Talk:Pattern 1796 light cavalry sabre

1788 Pattern Light Cavalry Sabre
Odd that we have no mention of this, (and no article for it) when it was presumably the weapon that the 1796 model replaced. It was slightly longer, and almost as curved as the 1796. - Snori (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. The 1788 P LC sabre was 36 ins long in the blade, the 1796 LC sabre was 32.5 to 33 ins in blade length. In terms of sword blades this is a significant difference. It alters the feel and capability of the swords in cutting, the blade form was quite different also. The 1788 curvature is essentially equal from hilt to tip, whereas the 1796 has less curvature in the half of the blade nearer the hilt and has an accelerating curvature the closer the blade is to the tip. The 1796 blade widens significantly near to the tip, a feature completely lacking in the 1788.Urselius (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I've encountered a number of P1788 LCSs, though sadly not had the chance to own one - they tend to average a blade length of about 35", though sometimes exceeding that up to 36", though examples I have encountered at the latter length, the weight has been excessive and made them wearing to drill with (and I regularly use heavy cutting sabres such as the M1811 Blucher, and both the 1796 Light Cavalry and the Heavy Cavalry for training). Nonetheless, the P1788 LCS was a Pattern in name only, there are a lot of variations and indeed hybrids, but the majority are fullered a la Montmorency, 35" in the blade. - apologies, don't know how to put in a signature. CombatantArmsAntiques.


 * There was no comprehensive proving system for the blades, the official design specifications were imprecise and regiments tended to introduce their own variations. Though not as clumsy as the 1788 heavy cavalry sword, the LC 1788 was criticised by Le Marchant as being over-long and unwieldy, with troopers tending to cut themselves and their mounts when in action. Urselius (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Illustration doesn’t agree with text
The first photograph (Tomkinson) has neither riveted ears nor a ridged grip. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is little available photograph-wise on Wikipedia, so much so that I added the other images on the page by photographing my own sword. I think that this is as much as I could possibly do. If you want perfection you are in the wrong universe. Tomkinson was a captain in the 16th LD, as is mentioned in the text, officers' swords sometimes do not have ears. This particular sword (as commented on in the caption) has seen quite a lot of modification and I suspect it was damaged and subsequently restored - its blade has certainly been ground down extensively. Urselius (talk) 07:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

complaints from French
My understanding is that not only are complaints apocryphal, some French had carried similar weapons at some time. I have neither details nor source for either claim so I am just logging it here for the time being. Since the statements are “out there“, I think they should be retained in the article. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The French never had a sabre whose blade widened near to the point. I have a theory, it is just a theory, that the 'complaint' originated with General Lefebvre-Desnouettes. He was captured at the Battle of Benavente, in the Corunna campaign, by British/KGL hussars and would have seen his Chasseurs cut up by 1796 sabres. He was a prisoner in England for some time but was allowed the freedom to move in British society. If any French officer had the opportunity and motivation to complain about the British sword, it was him. Urselius (talk) 07:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The Light Dragoon
Although Farmer is the source of the information, Greig takes credit as the author. So anything anyone wanting to follow up had Little to go on. I have added the page number. I think a link to the exact page of the book would be helpful to readers. Here it is: https://archive.org/details/lightdragoon01glei/page/98/mode/1up I would add this myself but I don’t know how authorship should be handled in this particular article. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Le Marchant’s studies
Could the following two refs be added? Even as “further reading” although Wikipedia favours secondary sources, often I like to see the original source.

By His Majesty's command. Adjutant General's Office, 1st December, 1796. Rules and regulations for the sword exercise of the cavalry. 1796 by Great Britain. Army. Cavalry. Publication date 1796

https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_by-his-majestys-command_great-britain-army-cav_1796_0/mode/2up

1410. JOHN GASPARD LE MARCHANT AND THE ARME BLANCHE Brian Robson Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research Vol. 73, No. 295 (Autumn 1995), pp. 208-210 (4 pages)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44224963 Humphrey Tribble (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. I'm not certain that the 'Rules and Regs' is entirely relevant, as the swords illustrated in this are (probably shortened) 1788 pattern sabres, not 1796 sabres. Urselius (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)