Heavy Cavalry Sword of the BATTLE OF WATERLOO & Richard Sharpe

Today we're going to look at the absolutely formidable and iconic 1796 heavy cavalry sword that was used at the Battle of Waterloo to capture French eagles and also made famous by Richard Sharp. Let's consider what went before this, what came after it, and was this a good sword? Hi folks, Matt Eaton here, scholar gladiatoria and eastern anti-cons. Now I'm very lucky to have a very nice example of the 1796 heavy cavalry palash or sword. Some people might call it a sabre but it's not really a sabre. It's the heavy cavalry sword used during the Napoleonic Wars from 1796 right the way through the Napoleonic Wars. We'll talk more about its features in a second. And in fact they were still being used as late as about 1830, subsequently replaced by the 1821 pattern heavy cavalry sword but we won't deal with that in this video. So where did this come from? Well this was actually developed by a guy called John Gaspard Le Marchant and he was a very famous cavalry commander but also innovator of swords and even a sword exercise so you can actually find his manual, you can find it online in fact. So in 1796 he decided to introduce to the British army a new system of swordsmanship but additionally two new models of sword. Why two swords? So he's just looking at cavalry here, so there was light cavalry and there was heavy cavalry. What was the difference? Generally speaking they performed different roles but they also wore different uniforms and carried different swords which supposedly suited their different roles. By and large the light cavalry were the people who did things like patrolling and scouting, the heavy cavalry were there to deliver shock charges. And this is a palash. Now before we get into this sword just very briefly, just to set some context because that's what I'm famous for, so this is the light cavalry saber which I've featured in so many videos and this is a far more common model of sword because the light cavalry are far more numerous than the heavy cavalry. Heavy cavalry were far fewer regiments of them and that's true of any military, this doesn't only apply to the British but you know the French or the Prussians or the Austrians or whoever. So this is the light cavalry saber and as you will see it is a curved saber. It is also, although the light in light cavalry doesn't strictly speaking refer to this, it is a much lighter sword. These generally weigh about 800 grams. Now for comparison the heavy cavalry sword which was for use by heavy cavalry unsurprisingly is as you will see a straight or very nearly straight, in fact a lot of them have a very slight curve, this has a slight curve on the back edge if not the front edge. The heavy cavalry sword is a heavier sword as well so this weighs just over 1200 grams, about 1210 grams, just the sword not including the scabbard of course. So we'll come back to that sword in a second. So where did this come from? Well first of all what had gone before in Britain at least was the 1788 pattern heavy cavalry sword, so that is this. So you can see it is a basket hilted sword, if I just put the scabbard away for a second, it's essentially a backsword and it's big. This is a big big sword, it's a 38 inch blade, some of them were up to 40 inches, some were more like 37, so this is kind of in the middle, 38 inch backsword blade with a basket hilt. Now I actually weighed this sword just now and it weighs 1365 grams, 1365 grams, so if you thought that that 1796 heavy cavalry sword was heavy at over 1200 grams, that's actually quite a bit lighter than what had gone before the 1788. So this is a big one-handed sword, I actually love it and as you will know if you've seen my previous videos featuring it, I'm actually a big fan of this sword, but bear in mind by Georgian era or Napoleonic era standards, I'm pretty big, I'm 6 foot 1, which would have been considered very tall at the time of the Napoleonic wars. So for me this is a lovely sword, but for the typical cavalry trooper, many of whom were only 5 foot 4, 5 foot 5, 5 foot 6 and smaller than me, not so well nourished as we have been in our childhoods, most of us hopefully, they found this a rather overwhelmingly big sword. So let's put that down. Essentially in 1796 John Gaspard Le Marchant had spent some time with the Austrian cavalry, the Austrian military, campaigning against the French on the continent and he came back to Britain with a lot of very strong opinions about how we should change the training, the numbered cuts, everything else, even how you should use the sword in parrying and stuff like this, and he decided to develop two new models of sword, the light cavalry sabre which he's most famous for and the heavy cavalry palash. But whereas he completely designed the light cavalry sabre from the bottom up, there's nothing really like it beforehand, it's partly based on Central and Eastern European swords, partly inspired even by Middle Eastern swords to some extent. So it's essentially a new, a completely new type of sword, the light cavalry sabre. That is not the case with the heavy cavalry 1796 palash. In fact, weirdly, this is almost a carbon copy of an Austrian heavy cavalry sword. It's not weird in the sense that John Gaspard Le Marchant had actually been operating and serving with or operating alongside the Austrian military. So for him to take an Austrian model of sword, and it must be said that even the light cavalry sword is highly influenced by Austrian sabres, Austro-Hungarian sabres, the heavy cavalry sword was literally based, almost a replica of the, this is where you have to remember, so this is the 1796, the Austrian model was the 1769. You swap the six and the nine around. So the 1769 model at Austrian palash for their heavy cavalry, in fact it was modified I think in 75 as well, so you'll sometimes see it written as 1769 slash 75, but I'll just call it the 1769. The Austrian 1769, he obviously thought, well that's great, that works for the heavy cavalry, we'll just copy that. So this is what we ended up with. Now it's not a hundred percent copy of the Austrian one, but it's kind of like a 95 percent copy of the Austrian one. The blade's basically the same, the circular disc guard is basically the same in the knuckle bow, there is a slight difference in the grip shape and the pommel shape and you will notice, if I take the scabbard away for a second, you will notice that we have these langets here and on the Austrian model the langets actually continue below the disc guard. Now funnily enough there are actually examples of the British ones with those above and below langets that go fully through the disc guard but they're not common, there's there's like I think two or three in the Royal Armouries, they're very very rare, but by and large the British ones usually the langets are just on the top. Now that actually means that these are less securely attached and actually a lot of the antiques you find don't have these langets remaining either side, whereas this one does. One of the interesting design features of this sword is this diamond section reinforcing plate on the inside of the disc there which actually comes all the way down to the rear quillon as well and this is really useful at making the guard much stronger and preventing that blade, the blade shoulders, from breaking through essentially what one would be, one sheet of steel otherwise, so it doubles up that thickness. One of the other innovations to mention as well that was different between this 1796 Heavy and what went before it was it was specified that the tang should be nice and thick and strong and that it would have a lateral rivet going through these two ears right the way through the grip there, so they were really concerned about making this a really strong and durable sword and I think it was. Now one of the reasons I decided to make another video about these swords, because I did make one many years ago that wasn't really sufficient I think, is because I've got this amazing example here which is really fabulous, it is very rare to get unadulterated versions of this sword in this good condition so therefore very much warrants this video and hopefully this will be a useful reference point in the future, this will be sold so I won't have this forever. So what do I mean when I say unadulterated? Well there are a number of changes which got made to these swords during their campaign life or just through kind of use, wear and tear. The most famous and most obvious examples of those are the langets, so through wear and tear or perhaps sometimes deliberately these langets which sit and secure either side of the scabbard throat, they often fall off or can get wobbly and these are completely secure or that perhaps there's some conjecture that sometimes they were deliberately removed for some reason, maybe if one got a bit bent or maybe just to reduce a bit of weight, so that's one that's probably the most subtle change. The next change we see is this disc guard, you will see it is symmetrical which I'm sure lefties would absolutely like, so it's the same distance left and right. Now while that's very good from a fighting perspective, in fact you'll notice most 19th century swords and most 18th century swords as well are actually asymmetrical to some degree, so usually they project more on the outside because that's the side that your hand mostly projects on and less on the inside and importantly for general life quality that makes them more comfortable to wear because it means less projecting on the inside, it's less likely to dig into you and wear through your uniform and bruise you and this kind of stuff, especially on horseback where you're bouncing up and down and getting on and off horses and this kind of stuff, maybe even falling off, so having less guard on the inside line is what's very common with 18th and 19th century swords, particularly 19th century swords, so therefore we sometimes find these with this side cut down, so what they did is they literally sheared off, sawed off this section on the inside line here to make it a little bit smoother, smaller rather and less obtrusive, so those are two relatively subtle changes, there is a bigger change, so this is a 35 inch blade with what's called a hatchet point, we'll talk more about the hatchet point in a second, so essentially a little bit shaped a bit like a Japanese blade isn't it, a bit like a Kasaki on a katana or naginata or something like that, but you'll notice that the light cavalry saber also has that hatchet point, now the advantage of these hatchet points is they are better for cutting, it means that if you hit a target with the edge up here, much like a machete, in fact it's the same shape as a machete point, it will still cut very well up near the tip, however later swords you will see if I just grab one at random from here, later swords have what we call a spear point and that became pretty much, I won't say universal, but most common later in the 19th century because it's better for thrusting, it's much much more effective at penetrating through jackets, thick clothing, coats, all of this kind of stuff or even just flesh, so it is a better thrusting point, so some of these were adapted, so in fact many of them were, so some of these were changed into spear points and some of them were turned into kind of clipped points, this was sometimes done, rarely done during manufacturing on the late runs of these, but it was more often done by regimental armourers in barracks or it was done literally in the field while on campaign and a lot of books will say that during the Waterloo campaign there was an order for the heavy cavalry to reshape their points for the Battle of Waterloo to make them more effective for thrusting and particularly against Napoleon's cuirassiers, his heavy cavalry who had armour on so you could stab into armpits and faces and gaps, now in fact we actually know that that started before the Waterloo campaign and there was a general trend for reshaping these hatchet points to make them more effective for thrusting, that does also usually result in slightly shorter length, so a lot of surviving antiques will only have for example 34 and a half inch blades instead of 35 inch blades because they've lost a little bit of length because that tip has been reshaped. Now at that juncture, if I just put that sword down for a second, it would be worth me mentioning the officer's version which I've also got one of here and I've had this for a few years and this has been in a few videos, now the officer's version without going into too much detail on this because that would be a separate video, is essentially more fancy so it's got a slightly decorated blade, some of them are very decorated, it's got the GR etched on it but it's got a different form of guard with elaborate pierced work to make it both lighter and more decorative, but the reason why I'm showing that here is because this actually has the modified point, so this one actually has had a clipped point added, so originally this almost certainly would have had a hatchet point and this has been modified by either an armourer or the local, I don't know, tradesperson sharpener, sword sharpener, to give it a clip point and that does undoubtedly make for a more effective thrusting point, so it's possible that this sword for example, and in fact I can see it's been repeatedly sharpened along here, it's possible that this was carried in the late peninsula war or possibly in the Waterloo campaign, possibly this was carried at the Battle of Waterloo, in fact it actually has a repair to the hilt so it's entirely possible. So coming back to the trooper's version, so typical trooper's versions, oh and also important to mention, private purchase swords, so officers purchased their own equipment, so this is a private piece of equipment that you bought from a shop when you were an officer and this is a cavalry trooper's sword, so this is government owned, government provided, made by Thomas Gill according to the Spine of the Blade there in Birmingham, there were numerous different makers making these, the Birmingham makers were the most common, Osborne and Gill and people like this, there were also London makers. In Britain most swords were made either in London or Birmingham but Birmingham had larger factories in general and were producing more swords at this time. Some were also imported from Solingen as well, so Runcle for example, who is a merchant based in London but his family were from Germany and he had a business importing German made swords to British patterns and selling them in Britain to the British military and to officers mostly actually. So we've got a broad one and a half inch blade, it's 35 inches long and if you have watched the Sharp series or read the books or watched the series, this is the sword obviously that Richard Sharp carries. Now it's a funny choice for a rifles officer, I won't go too much into this for now because I've actually done videos about this in the past, it's a weird sword choice for a rifles officer. First of all yes he was raised from the ranks but in the ranks he had a musket and a bayonet. When he became an officer you would expect him to have an officer's sword and if I remember correctly from the books he does start out with a curved what you would imagine a rifles officer would normally have but he gets this from a fellow officer who dies and this is weird that that fellow officer was carrying a heavy cavalry trooper's sword because even if they wanted a heavy cavalry sword you'd expect them to carry a heavy cavalry officer's sword and to be honest these are more nimble and more appropriate to use on foot than this big 1200 gram cleaver is but Bernard Cornwell the author of the Sharp stories clearly wanted Sharp to have a big old brutish cleaver because it suited his sort of brutish character I guess actually he is a he's a bit of a blunt instrument at the beginning isn't he and he becomes more refined as the stories goes on but this kind of I suppose ties in with his working class roots and and uh ungentlemanliness should we call that or something like that. And just as a brief tangent at that point I'm going to read the account of Sergeant Hewitt who captured the French eagle at the Battle of Waterloo. You can find this source in many books but I may as well give a plug to Richard Deller's book here and this is quoted in here. Sergeant Hewitt relates he says it was in the charge I took the eagle off the enemy these are standards golden eagles on the top of a standard he and I had a hard contest for it he made a thrust at my groin I parried it off and cut him down through the head after this a lancer came at me I threw the lance off to my right hand side parried it and cut him through the chin upwards through the teeth next a foot soldier fired at me with his musket then charged me with his bayonet which I also had the good luck to parry and I cut him down through the head thus ended the contest. So do I think this is a bad sword or a good sword or an average sword? A lot's been said about this model of sword actually and people have very differing opinions on it I think a lot of people like the shape of the hatchet tip and the breadth of the blade the kind of brutal look of it I guess it looks very utilitarian and quite cleaver like some people don't like or do like the big discard functionally from a protective point of view it actually provides quite a lot of hand protection and some people don't like the size and handling of the sword so let's just address those things first of all I'm perhaps not your typical reviewer because I love the 1788 and it's very clear that a lot of people at the time didn't like the 1788 because they found it too big and unwieldy and in fact in the official writings at the time the criticisms are both of the size and weight of the sword in general but also the weight of the hilt well as you know from my various videos about this and the CJM pattern that Wilkinson later made personally I love a basket hilt and I love the reach and length of that blade I mean having a blade that's almost as long as a rapier with a cut and frost blade I absolutely love it but I'm not a typical cavalry trooper of the Napoleonic period so yes I like it but I wouldn't choose to use it on foot but these are cavalry swords personally I think having extra reach is a good thing with the point it means you stab the opponent before they stab you and with cutting it means you can reach someone from further away which is advantageous I would say on a horse where you can't necessarily always get your horse to stand right next to the person you're trying to hit especially moving at speed so I like the reach of those 38 inch blades that being said 35 inches is not exactly short and in fact 35 and a half inches became the standard length for Victorian cavalry swords later on so for most people at this time it seems that 35, 35 and a half inches in France 36 inches was about where most people landed kind of with the best optimum length for cavalry swords so perfectly good length in terms of the breadth I absolutely love the breadth of the blade I don't have a problem with it being straight I actually think straight is a good solution for most of the time because a straight sword can still cleave and cut really well but is better for thrusting but that's where we come to this point and that's where I actually functionally much prefer the Waterloo era or later era adaptations of these points I prefer these to be spear pointed now I do agree the machete like cleaver hatchet point looks awesome I just think that functionally if I was the cavalryman if I was going to war I'd a hundred percent want that to be spear tipped or at least clipped point like the officer's version here because it's just far better for getting through thick woolen military clothing bear in mind that while they weren't technically wearing armor the kind of uniforms that they were wearing basically acted a bit like light armor it's not easy to stab through some of those jackets so I prefer them with the spear tip but otherwise I do quite like the blade I'm not I don't have a problem with the guard but I'm not a big fan of the grip and I'll tell you why I personally so you'll notice it's actually a very similar shape to the light cavalry grip very very similar shape actually and I personally find that for this sword being this front weighted and balanced that far from the hand with this weight I actually find this grip a little bit unsecure I would prefer more of a pommel extension so a little bit more to keep your hand in place number one but secondly and this is my main objection to it it's a little bit prone to turning in the hand and this is something that period sources criticize not just this model of sword but actually later on specifically the 18 well the 1821 and the 1853 model sword they criticize British cavalry swords for turning in the hand now if I just go off on two slight tangents for a second if you look at the officer's version it's got a very projecting pommel and if you hold down at the bottom that actually prevents the sword from turning in your hand and you can feel the edge alignment okay when that's very important thing edge alignment so being able to feel the edge alignment is a good thing I'll just grab up a completely different type of sword for a second a reproduction of a Chinese Dao a lot of historical swords actually have more rectangular grips and I'm actually a bigger fan of those they're completely comfortable so long as they're rounded enough and by having a rectangular grip you can absolutely feel the direction of the edge and it's never ever going to turn in your hand now when we come to later period Victorian swords some are better some are worse but generally speaking they have more oval grips they are my dislike should we say for the grip of the 1796 heavy is it tends to be a little bit on the fat and round side so it's more prone to turning in the hand so to sum up I actually think it's a pretty good sword I personally quite like the 1796 heavy cavalry palash for what it is which is a heavy cavalry cleaver I think they did exactly the right thing to spear tip them when that was needed and I think that makes it into a better sword you can still cut pretty close to the tip anyway and it's got pretty good hand protection so I am quite a big fan of them I do think that the Victorians when they moved to the 1821 troopers swords with a slight curve and a bowl guard more of a saber guard I think that was an improvement so I do think that what this was replaced by was better how do I think this measures up against what went before it the 1788 personally I would choose the 1788 but if we were just entering a cutting contest for cleaving power and we know that Le Marchant was keen on cleaving by looking at the light cavalry saber then this is actually a more impressive cutter because it's a broader flatter blade that so long as you get good edge alignment that is going to out cut that okay so yeah it's got its strengths and it's good for what it is but I do also understand at the end of the day while the 1796 while it's very iconic especially thanks to the sharp series and things like the famous painting of the charge of the Scots Greys and things like that and the winning of the eagle by Sergeant Ewart and this kind of stuff the 1796 light saber was a more successful design a longer lived design and I do understand that and sometimes a bit like with aeroplanes like the Spitfire if it looks right then it is a right kind of thing and the 1796 light cavalry saber is just a sort of magical shape and unfortunately it must be said that the 1796 heavy is probably its ugly cousin however I don't think it's a bad sword at all and I would happily go to war with one but I'd want it spearpointed anyway thanks a lot for watching I have been Matt Easton I will of course continue to be any specific questions about the 1796 heavy or any other period swords then feel free to comment down below cheers folks thanks for watching we've got extra videos on Patreon please give our Facebook a like and subscribe if you haven't already cheers folks