This is in fact the only scientific test that matters with a sword

@@TheChadPad 😁

Hence the inordinate love for the 1796 infantry officer's spadroon :)

@@Robert399 weren't those hated at the time?

@@josephgilboy6259 just found: "It was widely disliked, as is noted in many sources at the time. Though it is important to note that officers had to purchase their own swords, and so whilst many 1796 pattern spadroons are poor weapons, it is entirely possible to specify and make a successful and effective sword within the parameters of the regulation. Therefore, decent fighting weapons do exist among surviving examples of this pattern type, as well as many that range from adequate to poor fighting weapons. Attempts to replace this spadroon with a robust sabre were only partially successful. With an infantry pattern introduced in 1803, and many non-regulation sabres carried both within and against the regulations of the day. Despite this, the 1796 spadroon lived on until it was replaced in army service in 1822 by a new model of sabre, and ended the use of the Spadroon in British army service, and in Naval use in 1827 (also by a new sabre pattern)."

and thus make the modern Englishman harken back to a time when their country mattered on the world stage.

@@TigerDude333 lol

I’m an armchair captain in the medieval guard and I’m not familiar with these swords, how do they differ in purpose? they all appear to be just different sabers

General in the armchair army is a phrase I’m going to shamelessly steal.

@@sawyere2496 talwar uses an hammer grip, for powerful cuts, and an polish saber is an dueling saber,

Me too, also that blade is THICC

Knucklebows always look sexy as well.

@South Paw looks nice online, what sort of edge did it come with? Can you cut bottles etc straight out of the box or does it need sharpening?

id give my right arm to be ambidextrous

@@Eagle-eye-pie No idea. I don't have one, personally. I just like the idea of ambidextrous handling.

Wellington apparently thought a single regiment of Cavalry was a bonus. . . more than one regiment of cavalry was a liability. He hated the cavalry. Much reiterated in Bernard Cornwall novels.

😁😁😁

Your channel is big enough to do it yourself now! Congrats

Well done about not banging on about the history of the SA80, it must have been difficult. Sit yourself down in your favourite chair, pour yourself a stiff drink and relax.

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Thank you. You're a gentleman and a scholar. Luckily I'm 6 cans deep on Stella Artois which has taken the edge off.

@@benstoyles1297 I'm on the brandy myself, and should probably go to bed. Pleasant dreams :-)

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 likewise

@@benstoyles1297 Please bang on the history of the SA80...

Yup, 3 bar hilt, stronger & wider ricasso/forte, very 1796-ish blade thereafter. I like mine better than the 1796LC. The Coast Rider's version is cool too, 3 bar guard, steel grip, andess entially a 1796 LC blade.

@@kronckew and don't forget the locally manufactured wood and leather scabbard. I have 2 of them. The earlier one is very sharp. The later one is issued but not service sharpened.

@@akashahuja2346 I'm guessing they're fairly rare? I'd love to at least see one live lol

@@Sk0lzky they are not that common but a couple were sold recently. Certainly there are many more 1796 LCS out there as they were in service for 30 years and went to all the hussars and Lancers regiments and when you add up all the militia and yeomanry regiments then add all the lend-lease to our allies like the Prussians and the Dutch. That's a lot of swords

@@akashahuja2346 My Indian one came without the scabbard :( The Coast Rider (Coast Guards) one came with a steel scabbard and a leather frog for vertical belt suspension, and was slightly shorter than the Indian one. When the riders were disbanded, the swords were re-issued to the Hospital Corps and Mountain troops.

Give me a longsword. I want the reach and the ability to use two hands.

Give me a zweihander. I wanna go helicopter blade on the entire enemy pike formation.

1796 Heavy Cavalry either that or a club I’ll just bludgeon the person to death

@@wargey3431 have you handled a real one mate? Floppy blades, I was so surprised at the lack of stiffness. I love my 1796 LCS's but I would probably prefer to fight with my 1827 RN prosser or my slim 1821

@@akashahuja2346 hence why I said heavy cavalry sabre not light massive difference in blades

You have a point, look at the uniforms of some of those cavalry units.

Turning a "zombie", as you put it, into a pez dispenser is good enough I'd think.

@@FoxtrotFleet doctrine is I believe the requirement to sever the spinal column.

@@akashahuja2346 Start doing push ups I guess.

@@FoxtrotFleet believe me, the 1796 LCS would have no trouble severing heads. And pull ups are what you need :)

I guess thrusting is out then. Of course, if we were to really fight zombies, a spear or other polearm would be preferable.

It was not that unusual. During the battle of Aspern-Essling, fighting for the Habsburg, in command of the Moritz Liechtenstein Cuirassiers, Colonel Nicolas-François Roussel d'Hurbal had his helmet cut by a French sabre, although in his case the wound didn't kill him.

No, not unusual at all - but a great quote to display the cutting quality of the sword. The 1821 by contrast, and only taking the Crimea into account, had difficulty cutting through a Russian cavalryman's greatcoat.

Imagine the annoyance of the first soldiers who saw the introduction of firearms!

@@arx3516 I don’t think that’s analogous. Killing from a distance is a distinct advantage over getting hand to hand combat. But within those categories, adjust from one platform or implement to another, requires retraining the body for essentially the same function.

@@mjsuarez79 a rifleman requires totally different training and tactics from a pikeman. I mean, you're trained in stayng in tight formations and stab the enemy, and then they ask you to learn to reload an arquebuse as quickly as possible, during combat, and possibly you even have to learn how to use a sword, because in the 30 seconds it takes to reload that thing between each shot the enemy can get really close to you, and nayonets have not been invented yet. The introduction of firearms in great numbers totally revolutionised combat.

@@arx3516 I think we’re on the same point, but from different perspectives. Absolutely, the introduction of firearms was revolutionary. It would have been a major change. Arduous. Not annoying. Switching over from one type of equipment within the same category is an irritation because you will be retraining and reconfiguring for the same basic function and approach. Switching from from pole arms to firearms is a whole new world. Arduous vs. annoying. I’m just addressing why soldiers would gripe about switching from one type of sword to another. If you have to retrain and you don’t see a whole hell of a lot of difference, it is annoying.

I was in the 1St Battalion The Kings Regiment 1983 -89 and I was one of the soldiers who transitioned from the SLR to the SA80. We all loved our SLRs and didn't want to change. Don't believe all the BS about the SA80A1 being a bad weapon it wasn't. I spent plenty of time in Senalager firing thousands of rounds though my SA80 and nobody had a problem with them. However, if right now I was given the choice of either rifle to go into battle with I would choose the SLR.

Same, seems like a waste

Napoleonic / Victorian military rations weren't great, so I'd guess the ready chopped cabbage went into the pot along with the beef.

@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 But just imagine all those hoofs amidst all that horse poop treading on what is going into the pot. Have to be some hungry.

@@dutch6857 Wash it off, a bit of muck never killed anyone. The typhoid and cholera is going to get you first anyway.

@@dutch6857 fed to the horses?

I always wondered: Did the muslim world favour curved blades because those resemble the crescent moon - one of their holy symbols; and did medieval Europeans favour straight swords with pronounced crossguards because those resemble a crucifix minus the naked dead guy on it?

@@MrAranton Doubtful, since they used straight bladed swords at the time of the Crusades (and the Sudanese also preferred straight blades, despite being Islamic).

A curved blade, overall, is much easier to draw than a straight sword. Reach would be very important on horseback... Weight balance is a complete topic of its own! Weight more to tip gives more cutting power, but sacrifices control. Weight more to the guard/pommel gives more control and speed, but brings the ideal cutting area further down the blade... Different strokes for different folks, eh?

I suppose it would be easier to draw but, given it's the light cavalryman's primary weapon, it's not a major concern - just like muskets and rifles - it should already be drawn before any action. Handling is generally less important on horseback than on foot because you don't fence with your opponents; you ride past them and deliver 1 cut or thrust (making reach very important). That's why cavalry swords tend to be longer and more forward-weighted than infantry swords.

The other thing is in a protracted melee which some cavalry engagements became it was clear that even soldiers trained to thrust like the french cavalry resorted to hacking and slashing instead of stabbing hence why the 1796 light and heavy were both really nice blades for cutting or even bludgeoning people but didn’t have the best stab

What is of greatest importance for fighting on horseback is that a shorter well-curved sword can be moved far more quickly, and in a tighter arc, from one side of the body to the other than a longer straighter sword. Also, in moving a sword from side to side the well-curved sabre has an advantage in being less likely to cut your horse on the head or neck. In general, curved sabres are superior in melee combat and straight swords are superior in a formal battlefield charge. This is why the Byzantine cataphracts and the later Polish Hussars carried both a long straight sword (spathion and pallasch, respectively) and a curved sabre (paramerion and szabla, respectively).

@@urseliusurgel4365 is it not the Polish one called Koncierz?

No one calls the SA80 the 'right arm of the Free World", do they? : )

@@oldschooljeremy8124 The "broken club foot of the Free World", maybe

A1 certainly, A2 and A3 not so much. Tbqh the only practical benefit the SLR had going for it over the original SA80 was reliability and that's a dead letter now.

@@Matt_The_Hugenot It's still heavy and does nothing better than any other weapon in its class. It still isn't ambidextrous. The rifle sucks, but when you invest that much in polishing a turd, it's hard to walk away.

@@KI.765 Granted, the weight is its biggest remaining weakness followed by not being ambidextrous. Other than that its as good or better than any other weapon in its class. The guts have been pretty much replaced by good or high quality components, it takes any contemporary optic, its barrel length gives it a greater muzzle velocity and consequently achieves comparable terminal ballistics at longer ranges, I could go on. Military kit, from vehicles to rifles to bootlaces, is frequently turd-like when first issued, given enough time, fifty years for the M16 to today's M4 or thirty for the SA80 and AUG, the turdiness gets polished away (unless it's the Land Rover which always was and always will be an utter turd).

reason why the British cavalry started to call themselves Hussars. Very much in awe of the Polish and Hungarian cavalries.

Not exactly, it’s suspected that it was based on Eastern/Central European sabers in the first place since Le Marchant travelled to the region.

You forgot the P14.

In what world does a bow and arrow fire faster than a rifle?

@@charles2703 Muzzle loaders?

Actually the term other ranks is correct and used in all commonwealth nations. Enlisted men is more of an American term

@@DeepseaSteve I find myself having to explain OR to Americans all the time.

That is a popular urban myth :-) No evidence for it - many European nations had similar swords.

@@scholagladiatoria Thankyou. I didn't think it was factual but thought it might of been good unintentional propaganda . I wonder where that myth came from. Anyways, It sounded pretty cool though. Lol

does that make a shovel sharp? Because you couldn't hold one like that either

@@TigerDude333 Why, yes, I suppose it does. Consider leverage and inertia. When you swing that thing, with a drawing pull, you can slice right through a wide variety of meaty bits... You see, this thing isn't particularly Sharp, but it does have a certain sharpness about the edge that you don't have with an item that was purposely rounded... ... besides which, I used to use a shovel all the time. If you are digging frequently with a shovel, as the blade wears down, it often becomes terrifically sharp on the edge. Try using a shovel for a few months sometime, then get back to me. Shovels have also been used as combat weapons...

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid

Unless you have a lightsabre!

Well, they exist now, at least a single proto-sabre does thanks to the Hacksmiths.

@@CDKohmy Eh, it's nothing really new.

@@CDKohmy It's more like a blowtorch.

Compared to the L1A1, which is probably a better rifle but there's obviously good reasons modern armies have moved to 5.56. Why we didn't just license some version of the AR-15 I don't know

If all you're doing with the gun is carrying it, then the lighter one is better.

I've never heard people be particularly negative about the L85A2... Sure, there are plenty of people who will tell you all about how terrible the A1 was, and how the process of getting from A1 to A2 was a national humiliation and all the rest of it. But the weapon that the SA80 eventually ended up being, people generally seem to regard as perfectly decent, if not exemplary.

@@rjfaber1991 yeah the A2 with iron sights was decent and light. But the A3, with picatiny rails and a small arms sight, is still stupidly heavy for a 5.56... and then you stick on a laser light module and foregrip to throw off the balance. (This probably falls into 'championing the previous rifle' as Matt said 🤷‍♂️)

I actually like the L85A2, I think it's a bit heavy but it's short and handy with a good long barrel. I actually preferred it over the AR15 I tried, purely because I preferred the balance and the shortness of the L85. Still prefer the L129 though and the L86A2 LSW, those things were beautiful to shoot, less so to lug around though.

Mind that cavalrymen often had a fencing training before being enlisted.

@@neutronalchemist3241 Officers, yes, other ranks, not so much. Even in prestigious regiments recruits mostly came from ordinary backgrounds, if they fit the bill physically and weren't disqualified for some reason then they were acceptable, social background only mattered for those purchasing commissions pre Cardwell or young Cornets after 1871.

Messer I believe

I also believe it is a messer. The brand escapes me, though.

Sorry I should have been clearer. I recognize it's a Messer. But by who? Just looking at the sheath isn't much to go on. It's got a bit of a point and about 30".

It may have had the original hilt broken and the person who did the replacement was only experienced in making the 1821. There's no reason to throw away a good blade, and if you did, whoever found it would likely repurpose it.

Going by the proofing on the Wz.34 Ludowika they should be able to handle some thin nails.

The current evolution in infantry weapons suggests that Britain should actually have just gone it's own way all along, as 65 years later the Americans are now looking at rounds suspiciously similar to the .280 British that they told us they would never accept in the 50s.

@@Sifubenwithout the US, we would be speaking Russian or living in a Nuclear wasteland just now, the reasons for 5.56 made sense at the time, mainly logistics and accuracy of the average infantryman, the bullpup Britain designed in the 1950's was innovative, the new 6.8mm ammo the US is developing is the same idea, guess swords were the same, Rapier great range, Cavalry Saber, great slasher, 19th Century, both had been combined.

@@Sifuben Americans are looking at rounds suspiciously similar to the 6.5X52 Carcano, that had been around for 130 years at this point, for that matter. 6.5 cartridges tend to have pretty similar ballistic.

Would it be that different from a longsword vs scimitar? Because that definitely happened.

Sabres were used by Hungarian troops way back in the Middle Ages, centuries before they became the standard sword for light cavalry across Europe. So I think it's very likely that a cavalryman armed with a sabre will at some point have come across an infantryman armed with a longsword.

Its a direct copy of Austrohungarian stirrup sabers as a whole. The Heavy Cav. sword is also a direct copy of Austrohungarian pallasches. The Stirrup hilt was common in central Europe since the late 17th century

Most Polish and Hungry sabres I’ve seen have a straight or D guards

Sheffield steel of Victorian period was simillar to modern High Carbon steel alloys (1095 and such). If its a Solingen steel blade I would be more warry, the quality of Solingen went downhill in the later 19th century

MrPanos2000 My friend who is a blacksmith said it sharpened like 1095 so it’s almost definitely the Sheffield steel.

@@kyleman605 The proof slug reveals maker. If you have a Facebook, look up the group "Millitary and Classical sabre", if you want you can post pics there so we can help you date it and trace the maker

@@MrPanos2000 The heat treat is the important part, we can only guess about Cold Steel’s quality.

Cold steel colichemarde

Lots of reviews out there but they are a bit heavy imo to the real deal. There are a couple of guys who reprofile them for not too much. The Cold Steels are just a few grams heavy of fun but with a bit of hand work..... Temper is hit or miss allegedly but I never got a butter knife from CS. Got 3 CS swords. Heavy, unassuming beaters. Not faves or good but they work.

ChonkedaDevil Thanks for the reply. I will keep your words in mind when I decide to pull the trigger or not. Thanks 🤓

If you want a cheap 1796 that can technically be used, then I'd get one (on Kult of Athena of course). It is pretty heavy but not so heavy it's unusable.

Matthew Cooper Many Thanks 🤓

@@bacon81 Hey so I recently got a Cold Steel 1796 because I myself was curious, so I will give you a quick review: The 1796 sword is sold no rattles, no looseness. Blade is fairly stiff, overweight but not extremely so. I am happy to report Cold Steel finally put a decent distal taper on it. Mine tapers from almost 8mm down to 1.8mm, I heard stories of these swords in the past having almost no taper being a flat 4mm piece of steel, that indeed would make them handle poorly, but because of the taper It actually handles decently well. More so after I modified the blade. Bad part was the sharpening on mine was terrible. Only about 11inches were sharpened at all, and even then not very much so, and on the false edge only about 2 inches. So I got to work with a hand bastard file, and over the course of a week, and quite a few hours I reprofiled the entire edge and false edge so it is sharp and has a single bevel. This file work also took a fair amount of excess weight off, now it's fantastic. After using the file simply hand sanded the flat with 80grit sand paper working up to 1500 grit. Everything was done with dirt cheap hand tools and time, no expensive machinery or technical skill. Just be warned It might not be perfect out of the box, but honestly It's a good sword for the price, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it, if you can put some work into it. I think cold steel makes some good swords, or rather they contract good sword makers, because in fact many cold steel swords are just Windlass swords under contract. Likewise for some blades they hire existing companies forges to produce them in China. I believe many cold steel swords are quite decent they have 2 problems their swords used to be much worse years ago, and some of that reputation stuck to this day. Second they have a image problem with their old ads, the overweight Americans cutting stuff to rock music image makes many people cringe. However lets be real here cringe aside, and mediocre swords made years ago. The swords cold steel offer today are generally decent with some being really good for their price and they absolutely have improved over the years because of criticisms.

Those you mention arent really the same as this, but simillar to the Prussian Blucher swords that were inspired by these. Dont forget the stirrup hilt was an Austrian style copied by the British in the first place. All things considered, a very Germanic weapon

@@MrPanos2000 : Yes , it was not the exact same saber, Mr. Easton made a video about this toppic, but it looks so similar , that the design of german military sabers followed the english ones. Also many short sabers used by german imperial policemen looked similar to french Briquet .