Cavalry Techniques?

[TimothyKleinert]

I was recently reading a article that stated there was evidence that European cavalry often held there sabers 'backwards,' meaning, the edge of the sword faced backwards rather than forward. More specifically, the edge pointed towards their wrist, rather than towards their fingers.

The purpose of this, according to the article, was to allow the cavalryman to swing at footsoldiers as they passed. The swing would begin with the arm behind, and then would swing down and forward as the cavalryman passed a target. The article argued that if the cavalryman held the sword normal with edge forward, he would have to twist his arm to make that type of swing from horseback. Holding the sword 'backwards' allowed the cavalryman to keep his wrist straight throughout the swing.

So here's my question: Is there any evidence of samurai doing the same thing?

[Moniteur]

Where did you see this article? It sounds highly dubious to me. I've never seen anything like that in any of the surviving military sabre manuals. Also most of the better cavalry (hungarian and polish hussars, napoleonic hussars) used sabres that had very nasty false edges - and a false edge cut would be perfectly sufficient for that. I will inquire with a friend who is part of a living tradition of Hungarian military sabre though, and see if he knows anything - I'll report back if I can. if you dont hear from me, please shoot me a pm and remind me. I'm in the last month of my first semester of law school, so time is a bit minimal at the moment.

Chris

[TimothyKleinert]

Here's the article. (http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/weapons/sabre.html)

It's not the most scholarly thing I've ever read, some of the statements in the article are obviously based on personal interpretation rather than historical research, so I'm open to it being inaccurate. They don't quote the source, but claim...

Sabre-wielding cavalrymen are often pictured holding their swords in what appears to be an odd way. They charge forwards at the gallop with the sabre thrust forwards in front of them... [T]hey hold the sword twisted so that the curve points the tip of the sabre at the ground, and the sharp curve of the edge is on top.
Still, it doesn't seem whole unreasonable, so I thought there might be some truth to it. Which lead me to ask about japanese cavalry techniques.

[Jock Armstrong]

In the charge, the sabre was held cutting edge up, with the arm extended, for thrusting, like a lance. Once contact was made, cutting and slashing strokes were used. The grip was the normal one, the arm was "inverted" that is, elbow upwards. no change to grip- no backhand grips a la Zatoichi. Mostly the reverse grip tech seem to stem from ninpo, for use at short range, inside rooms etc. It would seem highly unlikely that cavalry, needing all the reach they could get, would shorten their range by using a sword in a reverse grip. Not to mention the difficulty of avoiding slicing off your mount's ears- most horses are averse to such treatment and make objections known by bucking and generally being uncooperative so that the cavalryman becomes an infantryman in record time!:beer:

[TimothyKleinert]

Originally posted by Jock Armstrong
In the charge, the sabre was held cutting edge up, with the arm extended, for thrusting, like a lance. Once contact was made, cutting and slashing strokes were used.
Ahhh, I see, interesting.

However, I think you misunderstood my description of the grip. I didn't mean the grip was reverse (stab-like) ala Zatoichi, but rather that the blade was simply twisted around, so that the ha would face the swordsman.

[Jock Armstrong]

The primary weapon of early "samurai" was the bow. Later, in the sengoku jidai cavalry were primarily lancers whose swords were back up weapons. The movie "Ran" gives a good example of this.
Also, cavalry tactics were constantly changing, not only over time in answer to new military technology but in different cultural groups at the same historical times. The Mongols' light cavalry use of hit and run to weaken European heavy cavalry [knights] and provoke them into an advance,drawing them into a planned killing ground, where the manouvring capability of the knights [whose sole tactic was the headlong charge. This was appreciated by the Turks and Saracens who had been severely mauled when in the early stages in the first crusade their light cavalry had tried to go head to head against the Frankish knights and had been shattered by the impact of the charge] ] would be hindered by the exhaustion of horse and rider and where the Mongol heavy cavalry could then counter charge and break them [ like at Liegnitz, Mohacs etc. Classical cavalry were much more of a scouting,/ harassment force. Their head to head encounter at Cannae was most unusual since the Greco roman world emphasised the use of heavy infantry to decide their battles [Carthiginian heavy infantry were armed in the Hellenic style- the celtic infantry being deployed as shock troops because of their ferocity in the charge]. Cavalry were for chasing down fleeing infantry after the the infantry clash was decided and the enemy's formation broken. Later, after the invention of firearms, tactics such as the "caracole" were perfected, especially by the Spanish. This involved charging towards the enemy, discharging pistols into their formation and wheeling away before the enemy could reply or get to handgrips. This illustrates again the relationship between technology [in this case missile versus hand held weapons] and tactical use of the weapons. The sabre, adopted [along with dress and tactics of the Hungarian steppe warriors] was the Eastern European answer to Mongol/turkish tactics and weapons- in other words, they adopted the enemy's tactics and weapons in order to beat them at their own game.

A bit of a rant there!! Forgive me- I'm a mil history nut............

[Joseph Svinth]

Asian cavalry tactics generally involved swarming rather than charge high-diddle-diddle, straight down the middle. Thus, East Asian cavalry, influenced as they were by the Mongols, tended to be archers rather than swordsmen.

***

There are different ways of using swords during cavalry operations.
Cynics included the Comanche (who thought the world of sawed-off shotguns) and the Confederate cavalryman, Col. John S. Moseby. Thus, this famous passage from Moseby's book:

"Our company joined the First Virginia Cavalry, commanded by Colonel J. E. B. Stuart, in the Shenandoah Valley. At Richmond, Captain Jones, who stood high with those in authority, had procured Sharp carbines for us. We considered this a great compliment, as arms were scarce in the Confederacy. We had been furnished with sabres before we left Abingdon, but the only real use I ever heard of their being put to was to hold a piece of meat over a fire for frying. I dragged one through the first year of the war, but when I became a commander, I discarded it. The sabre and lance may have been very good weapons in the days of chivalry, and my suspicion is that the combats of the hero of Cervantes were more realistic and not such burlesques as they are supposed to be. But certainly the sabre is of no use against gunpowder. Captain Jones also made requisition for uniforms, but when they arrived there was almost a mutiny. They were a sort of dun color and came from the penitentiary. The men piled them up in the camp, and all but Fount Beattie and myself refused to wear them."

Source: http://www.pattonhq.com/militaryworks/mosby.html . See also http://www.nps.gov/peri/cav3.htm and http://www.bufordsboys.com/UnionCavalrymanVI.htm -- for Bluebellies, the motion used was similar to swinging an axe.

Alternatively, you could lay along the horse's neck, cowering best you could, and let the weight of 900 pounds of horse moving 15 miles an hour do the work. This meant a straight rather than curved sword, or a lance. To wit:

QUOTE

I was also the model for demonstrating the handling of the 30-inch blade cavalry saber which was discontinued as a weapon by the Army in 1933. The saber technique was to extend the weapon with arm locked and rotated a little, drive the feet home in the stirrups, and charge without flinching at an oncoming enemy's eyes. A kind of game of chicken on horseback.

END QUOTE
http://www.uagrad.org/Alumnus/Winter02/horses.html

Advocates of this technique included George Patton, who, as everyone knows, exchanged his sword for a Smith and Wesson .357 Magnum as soon as the latter became commercially available.

For Polish cavalry techniques, see http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/zablocki_SabreFencing.htm . The folks liked the point, and had no use for the general technique of waving the arm. Yes, this caused cuts, and yes, people died from the infection. Nonetheless, it didn't kill men and horses quickly on the battlefield, and in combat, you want them dead now, not dead tomorrow sometime.

Napoleonic technique is described at http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/c_superior.html . Note that there was considerable fashion involved in swords, and that there were also different methods for heavy cavalry (dragoons) and light cavalry (Hussars).

For a variety of other assorted Western techniques, see http://ahfaa.org/military.htm

[Moniteur]

Originally posted by TimothyKleinert
Ahhh, I see, interesting.

However, I think you misunderstood my description of the grip. I didn't mean the grip was reverse (stab-like) ala Zatoichi, but rather that the blade was simply twisted around, so that the ha would face the swordsman.

I've talked to my friend - he's never heard of anything like a reverse grip issue... as far as what you're saying, im not sure I understand.

If I hold a sabre in the normal manner, there is no good way to flip the sabre over - nor any need to. most sabres cut best when the wrist is used, rather than kept straight.

If you have a sabre with a false edge, you're in good shape (my M1860 has a nice false edge, and cuts 2" bamboo with ease), and well advised to use it.

if you're flipping the sabre over in your hand, you'll have the knucklebow against your wrist, which isn't terribly comfortable, and would really only be a useful idea if you dont have a false edge, not to mention the fact that the hasuji is going to be weird, because the edge won't sit straight on to the line of your cut, and you'll thus be cutting at an angle.

At best, its to make up for a crappy sabre that doesn't have a decent false edge. I'm not sure it brings anything else to the equation.

[TimothyKleinert]

Well, it's looking like that article was simply inaccurate. I'm fine with that. Thanks everyone for indulging me!

[Brian Owens]

It could also be a misinterpretation of the article.

As mentioned above, cavalry sabres have handguards called "knuckle bows" that would make holding them with the blade turned around in the hand next to impossible.

I believe what they may have been describing was this: hold the sabre in the normal manner, and extend the tip as far forward as possible -- arm extended, almost locked at the elbow. The tip will be pointing slightly upward, and the curved edge will be downward.

Now, rotate the arm medially, until the "little finger side" of the fist is uppermost. You will now find "that the curve points the tip of the sabre at the ground, and the sharp curve of the edge is on top."

I believe that is what was being described in the article.

[ghp]

The description of the article sounds like the cavalryman is "dragging" the sabre behind, tip towards rear, to facilitate an upward or horizontal cut as he passes the infantryman. This makes sense to me -- as you move forward it's harder to make contact with a ground-pounder if, in passing, you slice towards the rear -- sort of "timing-hand-eye coordination" thingee.

Conversely, if you just hold your sword at infantry level and pass by, the horse's forward momentum will do the work and you don't have to think of hitting your target in passing. Essentially, you are mowing as you pass.

If you are fighting mounted v. mounted then either the point or overhead blows would be more suitable. In my opinion.

There was always debate amongst cavalrymen as to primacy of point v. edge. Who wins? Colt.

--Guy

Just for you, Joe:
Errr ... "a Colt pistol with a big frigging bayonet"

:D

[ghp]

Okay ..... my previous post was "cart before the horse." I just read the article.
There's little odd in this, but they hold the sword twisted so that the curve points the tip of the sabre at the ground, and the sharp curve of the edge is on top. One might expect the sharp edge to be on the bottom, and the tip to curve up to the sky, as would be the case if a man had just chopped the sword downwards.The author does not appreciate the sabre's inverted position in the charge. When held point forward, edge up, the sabre becomes, in effect, a "hand-lance." Forward momentum is more effectively used "tip-forward, edge-up" -- the sword tip is on-line with the shoulder and more weight goes to the thrust; the wrist and elbow are locked. If the sabre were held tip-up, edge down the wrist and elbow could buckle easier during impact. I can't explain the mechanics, but the "tip forward, edge-up" technique is better suited to the charge.
http://www.hood.army.mil/1cd_horsedet/images/Saber_through_rings01.jpg
http://www.hood.army.mil/

His assertion that "...Sabres are next to useless for fencing...." is patently wrong. I recall the 1880s french photo of a duel aftermath. It's very grainy, but you can see the opponent is dead and decapitated -- witnesses in the background are seen rushing to the body. Granted, sabre fencing may not be as fast and furious as foil and epee, but it's fast enough! And apparently dangerous enough.

--Guy

[cxt]

Guy


Looks like the guy in the above photo are trying to run the blade thu a ring hung from some kind of wire?

I can see why you might want to "reverse" the blade for that--seem like it would be easier aim it thu the rings.

Chris Thomas

[TimothyKleinert]

Thanks Guy for that picture, that's exactly what I was trying to describe! So the purpose of that grip is for thrusting, not swinging, hmm? Interesting.

Did the Japanese ever use the sword from horseback the way Western cavalry did, or were they solely archers (like Mr. Svinth mentioned)?

(Oh, and that bit about saber fencing in the article... yeah, I just ignored that part.)

Thanks!

[ghp]

Hi Timothy and Chris,

Sorry, I don't know about samurai tactics -- from block prints I've seen, the combatants seem to slash from overhead. I've seen some photos from the Toyama Military Academy with cavalry targets -- makiwara suspended at the horseman's level.

The photo above is from Ft. Hood's "Platoon of Horse Mounted Cavalry" -- a demonstration company who trains and uses weapons and tactics from the 1880s. The joust [rings] was a favored sport in Georgia in 1850s-1860s -- but they used lances. Jousting [going for the ring] is often wrongly confused with tilting [two clashing armored knights].

My grandfather was in the cavalry in 1919 -- he told me about the mounted saber drills -- I imagine they were the same as appears in Patton's manual, below at http://www.pattonhq.com/saber.html

And here are some interesting illustrations:

http://www.pattonhq.com/saber/31.gif http://www.pattonhq.com/saber/33.gif http://www.pattonhq.com/saber/36.gif

http://www.pattonhq.com/saber/38.gif

Regards,
Guy

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by ghp
...My grandfather was in the cavalry in 1919 -- he told me about the mounted saber drills -- I imagine they were the same as appears in Patton's manual, below at http://www.pattonhq.com/saber.html

And here are some interesting illustrations...
Excellent illustrations, Guy!

The first two clearly show the twisting of the arm/inverting of the hand/sabre that I was trying to explain.

A picture really is worth 1000 (or in my case 114) words.

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by TimothyKleinert
...Did the Japanese ever use the sword from horseback the way Western cavalry did, or were they solely archers (like Mr. Svinth mentioned)?
While the primary weapon of the mounted bushi was the bow, they did wear tachi slung from their armor.

The art of mounted archery, known variously as kyuba-no-michi and yabusame, was of primary importance on the battlefiled, but kenjutsu was important as an adjunct in case the bushi ran out of arrows or was suddenly ambushed at close quarters.

In the latter case they could execute an iai-style fast draw in a "ground to sky" manner that was devastatingly effective against a foot soldier, then rapidly change directions to a one- or two-handed downward stroke.

[Shiro]

I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but I didn't have time to read the whole thread.

As far as my knowledge goes about samurai tactics, I think they didn't really use the sword while they were on a horse, they rather used the bow and maybe spears too.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Shiro
I'm sorry if this has already been posted, but I didn't have time to read the whole thread.
Read it when you have time. There are some good links and pics, plus good comments by some of the posters.

Originally posted by Shiro
As far as my knowledge goes about samurai tactics, I think they didn't really use the sword while they were on a horse, they rather used the bow and maybe spears too.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong.
Not wrong (saved by the qualifier "really" if it meant "mostly" or "frequently"), but not completely right.

Just as modern tankers sometimes have to resort to small arms fire, so the mounted bushi sometimes resorted to swordplay.

See the earlier comment by Jock Armstrong of the sword being a "back up weapon," and my comments immediately above your post.

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by ghp
...My grandfather was in the cavalry in 1919 -- he told me about the mounted saber drills -- I imagine they were the same as appears in Patton's manual, below at http://www.pattonhq.com/saber.html...
I find it instructive that your grandfather was receiving sword instruction in 1919, and that a new saber training manual was produced in 1914.

That should be of interest to those who questioned whether Tom Cruise's character in The Last Samurai would have had any sword experience in the 1860s.

[ghp]

Hello Brian,

I thought my grandfather used the old 1861 sabre that was slightly updated in 1906; however, I just did a Google search and found that the "Patton saber" was introduced in 1913-- so he must have been using the straight-edged sword.

http://www.pattonhq.com/sword.html
The point is vastly more deadly than the edge. While it might be possible to inflict a crippling blow with the edge (were the swing unrestricted by the pressing ranks of the charge or by the guard of attack) the size and power of the blow is so reduced there is grave doubt it would have sufficient power to do any damage to an opponent's body, protected by clothing and equipment. And even should the blade reach the opponent, it's power to unhorse is dubious.

The cavalryman rides at a man to kill him. If he misses, he goes on to another, moving in straight lines with the intent of running his opponent through. As to the question of recovering his sword thrust into an opponent, when a man has been run through he is going to be pretty limp and will probably fall from his horse, clearing the weapon for you. It would seem, then, that the straight sword possesses all of the advantages of the curved sword for cutting, besides the proper use of the point, which the other does not, and that in using the point in the charge not a single advantage of the edge is lost, while many disadvantages are overcome. In addition, the highest possible incentive to close with the enemy is given.
By the way, Patton merely introduced the British cavalry sabre to the US -- he didn't "invent" it .... he "borrowed" it.

http://www.modelshipbuilding.com/images/atlmrl1198.jpg
http://www.cwguns.com/SABERS/2K.068.jpg
Patton 1913

http://www.militaryheritage.com/images/1908_1.jpg
1908 Pattern Cavalry Trooper's Sword
Source: http://www.militaryheritage.com/swords2.htm]

Regards,
Guy
[who wishes the US Army still had sabre drill]

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by ghp
...Regards, Guy [who wishes the US Army still had sabre drill]
I think there should be a push for it. If the Coat Guard still finds value in Midshipmen training on a tall ship (the USCGC Eagle, a bark), then maybe the Army would find value in the way of the horse and the saber.

Whom should we petition?

[Joseph Svinth]

Been there, done that. The article is Moncure, John. "À Cheval: Equitation as Sport and Training at the French School of Armor and Cavalry," Armor, January-February 1996. Seems the French require equitation as part of their armor officer basic course. The Germans and Russians, on the other hand, continue to teach their tankers that artillery is the fundamental. Based on the results of every war in Europe since 1815, I would argue that there is much to be said for parking howitzers wheel-to-wheel, but that's just me.

As for big bayonets, I do have a soft spot in my heart for a Winchester Model 1897 with an M1903 bayonet affixed. Very nice for crowd control. Nonetheless, for military purposes? Flame weapons have it every time. Although the US reportedly just finished destroying its last napalm, the United States is not a party to the 1980 Protocol to the Hague Convention, so it still has the legal right to use flame weapons against all targets, including civilians.

A fine introduction to the tactical uses of napalm appears at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary.htm

[Brian Owens]

Originally posted by Joseph Svinth
...A fine introduction to the tactical uses of napalm appears at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary.htm
Yowzah! Now that's what I call thread drift! :D

[Joseph Svinth]

It's not really thread drift, as you never see bayonet lugs on flamethrowers.