Posted 10 years ago
Chrisnp
(310 items)
The U.S. 1860 Cavalry Saber replaced the 1840 “old wrist breaker”. I’ve compared the hilts of the 1860 (Left) 1840 (right) in the last photo. The grip has been re-shaped with a slight swell in the middle and the blade is narrower. Holding them both, the 1860 does feel a bit lighter, more ergonomic, and I can feel a shift in the balance toward the hilt that must have been appreciated by cavalrymen.
Over 222,000 Model 1860s were manufactured under U.S. government contract before and during the Civil War, plus many swords in this style were produced without government contract. This sword is one of the 37,458 Model 1860 sabers produced by Mansfield and Lamb of Forestdale, Rhode Island between 1861 and 1865. On the side opposite the manufacturer’s mark is “U.S.” over “J.M.” (Inspector Julian McAllister) over the year “1864”. Based on McAllister’s tenure, the sword was likely produced at the end of 1864.
The leather bound grip is a bit chunky, but that seems typical of Mansfield and Lambs. I do suspect it’s been re-wrapped at some point. Once again the brass has gotten a coat of lacquer and is missing the more sought after patina. There are two fullers, like the M1840, but the blade is only an inch wide, instead of 1 ¼ inch. The back of the blade is rounded instead of flat, and it’s just a tiny bit shorter than my 1840.
Everybody seems to think that these were sharpened like a knife. I've never seen a sharpened one. They were obviously made for blunt impact, such as breaking bones. Basically a club. Face it, if you stick somebody from a charging horse, you just lost your sabre/sword since it would be wrenched out of you hand. Cavalry men were just as afraid of being gigged as infantry was of being gigged by bayonets. Even the threat has turned battles. The Middle East & Orient used sharpened swords & it was considered Barbaric by the West from my studies. Men in combat will run from an exposed blade long before a gun. The bullet is impersonal, where a blade isn't. There are even accounts of whole companies making clandestine agreements with their enemies, not to use bayonets against each other even when ordered to do so. They had to rotate whole lines of trenches often during WWI because they made friends & such agreements with the men they were supposed to kill. The shadow history of combat.
Nice marsh mellow roasters though!
Weird, it's a seldom mentioned subject in combat accounts by officers as it can make them look bad on record. Understandable. Men will run from the flash of a blade long before the flash of a rifle. Blades change things from impersonal shots to desperate barbarism! Makes sense when one uses common sense.
Western style sword blade edges are at an angle of around 40 degrees, whereas a butcher knife might be 10 degrees, so a sword's edge is more akin to an axe than a knife. It's intended to be swung hard and hack through bone, and even split skulls.
I think the reason for the sword’s limited use in the Civil War is that by then soldiers had rifled muskets with an effective range of 400 yards that a trained man could fire three times a minute. Cavalrymen had pistols that could fire six shots without re-loading. People don't want to get within a swords length of the enemy, and at that point in history there was less reason to do so. Still, hand-to-hand fighting certainly did happen, and I'm sure that no gentleman's understanding would get in the way of using an edged weapon when you are about to have your head caved in by a rifle butt.
Most foot soldiers were not issued swords. Those who did probably found it a poor substitute for a pistol, or even an empty rifle which was at least a club that was longer than a sword, and with bayonet attached became a pole arm, like a pike, with more reach. I believe there is only one recorded instance of a foot soldier killing an enemy with a sword - it was an officer from a Vermont Regiment, but I'm too lazy to look it up.
Cavalry used their swords a whole lot more than the foot soldiers, as in the cavalry charges at Brandy Station, but more frequently American cavalry operated like European Dragoons, that is quickly riding to where they were needed then dismounting to fight with their carbines. Irregular cavalry like Mosby's Raiders were known to carry up to six or eight pistols, but no saber. Still, there continued to be cases of swords being used in combat by cavalry in the Civil War and later wars. They had simply ceased to be the weapon of choice.
For officers, the sword was more a badge of rank than weapon, and they tended to use it to point at things or to rally their men. Think of General Armistead, sticking his hat on his sword and waiving it over his head while leading his men at Pickett’s Charge. Lee and Grant seldom even carried swords, and in one battle Stonewall Jackson tried to raise his sword, only to find it had rusted a bit and stuck in the scabbard, so he unhooked it from his belt and waived the sword still in the scabbard. On the other hand, Nathan Bedford Forrest had both sides of his sword sharpened for battle, but there’s always going to be one oddball.
In summary, swords had a very, very slow eclipse as a combat weapon.
Blades are an intriguing subject when it comes to 18th - 20st century war use. I have never seen an original (unaltered) sword or bayonet before WWI that had been sharpened for the European or Amer. theaters of combat. According to Turner Kirkland (A cousin of mine), Civil War records of wounds treated showed no bayonet wounds treated. I'm sure these records were done in retrospect, but there is a big diff. between bullet, shrapnel etc wounds and bayonet wounds. Triangular blades used in those times had flats on the narrow edge & couldn't really be sharpened by the men in the field. Never seen that anyway! The idea is to poke a hole that doesn't close-up & seal after withdrawal. Old war film footage showing soldiers sharpening bayonets was probably mostly propaganda or else the sharp blade was for slitting throats or slicing spam. Love laughing at the movies showing the hero wiping the blood off his knife on his pants leg. You wipe it off on your "kill's" clothes! Blood has a strong odor. A biento Chris!
I suspect experienced soldiers saw no reason to sharpen swords or bayonets. Sabers were not made to take a knife's edge sharpening and socket bayonets were for thrusting. I strongly suspect the triangular shape of a socket bayonet has more to do with not wanting it to bend or break than ensuring the wound doesn't close.
Your cousin is incorrect that there were "no" bayonet wounds treated. The 1870 Surgeon General's study showed "fewer than 1,000" treated in Union hospitals. That amounts to a fraction of a percentage of combat wounds treated in Union hospitals, so I'm definitely not saying that bayonet wounds were common. However, that number does not include Confederate dead and wounded, those who died bayoneted on the battlefield, or those who died on the way to a hospital. Since the bayonet is only used in close quarters fighting, I believe the dead to wounded ratio would be higher on deaths. So, I would say that few thousand men were bayoneted during the war, but an insignificant number compared to bullets, shrapnel and disease.
Always a pleasure to see your post Blunder.
If you have ever read all the extra information in the Dixie Gun Works cat., you know he was a serious researcher. I noticed the "flag" about no recorded bayonet wounds was deleted after some yrs. & I would actually cut it out of the old cats. & tape it the new ones because it was so interesting to me. I don't know his resources or yours & not thinking about doing any intensive research on the matter as my plate is full at the moment. Turner died some yrs back so I can't contact him in conventional ways. LOL!
Well, whether it was zero or less than one percent is nit-picking on my part.
Take care friend.
Also, just a generation earlier, bayonets were accounting for a third of battlefield deaths. Since generals seem to be always fighting the last war instead of the one in front of them, it's not a mystery why the military establishment was still in enamored by "cold steel"
Chris, "nit-picking" may not be taken kindly by the ones who were nit-picked if they were still around. LOL is not appropriate here.
I hope you know I mean no offence to you or your late cousin, and my condolences if you were close.
Chris, no problem! I casually knew Turner from gunshows going back to the mid 50's. That signature bow-tie always set him apart at the shows. Didn't even connect my Kirkland background until talking with him several yrs. before he died. He realized we were distant cousins before me & said, "Welcome Cuz!" Really nice guy.
Thanks for the love petey, battlegear, racer4four, Jewels, ttomtucker, SEAN68, CindB, officialfuel, blunder and aghcollect.