth John•Ra•Matthew.

After making an outstanding contribution to the teaching of swordsmanship in the regular army and militia cavalry, in 1797 Ramacius was promoted to deputy commander of the 7th Light Dragoon Regiment (later reorganized as the Hussar Regiment), but his strong interest in military pedagogy soon brought him out of active service. He had long believed that it was necessary to establish a central military school to train officers in the art of war, and despite some opposition, he succeeded in gaining the crucial support of the Duke of York, and began work on the establishment of the Royal Military College, which was later renamed the Royal Military Academy. It was also the predecessor of the Sandhurst Army Military Academy, which is still training officers for the Royal Army today. In 1811 Ramathieu moved from his position as vice-chancellor of the school to active duty, commanding a heavy cavalry brigade with the rank of lieutenant general in the Peninsular War, where he finally had the opportunity to see his own sabers and hand-trained soldiers in action. At the Battle of Viligacia, Ramachio led the 5th Guards Dragoon Regiment to charge the French cavalry (including the 2nd French Hussar Regiment, the 17th and 27th Dragoons) in Lallemand, causing them to flee. Later in the Battle of Salamanca, Ramatius led his brigade of brave dragoons in the fiercest charge, and rows of red cavalry rushed unstoppably towards the enemy like a scarlet tide, completely defeating the already crumbling French left flank. However, Lamathew did not live to see the final victory of the British, and just as this epic charge was about to end, after cutting down six enemies with his own saber with his own hands, Lamathew was hit in the lower body by a bullet and died in such an undoubted heroic manner. In fact, maybe he should have lived longer, and maybe more people should remember him, especially in the United Kingdom, which he loved so much and fought for all his life.

The following passage from the mouth of an officer of the 13th Light Dragoon Regiment on the battlefield of Campomeyer in 1811 could not be more appropriate as an epitaph for Ramathew, and for the conclusion of this article:

"The French are of course good and brave warriors, but our fine English horses, and the great swordsmanship shown by our fellows, have tipped the scales in our favor in every battle." [30]

Concentrate:

[30] Fletcher & #8226; Ian, pp. 141 and 130, 1999. Quoted from a letter of April 20, 1811.

Concentrate:

[18] William•, Lieutenant Han, Reminiscences under Wellington, reminiscences under Wellington, reproduced by SCI #8226, Mrs SCI Wood, 1901.

[19] Tomkinson, edited by James, The Diary of a Cavalry Officer in the Peninsular War and Waterloo Campaign, 1809-1815, London, 1895.

[20] Fletcher•Ian, 1999, p. 199, quoted in The Courier, April 20, 1811.

[21] George•Fam, The Light Dragoon, George•Narrated by George Gleig, London, 1844.

[22] Fletcher•Ian, 1999, p. 199. Quoted from the original journal of Lieutenant George•Woodbury during the Battle of 1813 (several omissions fixed).

[23] Edward•, Cotton, Edward, A Voice from Waterloo, Sixth Edition, London, 1862.

[24] Thomas• Sergeant Morris, Recollections of Military Service in 1813, 1814, and 1815, London, 1845.

[25] Charles•Paquinn, Military Memoirs, translated and edited by Jones, London, 1969. Reprinted by Greenhill Books, 1987.

bibliography

Brzezinski， Richard. Polish Armies 1569-1696 Vol. I， Osprey (London， 1987).

Bull， Stephen. “Chopping Wood” Military Illustrated 117， pp 43-47 (Feb 1998).

Chandler， David. The Art of War in the Age of Marlborough. Batsford (1976). Reprinted Spellmount (1990).

Chandler， David. Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars， Simon and Schuster (New York， 1993).

Fletcher， Ian. Napoleonic Wars Wellington’s Army， Brassey’s History of Uniforms (London， 1996).

Fletcher， Ian. Galloping at Everything， Spellmount (Staplehurst， 1999).

Fosten， Bryan. Wellington’s Light Cavalry， Osprey (London， 1982).

Fosten， Bryan. Wellington’s Heavy Cavalry， Osprey (London， 1982).

Haythornthwaite， Philip. British Cavalryman 1792-1815， Osprey (London， 1994).

Haythornthwaite， Philip J. Napoleonic Cavalry， Cassell (London， 2001).

Hibbert， Christopher. Corunna， Batsford (1961).

Holmes， Richard. Redcoat. The British Soldier in the Age of Horse and Musket， Harper Collins (London， 2001).

Le Marchant， Dennis. Memoirs of the late Major General Le Marchant (London， 1841).

Morgan， John D. ‘The British Heavy Cavalry Trooper‘s Pattern 1796 Sword‘ Classic Arms and Militaria In three parts: Vol.8 issue no.1， pp 22-25， Jan/Feb 2001. Vol.8.issue no.2， pp 26-29， March/April 2001. Vol.8.issue no.3， pp 30-33， May/June 2001.

Muir， Rory. Salamanca 1812， Yale University Press (New Haven and London， 2001).

Noble， Duncan. Cut or Thrust， Military Illustrated 122 pp 37-39 (July 1998).

Nosworthy， Brent. Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies， Constable (London， 1995).

Robson， Brian. Swords of the British Army， The Regulation Patterns 1788 to 1914， Revised Edition (London， 1996).

Thoumine， R.H. Scientific Soldier， A Life of General Le Marchant， 1766-1812， Oxford U. Press (1968). Tribute to the original author, Martin Read, the original translator, NPLBNB