Disclaimer: “As an Amazon Associate I may earn from qualifying purchases.” Adsense and Infolinks were no help at all.

If you have enjoyed this article or it has been helpful to you please feel free to show your appreciation. Thank you.

Read The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler!

Category: Phillosoph

Categories
Phillosoph

Helping the Enemy : Grey Warfare.

           Decades back there was a British comedy series called “Who Dares Wins”. It was most famous for its dialogues between Giant Pandas. but many of its other sketches were very clever. One in particular springs to mind. It starts with an “aged” film clip of two stereotypical hippie protest singers. Both are long-haired and the man is bearded, they wear kaftans and so forth. Switch to a shot of the two actors “now”. They are clean cut. The man is shaved and wearing a blazer and tie, his wife equally conventional. They are laughing self-consciously and good naturedly at the film clip.
           Interviewer: “So, are you still active in politics?”
           Woman: “Oh yes! We have recently become the regional organizers for the National Front.”
           (The National Front is a British racist organisation that exploits working class youths as its muscle)
           Interviwer: (pauses) “Ahhh….so, your politics have changed quite a bit?”
           Man: “Oh gosh no! We have always been right wing. Our musical career was to ensure that no one could hear any left-wing ideas without automatically thinking of beads and face painting…”
           This was from a comedy show, but all good satire contains at least a grain of seriousness. You could easily flip this sketch and have the protagonist working so that no right wing idea could be heard without associating Nazism and camouflaged rednecks preaching conspiracy theories! Poe’s law means that many left and right wingers have done a fine job of achieving the above without any influence from the opposition! I have at least one friend whose passion and dogmatism tend to drive more sympathetic people from his causes than towards them.
           Regular readers will know that I tend to avoid political posts. I am, however, interested in perception and consider this relevant to both self-defence and preparedness. So the question I will propose to you today is : Are you helping what you most despise?
           Think about this after you read this very interesting article on “Grey Warfare”: 
Categories
Phillosoph

Fictional Measurement System

As is the tradition, the Friday blog will be on something more abstract or light hearted than the usual topics.
Over the years I have read a number of sci-fi and fantasy books where the author has given a world its own measurement systems. Most of these seem to be fairly arbitrary rather than based on aspects of that world. It is with this in mind that I have pursued the following train of thought.
While doing some background reading for the last series of posts I came across a description of a duelling sword as being of “four palms length”.
Seemed rather short for what was described as an excellent weapon for the duel!
I did a little research and discovered that “palm” was a term sometimes used for a measurement based on hand length. Like many old measurement standards, it varied from city to city but was between 8 and 10 inches long.
32 to 36" is about right for a handy duelling sword!
I began to read about anthropic measures.
Something that occurred to me was that a “foot”, despite its name, was not an anthropic measurement.
Very few people have feet twelve inches long.
>In medieval use, the length of a foot varied between regions and even trades and might range from 25 cm to 33.5 cm.
Alongside these the pes naturalis (natural foot) of 25 cm/9.8 imperial inches might be used too.
According to Vitruvian proportions, a foot should be a seventh of your actual height.
I’m about 71" tall, so according to Vitruvian proportions my feet should be over 10" long. The 15.3% value on the wiki article would give me 11" feet.
Actually my feet are 9" long.
Someone with a 12" long feet should be seven feet tall if Vitruvian proportions are correct!
Vitruvian proportions don’t work for feet!
Many people my height have feet larger or smaller than me. Many smaller people have larger feet.
It has been suggested that “foot” as a measurement is a synonym for “shoe”. Coincidentally my favourite boots are exactly 12" long. My ancestors probably did not have moulded rubber soles so their shoes were probably shorter than this.
A fact I did come across was that the Romans used a measurement based on the pace.
The Roman passus was a “double pace”, measured from the heelprint of a foot to the next heelprint of the same foot.
It was standardized at 1.48 m and also described as being five Roman “pes”. One pes or “Roman foot” is 11.6 modern inches.
The Romans used a decimal system for large measurements so one thousand passus or five thousand pes was a Roman mile.
It seems likely that the pes was created as an increment of a passus rather than anything to do with the size of a human foot.
My reading also turned up the interesting fact that the SI metre was originally derived as being a ten-millionth of the distance between the equator and the north pole of the Earth.
While logical, there are a number of objections to this.
One is that a measurement of the Earth will vary with how it is done. If we fly an aircraft from the equator to the north pole the actual distance it travels will depend on its altitude.
It may occasionally have to fly higher to cross a mountain range so the distance travelled will be different to that on a map.
If it was practical to walk this distance, the walker would have to move up hills and down across valleys that the aircraft may simply fly over.
Again, the total distance travelled will be different.
Perhaps our walker takes a little dog with him. Poor Fido will have to clamber across rocks and negotiate furrows and thus walk a different distance to the human beside him.
Another objection is that this derivation does not make the measurement unit particularly tangible:
“Fred, do you think it is less than a hundred metres to the pub?”
“Well, Bert, do you think that looks like a hundred-thousandth of a quadrant?”
Suppose, for discussion's sake, we had a measurement system based on something else.
I am going to use the Roman passus (1.48 m) for this example.
A pace is quite a handy, easily visualized measure. There are obvious useful real world applications for working out ranges or travel distances in paces.
It is probably more useful to know something is twelve paces away than twenty yards. Pacing a distance gives a fairly accurate approximation even if your pace-length is not exactly 1.48 m.
For reasons that will become clear in a moment, I am going to suggest decimalizing the passus.
Each passus is divided into ten deci-passus or “desips”, each equivalent to 14.8 cm or 5.8".
Interestingly, three desips equals 17.4"/44.4 cm, a shade under a standard (Biblical) cubit and nearly identical to the Roman cubitus. Vitruvian proportions gives the height of a male as four cubits. Twelve decips works out as 177.6cm or 5' 9.6", a fairly good estimation for the height of an average man.
We can therefore create a second measurement called a “kupit” and use the length between a middle finger and elbow tip as an approximate measure.
A cubit is quite a handy measure. It is readily to hand, and in Vitruvian proportions is equal to a shoulder width.
A man’s height or armspan is meant to be four cubits. The Wikpedia page on Vitruvian man defines a pace as four cubits, but this is obviously incorrect since men do not walk in bounds equal to their height.
Cloth or rope can be easily measured out in “double cubits” by stretching it from centreline/nose to fingertip. This is a traditional way to measure yards but our system does not need yards (or feet) when we can use passus, kupits and double kupits.
One passus = Ten desips
One kupit = Three desips
Three passus = Ten kupit
So, our standardized measures of length are the passus, kupit and desip, two of which can be easily estimated by pacing or comparison to a body part. For smaller increments we can have the centi-passus, milli-passus (centip and millip?) etc.
For longer distances we have the kilo-passus (kilop?) equal to ten-thousand desips or 1.48 km/0.925 miles.
A league, the distance that can be marched in an hour, is 3.25 kilo-passus.
200 passus is a shade under 300m, which is about the limits of the effective range of a rifle for many shooters.

150 passus around the battlefield range of a bow.

Kupits to Passus = n x 3/10
Passus to Kupits = n x 10/3
A hektopassus is an area measurement equivalent to a square ten passus to each side. Ten thousand hektopassus make a square kilop.
Once we have a linear measurement, we can move to volumes.
A cubic desip works out to be 3.24 litres, not a very useful aliquot to base a system on.
Instead, I am going to suggest a cubic half-desip, which is a cube of 5 centi-passus to a side. Eight of these will fit in a cubic desip and each is about 405 mls. This is just under an American pint, so is a handy amount to deal with.
We will call this a “skulp”.
Skulps can be divided into milli-skulps and micro-sculps, each milli-sculp being equivalent to a cube of 5 milli-passus sides. For larger volumes there is the kilo-skulp, eight of which make a cubic passus.
Whereas the liner measurements are based on 3s and 10s the volumes are related by 5s and 8s!

For a unit of mass, we might as well use the mass of a single skulp of water.
We will call this a “skud” so one skulp weighs one skud or 405 gms. A milli-skud is 405 mg and a kilo-skud is 405 kg.
One milli-skulp of water masses one milli-skud and is a cube of 5 milli-passus per side.
One centi-passus cube of water masses eight milli-skud and contains eight milli-skulp
A cubical cup with internal dimensions of half a desip (2.9") provides a handy standard.
For a skulp, fill it up to the line.
To weigh a skud, measure a cup filled with water against its empty twin.
The internal sides of this standard cup are half a desip across. The single standard cup is therefore a useful standard for mass, volume and length! All merchants should have a set!
Beer mugs will hold a skulp, so an improvised standard will seldom be far away.
One skulp is a handy size for a scoop or ladle.
There you have it. A fairly simple but useful measurement system for a fictional realm.

Update

The derivation of a skulp suggests that a passus might be more logically subdivided into twenty parts rather than ten.
I will call this unit a “vingt”. A vingt is approximately a handbreadth. The desip becomes redundant.
There are five centi-passus to a vingt.
For convenience the centi-passus will be renamed “ort”.
A two kupit (twelve vingt) pendulum allows the derivation of a time increment of 0.945 seconds at Earth standard gravity. This is only about 1/20th difference from an actual second, so is effectively the same for most purposes.
Using the system of counting to 144 on the fingers allows the use of seconds in multiples of twelve.
144 seconds is 2.4 minutes.
Twelve such units (a zagier) is 28.8 minutes and 50 zaiger-seconds is 24 hours.
144 “short” seconds is just over two and a quarter minutes. A zagier of short seconds is just over 27 minutes.
One passus is 20 vingts. One kupit is 6 vingts. A skulp is a cubic vingt. A skud is the same weight as a skulp of water.
8.5 to 10 vingts would probably be a good length for the blade of a handy sword. Half a passus the height of a battle shield. A typical spear might be 5 kupits, a light lance 2 passus and a pike 12 kupits.

Summary

  • A passus is a standardized double pace. One passus = 1.48 m, 58", 20 vingt or 100 orts.
  • One kupit is a standardized cubit. One kupit = 44.4 cm, 17.4", 6 vingts or 30 orts.
  • One vingt = 7.4 cm, 2.9" or 5 orts.
  • One ort = 14.8 mm or 0.58".
  • One skulp = 405 mls or 14.25 fl oz. A cubic vingt.
  • One skud = 405 gms or 14.25 oz/0.89 lb. Weight of a skulp of water.
Categories
Phillosoph

1796 British Light Cavalry Sabre

Continuing our brief look at cavalry weapons.
1796 saw the introduction of new patterns of sword for both the light and heavy British cavalry.
The 1796s were the first successful official patterns of sword used by British cavalry.
Today’s blog looks at the 1796 light cavalry sabre. I may write something in the future about the 1796 heavy cavalry sabre but today I will confine my comments to the light cavalry’s weapon.
“1796” in the following passages should be taken to refer to the light cavalry weapon.

Light cavalry in the Napoleonic era were tasked with skirmishing, scouting, foraging and raiding.
In the British Army. light cavalry were designated as either hussars or light dragoons. After the Napoleonic War, Britain raised a number of lancer regiments who were also classed as light cavalry.
In previous blogs, I have mentioned that there was a long running dispute as to whether cavalry sabres should primarily be designed for thrusting or cutting.
The cuirassier sword, 1908 sabre and M1913 Patton Saber are examples thrusting sabres.
The 1796 light cavalry sabre can be taken as one of the seminal examples of cutting sabres.
The 1796 light cavalry sabre was the creation of the British officer John Gaspard Le Marchant and was to be the standard weapon of British light cavalry for much of the Napoleonic Wars.
The 1796 was officially replaced during the 1820s, although some Yeomanry regiments are known to have been using it as late as 1860.

In the further corners of the Empire, the 1796 seems to have served longer.
Le Marchant was inspired by Eastern and Hungarian weapons when designing the 1796, and many Indian fighting men took to the weapon with enthusiasm.
Some 1796 blades are known to have been refurbished with tulwar-syle hilts.
Victorian writers describe Indian soldiers performing fearsome feats of cutting with “old sabres” and many of these were 1796s.
One unit of Indian horsemen would wear shields across their backs and lie along their horses’ necks.
As the enemy’s sword harmlessly hit the shield, they would make a backhand slash at him as he galloped past.
These horsemen replaced their sabre’s metal scabbards with wooden sheathes, having found that the metal items tended to blunt the cutting edge.
“The sword-blades they had were chiefly old dragoon blades cast from our service [the 1796]. The men had mounted them after their own fashion. The hilt and handle, both of metal, small in the grip, rather flat, not round like ours where the edge seldom falls true; they had an edge like a razor from heel to point, were worn in wooden scabbards, a short single sling held them to the waist belt, from which a strap passed through the hilt to a button in front, to keep the sword steady and prevent it from flying out of the scabbard.
The Swords are never drawn except in action.”
Louis Edward Nolan
Several other nations copied the 1796, most notably the Prussians as the 1811 “Blücher” sabre.
The US Dragoons used a copy of the 1796.
Large numbers of swords were exported to the USA during the war between the states and some of these were probably 1796s or Blüchers.
British light infantry also seem to have taken a liking to the 1796.
Rifle, grenadier and light infantry company officers took to using curved swords and some of these may have been 1796s.
The official curved infantry sword that was eventually adopted for these units has a blade that looks identical to the 1796, although the pattern 1803 infantry sabre was a little shorter and lighter at 30-31½" x 1 3/8" -1 ½" and 1 lb 15oz.
The blade of the 1796 light cavalry sabre was 32.5-33" x 1.5" x 3/8", single‑edged except for the last 10", which was double‑edged and hatchet‑pointed.
The guard was 4.75" with 4" long grip area and weight was 2lb 2oz. The guard is a very simple “stirrup” knucklebow.

Handling a 1796 gives me a new found respect and insight into those hussars and light dragoons of centuries past.
The 1796 has its weight towards the point and the grip needs to be grasped quite firmly if it is not going to run away from you.
If you actually try swinging the thing around, you find it has a lot of momentum, so keeping the weapon under control and in hand requires considerable wrist and forearm strength.
The 1796 is supposed to be manipulated by movement of the wrist and shoulder rather than the elbow. Light cavalry must have spent many hours of practice and exercise to master this weapon.
As a weapon for fighting on foot, opinions vary.
Some claim it is a little clumsy, others claim it is perfectly balanced.
I am probably more inclined to the former opinion, but might feel differently if I had put in the months of exercise needed to handle it with more confidence.
In fairness, foot combat is not what it was designed for. It is intended to defend a rider and his horse and to fight from the saddle against both mounted and unmounted enemies.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the 1796 traced its ancestry to weapons that were intended to be used with shields or bucklers.
The debate on whether the cavalry should have a sword primarily designed for thrusting or slashing raged through the 19th century.
Napoleonic French favoured the point, and it is claimed that the thrusts from French horsemen killed more men than the slashing of British Hussars.
Fatally wounding someone and eliminating them from a fight are not actually the same thing, however.
This is best illustrated by two contemporary accounts:
“We always thrust with the point of our sabres, whereas they always cut with their blade which was three inches wide. Consequently, out of every twenty blows aimed by them, nineteen missed. If, however, the edge of the blade found its mark only once, it was a terrible blow, and it was not unusual to and arm cut clean from the body.”
Captain Charles Parquin, “Chassaurs à Cheval of the Imperial Guard”
from Charles Parquin, Military Memoires, ed (1969)
p.56 The World Encyclopaedia of Swords and Sabres. Harvey J S Withers.

“Just then a French officer stooping over the body of one of his countrymen, who dropped the instant on his horse's neck, delivered a thrust at poor Harry Wilson's body; and delivered it effectually. I firmly believe that Wilson died on the instant yet, though he felt the sword in its progress, he, with characteristic self-command, kept his eye on the enemy in his front; and, raising himself in his stirrups, let fall upon the Frenchman's head such a blow, that brass and skull parted before it, and the man's head was cloven asunder to the chin. It was the most tremendous blow I ever beheld struck; and both he who gave, and his opponent who received it, dropped dead together. The brass helmet was afterwards examined by order of a French officer, who, as well as myself, was astonished at the exploit; and the cut was found to be as clean as if the sword had gone through a turnip, not so much as a dint being left on either side of it…..It is worthy of remark, that the French cavalry, in nine cases out of ten, make use of the point, whereas we strike with the edge, which is, in my humble opinion, far more effective. But, however this may be, of one fact I am quite sure, that is as far as appearances can be said to operate in rendering men timid, or the reverse, the wounded among the French were more revolting than the wounded among ourselves. It is but candid to add, that the proportion of severely wounded was pretty equal on both sides;”
Account of a skirmish on the Guadiana River in 1811, during the Peninsular War.
George Farmer. 11th Regiment of Light Dragoons
The Light Dragoon (Ed. George Gleig,, London, 1844) Vol. I, Ch. 4.
The French had a very healthy respect of the effects of 1796.
It could cleave off limbs and inflict other ghastly wounds, and one can’t overlook the psychological effects this had.
One of the functions of light cavalry is to fall upon routed foot, and my personal feeling is that the hussar’s slashing sabre was far more likely to keep a foe panicked than any lance or thrusting sword.
Notably, the instruction manual written for the sabre by Le Marchant illustrates six cuts with the head as the target of choice.

Rules and Regulations for the Sword Exercise for the Cavalry
After the Napoleonic Wars, there were attempts to design a common sword for both heavy and light cavalry.
Nearly all of these prior to the 1908 were slightly curved, single‑edged weapons with double‑edged spear points.
This is a form used for many successful swords over the centuries, but in practice the British-issued weapons never seemed to be satisfactory, there being frequent problems with metallurgy, construction, weight etc.
One officer observed that a charge he saw would have inflicted more damage if the horsemen had been wielding stout sticks!
There was a body of opinion that cavalry might be better armed with a lance and a mace or axe. (Sword, Lance and Bayonet, Charles ffoulkes, p.7)
Nobody appears to have pursued this alternate approach: if they had, we may have seen a return of the horseman’s hammer!
Categories
Phillosoph

1908 British Cavalry Sabre

Continuing the brief discussion on cavalry weapons started yesterday:

The simplistic, popular view of history maintains that the machine gun made cavalry an obsolete anachronism by the First World War.
The truth is not so clear cut. At least as early as the American Civil War, infantry weapons could deliver enough firepower to devastate a cavalry charge at medium range.
The increasing military use of obstacles such as wire and entrenchments were a further problem for cavalry.
Cavalry continued to have an important role for strategic operations such as raiding. Despite the increases in firepower, sucessful cavaly charges were conducted in the American Civil War, Boer War and First World War.
For most of history, the horse was the best cross country system that the military had available.
Tracked vehicles did not start to see wide military usage until the latter part of the First World War.
Wheeled vehicles were dependent on firm ground or roads, and supplies of petrol.
Cavalry forces were a significant component of the Russian Civil War 1917-1922.
During the invasion of Poland a cavalry attack successfully dispersed a battalion of German motorized infantry. German propaganda changed this event to a futile “charge against panzers” that many people still believe actually happened. A good story is always preferable to the truth!
During the Russian campaigns, both the German Army and the SS expanded their cavalry components into a force of several divisions' strength.
By the beginning of the 20th century, cavalrymen mainly used their horses for transport and were encouraged to dismount for combat.
The cavalryman effectively became a mounted rifleman. Reconnaissance, patrol and securing became their most usual duties. Chances for close-combat or shock action against infantry or other cavalry were becoming a rarity.
Recognizing this in 1904, the British Army took the controversial step of issuing both cavalry and infantry with the same pattern of rifle, the SMLE.
For mounted combat, multi-shot revolvers and automatic pistols saw increasing use.
In the latter half of the 19th century, the practice of mounting a sword on the saddle rather than the cavalryman's belt becomes increasingly common.
A dismounted cavalryman no longer expected to need his sword to defend himself.
Given this, it may be asked why cavalry swords were not only issued, but continued to be refined and developed?
While large scale charges had become costly, shock action could still be highly effective against disorganized or retreating infantry or softer targets such as artillery and baggage trains.
A cavalry unit could not outgun a larger formation but correctly applied shock action was capable of proving decisive. Ironically, one of the last great cavalry charges was conducted by mounted infantrymen using bayonets!
This last action reminds us of the opinion of John Gaspard le Marchant, who felt that the weapon employed in the charge was almost irrelevant, as the shock value stemmed from the momentum of the combined horse and rider.
It is also true that military men have a tendency to dwell on previous wars, and were reluctant to accept that horse and cavalryman would soon be obsolete.
In the latter part of the nineteenth century, a debate had raged over whether a cavalry sword should primarily be a cutting or a thrusting weapon.
The British 1908 sabre was a victory of the latter school of thought.
Theoretically, the 1908 sabre was also intended to be capable of cuts but in practice the designers seem to have not worried too much about trying to make it an effective slashing weapon.
The result resembles a sort of “horseman’s rapier”.
The blade is often described as “T-section”.
The forte has a strengthening rib down the back and is fullered to within 8 inches of the point.
The blade becomes narrower and double-edged for the last six inches.
While cuts can be made with a 1908, I feel it is unlikely to bite that deeply.
The grip of the trooper’s model was made of plastic. The officer’s model (the 1912 sabre) uses leather.
Aluminium was considered for the guard material but steel was used on the final pattern.
The grip has a curved shape and features a prominent thumb rest.
For me, one of the most striking features about the grip is its length. The entire hilt is 6¾ inches long.
I believe this feature is intended to allow part of the grip to rest pressing up against the wrist area and counter-balance the blade when the weapon is held in the charge position.
A variant intended for Indian troopers had a shorter grip to accommodate smaller hands.
The point of the blade aligns nicely with the extended arm and the 1908 does not require the wrist and forearm strength needed to manipulate some slashing sabre designs.
In an age when more time had to be spent on marksmanship rather than sword exercise, or when recruits were briefly trained conscripts, this was an advantage.

The 1908 has a blade of 35¼ inches length, 1 inch wide, and 5/16th inch thick.
Weight is 2lb 15¾ oz.
Balance point is 3 inches ahead of the guard.
The balance is such that the 1908 feels lighter than some lighter swords such as the 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre.
The reach of the 1908 has been described as similar to a 1896 pattern cavalry demi-lance held in standard grip.
As a thrusting weapon, the 1908 is used in much the same way as a cavalry lance but is more convenient to carry hung from a saddle.
It proved itself to be a handy weapon, even against lance-armed foes during the Great War.
Many potential adversaries in the colonies still used body armour that had been found to be effective against slashing cavalry weapons.
In many “modern” armies heavy cavalry still wore breastplates.
The thrust of a 1908 with the speed and weight of a horse behind it would counter these protections.

I have heard it suggested that the 1908 “was not designed or intended for sword fighting” but I take that statement with some reservation.
In the early 20th century, the British Army was still policing the Empire and many of its enemies still made effective use of spears, lances and swords.
More modern foes would be expected to use bayoneted rifles.
George Patton’s manual for the similar US 1913 saber shows a number of guard positions intended to protect man and horse.
Interestingly, these are similar to the guards shown for use with a cavalry lance in some other manuals.

The 1913 cavalry saber invented by George Patton had a double-edged blade, although the upper edge was only sharpened for part of its length. It is often described as being influenced or derived from the British 1908.
When the 1913 was being designed a British 1908 and French Cuirassier sword were used as references. (“The Last Cavalry Sword”, by Anthony C. Burke)
Patton studied swordsmanship in France, and French ideas and designs clearly made a contribution. The charge position for the Patton saber has the knuckle-bow and knuckles raised in the French style, hence the difference in grip shape to the 1908.
The manual for the 1913 saber (Saber Exercise 1914) often emphasises that the speed of the horse was an important component of an attack with a saber.
The manual does not bother teaching parries and encourages the trooper to ignore an enemy's blade since “The speed of the horses is such that the enemy will be out of reach before the trooper can make an effective lunge at him (if parrying), whereas if he disregards the other’s saber and lunges at his body, he will, in so doing, force his adversary’s saber aside and transfix him."

The 1908 was a logical design for an age when the cavalry had become mounted riflemen and did not routinely use shock action.
To claim the 1908 was introduced after swords had become obsolete is a nonsense, however. Sword combat was still likely in many parts of the world.
A number of successful sword charges were conducted during the Second World War.
Shock cavalry action may have been used as late as the 1970s in Rhodesia.
How effective the 1908 sabre would have been if introduced a century or more earlier is hard to judge.
Certainly cavalry had made effective use of thrusting swords in the past. The medieval knight had his estoc and the Polish Hussar his koncerz.

An interesting bit of trivia is that the first German killed by a British solider during World War One was killed by a 1908/1912 sabre.

Categories
Phillosoph

French Cuirassier Sword

I was reading about cavalry recently, so some comments on cavalry use and armament may be of interest.
The first topic will be the French cuirassiers and their weapon.

To discuss cavalry, and the French cuirassiers in particular, it is necessary to understand a few basic facts.

While not the most intelligent of animals, most horses are not so stupid that they can be made to charge into a wall, be the wall composed of bricks or men.

An infantry unit in correct formation can withstand a cavalry charge so long as it maintains its integrity, nerve and discipline.

If an infantry formation can be disrupted, either physically or psychologically, it may be shattered by a cavalry charge and either destroyed or routed.

On these simple facts much of the course of human history has often pivoted.

The French cuirassiers were formed by Napoleon in 1801 and were intended for a specific purpose. The cuirassiers were intended to be a heavy cavalry reserve.

Scouting, skirmishing, foraging and screening were the tasks of other cavalry.

Cuirassiers were to be held back until the time and conditions were right for them to deliver a sledgehammer blow.

During the Battle of Waterloo, unsupported cavalry had to try and break British squares and the cuirassiers were deployed too early.

A cuirassier's reason for being was the charge.

The approach of massed charging cuirassiers is reported to have had a mesmerising effect on an enemy.

This was recognised by the cuirassiers themselves, and a gorgon-head is a common decorative motif on their equipment.

The psychological effect of being charged might successfully delay the enemy's adoption of a formation that could resist it.

Although issued with carbines, the cuirassiers often did not bother carrying them or the associated paraphernalia necessary for loading them.

Only 20% of cuirassiers felt inclined to carry pistols.

The cuirassier's attack of choice was the arme  blanche and the massed charge.

During a charge there was not time to fire firearms.

If the charge was successful, the enemy would be broken and routing and the advantage would need to be pressed home with the weapon in hand.

Now that we have some context, we can examine the type of sword used by the cuirassier.

Cavalry charges were made with the point of the sword directed forward like a lance.

The French were also notable advocates of the thrust being superior to the cut or slash.

Marshal Saxe wanted cavalry to be equipped with a triangular-section blade that could not be used to cut.

Not surprisingly the blade of a cuirassier's sword was straight, long and designed for thrusting.

The first swords issued to the cuirassiers had a flat blade and a hatchet point.

Readers familiar with British cavalry swords of this period will know that the 1796  Heavy Cavalry sabre of this time also originally had a hatchet point and was influenced by the Austrian 1775 cavalry sword.

Unlike the British weapons, the French swords had a tapered blade.

The cuirassier sword continued to evolve until it reached the form typified by the Model 1816 French Cuirassier's Sword.

With minor variations, swords similar to the 1816 seem to have armed the cuirassiers well into the 20th century.

The 1816 had a 95 cm long, straight tapered blade with a spear point and double fullers for lightness and rigidity.

Many earlier hatchet pointed swords were reground to have a spear point.

The French favoured the use of the sword point since it was more likely to inflict a fatal wound. This tactic was not without its potential drawbacks, however.

If delivered from a speeding horse, a bad strike could result in a sword wrenched from the hand and left behind buried in a target, leaving the user unarmed on a battlefield.

If attacking a routing enemy, their backs might be protected by their packs and equipment.

In his manual on the 1913 Saber, George Patton advocated thrusting at the flank of a fleeing enemy but the successful timing and execution of this from a speeding horse might prove problematic.

In one of his books, Bernard Cornwell describes cavalry attacking fleeing infantry with a backhand cut at the face as they passed. While not necessarily fatal, the physiological effects of such attacks on a fleeing unit should not be overlooked.

It is also worth remembering that in the chaos of combat, even the best trained man may swing rather the thrust and there will be times when a cut can be made in less time than it takes to position a point for a thrust.

During a close combat there may be insufficent room to bring the point of a long blade to bear.

I have never personally handled a cuirassier sword, but it seems an intelligent design for heavy cavalry.

It has a long reach and the taper of the blade probably helps handling.

The blade appears well designed for thrusting but offering the option of cutting when needed.

Some writers consider the French Model 1816 and the British 1908 as the best cavalry swords of all time,

When Patton was designing the 1913 cavalry saber he submitted a British 1908 and a Waterloo-era cuirassier sabre for reference.

Categories
Phillosoph

The Monkeysphere.

           Last night I was thinking about some aspects of organization. One of the questions I was looking at was what is the optimum size for a task-orientated team? The correct answer to this depends on what the task is, and also who is making up your team. A grouping of individuals with self-discipline and a concept of duty are likely to achieve much more than the equivalent number of hippies. There is an allegedly Muslim trope I once read that explained why four wives are necessary. One is not enough; two will fight and if there are three two will gang up on the third. That does actually describe some social and working groups I have had to deal with. Answers about optimum team size vary: “no more than five”, “between five and seven”, “four to twelve”, “never more than nine” and so on. It does depend on the situation and the “materials” you are working with. Incidentally, army squad size is usually less than fifteen since this is about the limit of people one leader can co-ordinate with his voice before personal radios etc. For similar reasons, military companies tend to be 150 or less since this was the practical number that an officer could control with drums, bugles or flags.
 
           Following these lines of thought I recalled a section in Simpkin’s “Race to the Swift” that mentioned “packs” and “tribes”. This is on page 216 and attributes the idea to an Anthony Sampson. The pack may be up to a dozen and the tribe several hundred, according to Sampson. Simpkin's own observations were that a soldier’s loyalty seems to revolve around more immediate small units such as a tank crew, gun detachment, fire team etc. He also states that for the junior ranks of the British Army the key object of loyalty in achieving coherent behaviour under fire seemed to be the company.
           This obviously brought me back to the idea of Dunbar’s number and I finally got around to reading the “monkeysphere” article by David Wong. It is worth a read.
Categories
Phillosoph

Pimp my Fighting Staff!

Regular readers will know that I am fond of the occasional silly action movie. Pure escapism and sometimes that is not a bad thing.
Some of these movies have a plot where someone (usually with a history of special forces service!) drops through a dimensional gate/wormhole/timewarp/magic portal and finds themselves in a medieval/magical/fantasy realm.
Now, if I found myself in such a scenario what weapons might I request from the local armourer or blacksmith?
I would hope there was some local equivalent comparable to my kukri, of course. A machete or similar short sword such as a hanger would be welcome too.
Many of you will have said a bow, but if I am honest my skill with one is unlikely to be sufficient. Even if it is, one is going to need close combat weapons too.
In other posts I have discussed the merits of a staff weapon of less than my height. Something of about five foot long, or between armpit and brow height.
I have a fighting staff of these dimensions at home and this would be one of the first weapons I grab should I need one.
A good solid five foot wooden pole is quite a formidable weapon in itself if you know what you are doing and have studied the techniques in my book.
It is possible, however, that we can make the weapon harder hitting.

A number of options suggest themselves here.
One is for a short variety of naginata. Effectively a sword blade with a pole handle.
It is tempting to add a hook or two to the blade to let us pull an enemy’s shield aside.
The blade begins to evolve into something like a welsh hook or English bill (above).
A drawback of cutting weapons, of course, is that they have to hit a target edge on.
Weapons like the naginata have an oval section haft to orientate the blade correctly. Similar weapons have a groove cut down the back of the haft to allow the user to determine the correct grip by touch.
High and Low Guards for staff-fighting
My favourite ready position with a staff is a hanging guard, which means that any blows made start from low down.
Making a cutting edge arrive correctly for me would require some extra movement of the wrists for some angles of attack, which goes against my usual KISS approach to most things. Also, if I have to grab the weapon in haste, do I want to worry about hitting the foe with the back or flat of the blade?
Today I am going to explore another option of “pimp my fighting staff”.
Some of you will have encountered the Japanese weapon known as a kanabo. Kanabo come in many shapes and sizes, the most familiar resembling studded baseball bats.
A while back I came across this charming image of a samurai.

Wikipedia describes his weapon as a kanabo.
This particular version of a kanabo looks like a studded fighting staff. It is higher than his armpit but shorter than his brow.
Some sources claim his weapon is all metal, but some ambiguity in translation might exist here since kanabo means “metal stick”.
Some kanabo were all metal, while in some cases the word metal might just allude to the strength of the weapon, much as we say someone had “iron will” or a “fist of steel”.
A studded fighting staff sounds good to me.
Note that the butt of the samurai’s weapon has a useful short spike.
The shaft also broadens at the butt too, so the hand is less likely to slip off. This allows a weapon to the “darted” through a hand to increase reach quickly. This part may need to be made of metal to counterbalance the head end of the staff.
The studded section could probably use some langets to resist sword blades.
The main addition I would like is something like a spearhead or stabling spike at the top end.
This picture of a medieval weapon gives an idea of what is practical. Perhaps something simple and functional resembling a boarding pikehead with langets and a triangular section blade?
A crossguard or “arrest” like a boarspear would be prudent, and if one tine is turned up and the other down like a manji sai/nuntebo, I am sure that such a feature will serve numerous uses, both martial and mundane.
Such a hook can be used like an ice axe to slow a slide down a snowy or muddy slope.
We might as well add a tassel just below the crossguard. A tassel helps divert rain from running down the shaft and can be used to distract an enemy or aggressive animal.
Cogwheel type British trench club
Alternately, a cogwheel-shaped disc mace head below the spike could serve as both an arrest, weapon and rain diverter. Perhaps it could include a gutter channel and spout to direct any liquid away from me.
A small guard or vamplate between the studded and grip section would be a nice feature too. Among other functions this would help divert rain or blood from making the handle slippery.
The Japanese sliding spear grip (kuda) might work with a fighting staff,

Categories
Phillosoph

Sword vs Pike

           A good friend of mine grows increasingly frustrated with facebook. I can sympathise with this. If it were not the only means I currently have of communicating with my girlfriend I suspect I would be spending much less time on it too. On the other hand it does occasionally inspire posts to this blog. Recently I saw an illustration on facebook showing swordsmen fighting against hoplites. Below there were many smug comments about “bringing a sword to a pike fight”. That is exactly what you do do!
           The history of swordsmen beating pikes goes back at least to the Romans. Many of the enemies of the early Roman army used the phalanx and the signature fighting method of the Roman legion grew from combat with such adversaries. Fast forward a few centuries and you have the Spanish “sword and buckler men” or “Rodeleros”. Like the Swiss halberdiers and German Zweihändermen they were used to attack and disrupt pike formations.
           To understand the mechanism here imagine you are holding a spear a couple of metres long. If an enemy steps a pace beyond the point of your spear you can bring your point back an equal distance by moving your hands back. Now suppose you are holding a long pike of five or six metres. The enemy slips past the point of your pike and takes a couple of paces. He is beyond the distance you can easily withdraw your point to stab him! You can try stepping back yourself or shortening your hold on the pike. However, pikes were used in massed formations so the comrades behind you will prevent you being able to make these moves.
           This is exactly what the Romans and Rodeleros would do. Shield and sword allowed them to deflect or block the thrusting pike points and close the distance. Allegedly some Rodeleros would throw themselves to the ground and roll under the points. Halberdiers and Zweihändermen used the same basic idea but different weapons. Some claim the Zweihändermen would simply chop through the pikeshafts before laying into the pikemen.
           To resist such tactics a pike square would include its own contingent of swordsmen or halberdiers.
Categories
Phillosoph

Simplicity and Omelettes

For today’s blog I will make some observations about how some people approach problems and also give you a simple recipe for when you need quick and simple.

I have had the misfortune to work with certain individuals that are quite incapable of doing things simply.

Some have even been considered “negative manpower” in that when they were involved in a job we needed more people to compensate for all the speedbumps they threw in our way and spanners they cast in the works.

It is quite incomprehensible to them that equal or superior results may be achieved by simpler means.

If they were in a fight and their attacker fell down they would probably go to ground themselves and try to apply some fancy holding technique.

Simply stomping on the attacker's leg and running away would never occur.

I am reminded of this since the other day I remembered that we had some eggs that were due to be used up. An omelette would be nice, I decided.

I recalled that somewhere in my collection of recipes was directions to make an omelette.

There was something about waiting 30 seconds and then bringing the edges into the centre, waiting another 30 seconds and doing something else, then another 30 secs and so on.

Sitting at work I decided to see if I could find this method on-line. I websearched “30 second omelette” and to my surprise got methods for cooking omelette in only 30 seconds!

Much mumbo-jumbo seems to have been written about the difficulty of making perfect omelettes!

The following may not be perfect or the best-ever, but I doubt you will be disappointed!

The basic method is this:

Add salt, pepper and three eggs to a bowl and beat with a balloon whisk or fork until mixed evenly.

Heat your frying pan good and hot. I use oil but add a blob of butter if I have some. Let the butter melt and wait until it just browns (or a few moments before!)

Give your eggs a final whisk and in one smooth, quick action pour the mix into the pan.

You now just swirl the mix around the pan and shake the pan to spread it evenly. Mine seem to take a little more than 30 secs but I am a little cautious with the heat.

Watch for when some of the egg is still liquid but cannot be sloshed around over the rest of the omelette. Underside should be golden brown.

This is when to add the filling and fold the sides over. The remaining “wetness” helps glue the flap over and will cook from residual heat while you are sliding the omelette onto the plate.

I like to use garlic salt rather than plain salt.

Some herbs or Worcestershire, soy or tabasco sauce added to the mix is not bad either.

I had a single rasher of bacon to use up so shredded this and fried it in the pan bottom before adding the omelette mix.

While I was writing this I came across a method for cooking an omelette in a bag claimed to be a “kitchen hack”. “Only” takes 13 minutes!

Categories
Phillosoph

A Thought on Christmas

One of the unexpected consequences of no longer being single has been my relationship with my girlfriend’s son. Every day I see young men with their crotches down near their knees and their hats on backwards, bleating about “Respek” while dressing like clowns. It is nice to know that there are some young men of this generation that are smart and polite and will probably achieve great things.
Currently I am reading “Red Mars” by Kim Stanley Robinson. There is a passage in this book where the psychologist reflects that most of his charges can be defined by a combination of the psychological categories of “stabile-labile” and “introvert-extrovert”. He muses that the various combinations such as “introvert-labile”, “extrovert-stabile” etc in fact correspond to the ancient system of four temperaments of choleric, melancholic, sanguine and phlegmatic. Interested in this I passed the passage on to my girlfriend’s son, knowing that it would interest him.

 
He responded with a true pearl of wisdom that I will leave you to enjoy and reflect on this Christmas day:
“Woow, isn't this too much to think?”
I think that is a question we should ask ourselves more often!