Talk:Pattern 1796 heavy cavalry sword

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Napoleonic era

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Napoleonic era task force (c. 1792 – 1815)

Blades Start‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blades, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BladesWikipedia:WikiProject BladesTemplate:WikiProject BladesBlades articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

What a mess![edit]

This article is a mess.
To be completely accurate the sword in question was a "backsword" ie. the sword had a straight blade with one cutting edge and the opposite side of the blade (the "back") was thickened for most of its length to give added strength. That is its technical description, but at the time it was used it was called the (1796) pattern heavy cavalry troopers' sword. It was differentiated from that used by the light cavalry and the use of "sword" and "sabre" was indiscriminate.

It could also be given its Austrian designation of "palasch" a term also occasionally used in English.

This article should be reverted to "1796 Heavy Cavalry Sword" as this use differentiates it from the contemporary light cavalry sabre to the maximum, and minimises confusion.

As there was no universal, single, cavalry sword pattern until 1853, calling a British sword made prior to this date "Cavalry sabre" is simply wrong, as all previous official patterns were designated "light" or "heavy".

As to cavalry, well the British of the time recognised that they had light and heavy cavalry, they equipped them and uniformed them differently, so there was a perceived distinction. That said the horses of both branches were very similar in size, as measured by height at the withers, though light regiments claimed their horses were lighter fleshed. Claims can be made that British light and heavy regiments had little real operational disctinction because their horses were of similar size. However, this was not universally acknowledged at the time and bald statements to this effect should not be made without caveats and discussion. Urselius (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it, it isn't perfect at present and the title still need reverting, I would do this but don't know how to. At least a large measure of inaccuracy has been removed. Urselius (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have redirected the redirect. and copied the above from the "1796 Cavalry sabre" discussion page. Urselius (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This might appear to be drastic, but at least my revisions are legitimate as per reasons given above. Urselius (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This type of sabre for sure came to Europe with Hungarians. Such a type sabre was used by Polish-Lithunian-Ukraine-Bielarus Commonwealth heavy cavalry forces 'husaria'. Painting from the year 1620: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Husaria_pod_Kluszynem.jpg . Link to Polish National Forces Museum webside with photos of orginal sabre from 1596: http://www.muzeumwp.pl/emwpaedia/szabla-czarna-zygmuntowka-z-data-1596.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.11.1 (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of blade needed[edit]

Currently, the images for this article are three different versions of just the hilt and a painting that barely shows any of the blade at all. A picture of the full sword is very much needed. Bardbom (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The left-hand sword of these two is the version of the 1796 adopted by the Swedes - it is identical to the British sword. If you can crop the photo and place this on wikimedia then please do so. I have no facility for creating images. Urselius (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've cropped it and added it to the article. - Bardbom (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the Sword?[edit]

Lede and Background section have two different names for the sword, without any explanation. Is this just the name? Is it a variant? Why is this left unclear, to be figured out by the reader? --84.189.90.204 (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1788 Heavy Cavalry Sword[edit]

Matt Easton has at least two videos about the "1788 Heavy Cavalry Sword", which he also calls the "Heavy Cavalry Trooper Sword of 1788". What is its relation to this sword? --84.189.90.204 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None, from the point of view of design. It was the predecessor in terms of pattern swords for the British heavy cavalry. It was heavily criticised by John Le Marchant, designer of the 1796 light cavalry sword, for being too long and too heavy for the average trooper to use effectively, and for it tending to turn in the hand or for the blade to break. He also said that it led to self inflicted wounding (typically to the leg or foot) and wounding to the cavalry mounts in action. Urselius (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]