I would argue you want a lance/spear as a primary thrusting weapon to fight as a cavalry unit. In that case, a curved sword would be better as backup in case you get caught in a melee.

Always good to see these conversations between my favourite youtubers. I learn a lot from the back-and-forth, adding nuance and detail.

Worth noting that the Persians in this period tended to fight other cavalry heavy forces like the Ottomans, Mughals or Uzbeks.

It all depends of what kind of cavalery we are talking about. I can see your point if we are talking about heavy cavalery. but If we are talking about light cavalery for scouting and raiding. then it might be better with a curved sword. when you get to much antention from the enemy. It´s time to exit.

Here's a question - are you more likely to lose your sword using the point on the charge or cutting? And how much more likely are you to lose a straight sword (that can cut) whilst cutting on the charge than a curved sword?

i have been told my sword which is straight and long (and uselessly rusty) was designed for cavalry, but it looks nice on the wall, with the black anti rust on it

All else aside, that's a beautiful shamshir. I love the profile of the handle. It's one of my favorites and is the style I gave to one of the main characters in my books.

This seems like a really cool distinction between thinking of soldiers as swordsmen or as cavalrymen

Hey there. I’ve done a lot of research into the 1798 Rising here in Ireland, as part of a book I was writing. It’s very striking from contemporary accounts that United Irish infantry formations had very little fear, and were quite contemptuous of, yeoman cavalry armed with sabres. Cavalry successes against them usually happened when the charging horse broke the line through sheer mass, muscle and momentum.

The heavy cav carried straight swords for a reason. Unless they had lances. Curved sabers are great for skirmishing, not shock action. As for the infantry carrying a sword as a last resort back up, a cut centric blade, curved or straight, wins the day. A slight curve would help greatly with edge alignment. So what you end up with a slightly curved saber.

That was a long debate even back in the day, and people complained about swords being stuck and broken in oponents during such charges, or being violently twisted in saddle. It is really hard to decide which is better, because people got stuck in melleys eventually, and then it probabley was hard to do well with the thrusting sword (and I heard about a regulation not to give point unless having 6 strides to accelerate). I conclusion hybrid/compromise designs (1845 wilkinson blade) are probabley the least bad option for most sitations, but it's mostly matter of preference.

It would seem that many cavalry units in the near east (west asia, eastern europe and the middle east) considered it advisable to have both straight and curved swords. For example starting with the Roman mounted Cataphracts in the 10th century they are in texts required to carry a straight sword on their person and a paramerion (sabre) on their saddle. Ottoman cavalry in the 15th and 16th centuries are mentioned to carry both Kilic (sabres) and Mec (straight thrusting swords). The polish hussars did the same with their sabres and the Koncerz. This is all in addition to maces and/or axes of course which were also carried by most cavalry. However it is also worth pointing out that in Central Asia and large parts of Indo-Persia, especially post-Mongol, the sabre is the predominant type of sword. And we're not talking about just light cavalry, they are the predominant type of sword in use by fully armoured cavalry as well. Cavalry covered top to toe in lamellar, mail or later laminar armour would still opt to use sabres as their main sword, while straight swords take a backseat ever since the Mongols (although even by the time of the Seljuks they're becoming less prevalent). The Khitan and Jurchen heavy cavalry also seem to have carried single-edged swords primarily, however at that point in time they were mostly straight around China and not curved in the same manner the sabres in Central and West Asia were.

You make a convincing case. There's a reason late period cavalry adopted straight, thrust only swords.

Sounds a lot like the cuirassiers that you are describing, with their long thrusting swords. If I'm not mistaken, even the heavy gendarmes and cuirassiers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries adopted the long thrusting estoc and pallasch swords, to deliver the point at high speed, sometimes in a secondary charge after initially expending their lances (or pistols).

I don't want to say this as personally i choose a sabre over most swords but you made a great point in this video.

Two points: first, many European sabers were less curved and could still give an effective thrust. Second, we have no real idea how often a cavalry action broke down into a melee. Thrust-centric blades were advantageous if the cavalry held their formation, but how commonly could they manage that against other cavalry? It’s telling that in the course of the 18th century, most Western European nations switched from straight to curved swords for their cavalry. And even the straight British heavy cavalry sword was a cutter by design. Only the French heavies actually used truly thrust-centric swords consistently, whereas in the middle of the 18th century, almost all of the French cavalry had used straight blades.

Excellent point Zac. I do feel people are too focused on "fencing" rather than battlefield fighting. Two very different arts.

Heavy cavalry indeed preferred long straight swords, while light cavalry regiments were issued curved sabers. It seems that eastern cavalry like the Ottomans or the Persians used the lance as their main weapon for the charge, and their typical curved shamshirs and kilij were secondary weapons used for the melee

Ohhh... so much here.... Why do light cavalry units use curved sabers and heavy straight? Point 1: Curved sabers, as the host admitted are better in 1v1 engagements. Or... in small group engagements. Light cavalry often engaged in smaller units while scouting. Curved is better for light cavalry. Point 2: Swinging a saber increases the probability of a hit because it is easier to do in while in motion and increases the angles at which a target can be engaged. A curved saber is better for cutting. Light Cavalry more angles and open order, heavy cavalry are boot to boot. Them swinging anything packed in tight is going to hit the horse or man next to you. Only the first rank had a hope of hitting anything with a straight saber in a charge the rest held them over their heads so not to stab the rider in front of them. Heavy cavalry is for impact, the horse is the primary weapon, and either you charge through a target, or you turn to the side and move off of the target and get out of dodge. Rarely do you get stopped, it can happen as it did in 1809 but it is not intended. Then it is just a murder. Read John Keegan The Face of Battle, a book required in our USMC military history class, it described how the cavalry engaged infantry, other cavalry and artillery at Waterloo. Point 3: A curved sword also is better in short distance, like a short-barreled rifle vs a 20" barrel. The curve shortens the distance that a hit can be effective. The eastern sword is that curved because it can be used in a dense mele and is for hitting things right beside you not reaching out. You are not using that correctly. See Mameluks. Point 4: Light cavalry isn't battle-cavalry, their principal role was recon, in addition pursuit and screening a retreat. They would very rarely get caught in a pitched mele. Speed is life for light cavalry. Point 5: I challenge you to run into a real mele with a large number of horses on foot. Here's a hint, it won't go well for you, even if none of the riders have sabers or swords. Horse is a big and crazy powerful creature you are going to be bashed down and smushed unless the horses are all just standing still. Point 6: If even a few horses get into an infantry formation and keep moving that infantry formation is coming apart and will be likely be annihilated. An infantry formation may vastly outnumber the horse, but you can barely load your firearm you are packed in so close, taking down a rider is hard and even if you do the horse is fucking going nuts, try grabbing a horse going nuts, it's not easy to do. Even if you manage to stab the horse with a bayonet that horse is going to reach around and bite off your face. See Marbot. So, in the end which is better. It depends on what your role is. If you are in a boot to boot heavy charge, use a long straight sword. If you are a light cavalry trooper, a lighter curved sword will serve you well as will your carbine. If you move through a target at speed then turn and repeat you will receive much fewer casualties.

Wow, great information in a compact, short to the point video. Excellent. TY!

Just using the example of the hussars, if optimally armed. Lance, Koncerz (sorry if mispelt) and then szabla. The weapon gets more curved as hopefully, the enemy formation breaks down. I'm a little unsure of the shamshir as I've never been entirely certain what the Saffavid Ghulams and Turkomans did on the battlefield. The Persian shower shooting or the more Turkic individual harassment.

with knives, it is often said that slashes = hospital, stabs = morgue. i always found it curious that the same sort of people who say this about knives, do not say the same about swords or polearms

Early cavalry nearly always had a spear or lance, so the sword was just a personal defence weapon. Same can be said of infantry, as swords are rarely the primary weapon. The longbow defeated the horse at range, which is why Knights generally fought on foot in pitched battle. Cavalry was used to sweep up the defeated and retreating. Or for reconnaissance, or even mobile infantry. Later, the French Cuirassiers heavy cavalry had large straight swords, used much like a lance, and meant to be used at full speed as part of a unstoppable large block. Works on other cavalry and unformed or broken infantry. A curved sword is useful against spears, lances, and large heavy straight swords, that have no momentum. And unarmored opposition. Most people can get a clever to work. British Hussars, curved sworded, gave great respect to French Cuirassiers if allowed to charge, but thought them good game if they lost their cohesion and momentum. Its all in the tactics. The more specialised the more care with tactics.

Me, a student of Kenjutsu, knowing full well that my only two moves are kill the enemy in one stroke, or die:

Curved swords can be highly effective for thrusting / push cuts especially when used by cavalry.

I think that the famous Polish Winged cavalry carried both straight swords and curved swords.

The problem with this argument, as I understand it, is that thrusting weapons have a real chance of getting stuck in the body of the opponent. And in a cavalry charge this is especially likely as you have little control over the degree of penetration. Thus you are risking losing your weapon, or worse, getting unseated from your horse.

Really interesting point you make there. (Pun intended) This is probably why napoleon insisted that his troops give point and why ww1 and ww2 sabers were straight. They didn't want to have exactly the situation you described happening. BTW nice sword! Lk Chen ribaldo 🤘

Good point, Zac!

How would the thrust-esque method of using the sabre factor into your point (heh) in which the curved edge of the blade is presented in a manner similar to the point? Matt has mentioned that it was a common tactic in the middle east. I remember that extraction was the main benefit.

First of your videos this new sub has managed to view. I love these respectful back-and-forth exchanges from knowledgeable sources. Excellent points I would never have thought of myself. Thank you for an additional perspective. Cheers!

Question. It's not really related to the topic of this video but, do you know the name of the spring mechanism on breastplates of 16th century armor? The one that you mentioned in message to Rege video about his costume. I want to see the inner side of that breastplate, but I just don't know the word for it to search on google.

My argument would be that the swords aren't optimized for one or the other. They are just different. You can thrust and cut with both. If we are talking about Mid-East style of fighting, then when they struck with swords from being mounted, they would only land with the tip of the swords like one hand width. Then they would turn the horse with the strike, so that the tip tears open the wound and breaks bones. The part of the sword that is between one hands width to two hands width crushes, and doesn't slice when you are striking like this. Then the rest of the sword blade does nothing. So based on that, I am not sure if the concept of using a shamshir from horseback is being done correctly, because it clearly is used differently than how we use them on foot. Also, if you imagine that description, you can see how when rotating your horse, your sword would rotate and the edge will naturally move to a position that is facing up again, allowing you to pull your sword back out in one big circular motion. Another thing is that they used spears from horseback and the swords were secondary weapons.

I feel it's mostly concerning what area of the world and how heavily armored the people you are fighting were. I like tip control with a straight sword but savers to me at least are easier to use while riding horseback.

interesting takel´. Never thought about that before

I'm just an interested layman but rapier is my favourite, followed by a saber of the Polish dragoons of xvii century variety.

Interesting point, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. Something like the 1908 pattern cavalry sword is fairly long, and it's a straight thrusting sword, both those things give it plenty of extra reach compared to a heavily curved sabre. The thrust also doesn't expose you as much as a cut, potentially making the user feel safer to engage in a dogfight. Thrusting is fairly easy, I'm not convinced that with it: "the only way of attacking someone is at speed". So if anything, it should make dogfights against other cavalry even easier to engage in. I'll need more info before I settle on a solid opinion about this.

I thought these extremely curved swords were meant for "thrusting" with as well? Just when it is that curved it does not get stuck in target, the impact just creates a horrendous cut. So might require less training than charging with straight sword. Also, for infantry, I am partial to 1685 Swedish trooper sword, the "chopping rapier". It is super long, over 93 cm (108cm with hilt). And it is heavy. Worthless for fencing but for regular trooper he can poke the opponent at far away and if he clobbers opponent it will be like hitting him with an iron bar. Perfect for regular trooper who might lose his cool and just HIT in a melee. And perfect for a group creating a hedge of points.

Would this be the reason why cavalry swords would constantly get straightened?

In the debate of cavalry saber vs long sword, I vote carbine :) but for real, what would encourage you to move away more than a gun that you need to reload? shoot and scoot!

There's a part of me, the troll part, that kind of wants to yell "Fight!" here with you and Matt having divergent takes...but...what if you then did? O_O I kinda want to see that, but also don't? lol

The most effective weapon on the battlefield is communicating and teamwork i.e. everyone moving with singular purpose ,it is the greatest force multplyer for any size force regardless of weaponry and is as true today as it was in the past,good vid sir that'll ruffle Eastons feathers(in this example he is a small Peruvian budgie)all the best from sunny Troon

Well I do not remember any traditional cavalry in the world that would use thrusting swords. I guess it might to do with a an idea that attack on stationary infantry body was not that common for them and that they usually had pikes. And also to a fact that swords was not a main weapon - it was a bows before and then pistols.

Swedish cavalery used straight swords and they attacked such tight formations that slashing and cutting was almost impossible same polish hussars who first uses lances and then straight swords and their sabres was only a backup weapons. Most of cavalry used horses as a weapon not swords they just rode over everything.

I don't agree with your premise that a thrust centric blade will cause your cavalry unit to maintain their speed and mobility while a primarily cutting blade causes the user to slow down and "dogfight". That's an issue of doctrine and training. Training and good leadership will keep them moving, whether they carry a straight blade or a saber.

Interesting viewpoint. I'd like to slightly disagree with you, especially because the saber was used for thousands of years by different cultures as a cavalry sword, so it must be pretty good at that role. But the main question to ask is what's the context? In the 16-17th century hussars carried a saber or a pallash. And one or two estocs (with saber hilts). And a light lance. And a bow or pistols or carbines. And a shield. Cavalry warfare was very different then than it was in the 19-20th century. If your cavalry is only used to charge in, give a quick blow and charge out, than yes, a long straight sword like an estoc or the British 1908 pattern is great (but a lance is better). But sometimes you have no choice but to attack infantry formations, or stay in melee with the enemy cavalry because you can't give them ground. It all depends, there is no one best weapon. As for naturally wanting to stay in melee with a saber, well that's a question of training and what type of cavalry we are talking about.

Katana, particularly a longer one.

I get your point that as a cavalry unit on the battlefield you want to avoid getting into a more "static" kind of hand-to-hand-combat with infantry units - but why is (as you say about 4:30) giving point at speed the only way to attack with a straight sword on horseback, whereas it was basically useless a mêlée-situation at lower speed? Or do you talk about very specific types of thrust-centric swords here ?

There are a number of Sabers that are straight and there's even some French ones made just forgiving Point like the heavy cuirrassiè saber

@Zac Evans If the goal is to just encourage point-in-line hits at speed, why would you want to primarily use a straight sword instead of a spear/lance, with some sort of sword on the waist to fall back on? I'm sure there must be some reason... I know cuirassiers would have a straight sword and not a lance or curved blade. But I'm not sure what the benefit could really be. With a cutting sword, at least I can think of a compelling reason you might want to choose it as your primary weapon (even at the risk of encouraging poor unit-tactics as you mention... but surely that's something that could be drilled out of people anyways?) I suppose the only apparent benefit I can think of, to using a straight blade over a lance, is that you have a much smoother transition from charging in to any protracted engagements, if they occur. Which makes sense, but sort of goes against your logic here (saying you'd want to avoid those.... which you surely would... but I'm sure sometimes you couldn't? Especially if you were engaging other cavalry and not infantry).

Like all blades beyond the basic dagger, a sabre is a purpose built weapon. It is not nor never should have been considered a universally superior tool of war. A talented wielder can overcome some short comings, as with any other weapon, but will never maker it "the best" at anything other than the purpose it was originally concieved for. IMHO oppinion the closest you will get to a "best" weapon will be in the realm of hammers, picks and axes.

"i am a complete idiot" - why would i type that in chat?

"Straight swords optimized for thrusting are better than curved swords optimized for cutting" That holds true, *if* the sword is your main offensive weapon. Which it rarely was, at least for decent cavalry. Later on it was the case, *but* a saber is *not* optimized for cutting. From its very origin until the XXth century, sabers usually were cut&thrust swords. Anyway, a curvature of the blade does supposedly make freeing a weapon a bit easier, if you stuck someone stationary while passing by at full gallop. I mean, it's not like you just can't connect with the point on a curved blade. Why your shamshir has such an acute point? For show? I don't think so. Finally, while straight swords were also very popular, the ones which competed with sabers were very "saber-like", and they were *not* optimized for thrusting. They were basically straight sabers. Pistol grip, decent cutting ability, some advantage in thrusting against resistant targets. A rather minor shift in priorities, not a total reversal of them.

!

You're making the argument for lances.

I think the Winged Hussars chose sabres, didn't they, didn't they mount the largest cavalry charge in history? But they chose a lesser sword?