Got me new cutlass!

[capnwilliam]

Ye mates are makin' a good case fer a cutlass as part (just that, of course) of a home defense set-up.

OK, that bein' the case...if'n someone wanted to acquire one - sharpened, to do the most good - (from the wielder's perspective)...any recommendations as to a supplier?

No, I don't mean a collectors's piece, but a modern replica.

Sources, prices?

Ain't this a great discussion?

By the way...potential trouble is always around ye, shipmates! Not 30 minutes ago, I got off the streetcar at the corner of St. Charles & Napoleon; a couple of black kids got off in front of me. Four or five others were hanging on the corner. They paid me no mind, but one of the ones in front of me is wearin' a white baseball cap, turned sideways.

One of the corner boys yells, "Hey, white hat: the jacket, man, the jacket!", and they all set off after him.

White Cap decides his jacket is not worth fighting over, but he doesn't strip it off fast enough to suit (bad unintentional pun) the others. He runs as he strips, they pursue, take the jacket, knock him down and kick him a few times (not especially hard) as he falls.

Yeah, I'm thinking that something besides my little .22 North American Arms in me pocket at the time would have been more comforting!

Capt. William

[the Royaliste]

Aye, 'tis why I now live aboard, not on land...

The ghetto rats are always in swivel gun range!

[capnwilliam]

Aye, and they fear the water, as well!

Capt. William

[the Royaliste]

Stopped in my company rigging truck, to use a payphone , as my cell was dead..A bunch 'o homies surround me, wantin' the phone change!..I lets the top 'o me leather jacket fall open, revealin' the inside pocket, complete with .380 auto, and says, " all this for a fuckin' quarter?"..As Leon Russel once said, "It's such a strange world that we are livin' in"

["Broadside" Long]

I've got me cutlass in the bedroom, but I've also got me 9mm sig. Hell, if it's good enough for Navy seals...

Don't forget, Bilgemunkey, two in the chest, one in the head with that 9mm! For protectin' the home, I have a rapier, baskethilt broadsword, and claymore by the door. Another claymore above the hearth and if that doesn't persuade them, a .40 handgun in the boudoir.

Hooah!

Broadside

[capnwilliam]

Sounds like yer well-armed, Mate Broadside! Personally, I'd use the .40 as me first line of defense, and a sword as a back-up.

All ye 9mm and .40 aficionados ought to switch to a .45, methinks; nothing beats that big slug for close range work.

Capt. William

(who doesn't trust ANY auto pistol from a functional reliability perspective, but who regards the .45 ACP as the best manstopper pistol cartridge ever invented)

[the Royaliste]

My working crew agree entirely on the .45 ACP...*However, on a 'I need one shot' basis, I'm really impressed with the ballistics of my .58 cal minnie ball-firin' 'Harper's Ferry' 'lock!..Big-arsed hole it makes, eh?

BUT...in foreign waters, I'll stick to the 'unregistered' swivel gun!...Now wot' 'appened to the cutlass'?..Aye've another French Styled British Naval overdue UPS as we speak!

[capnwilliam]

Aye, Royaliste, if it's serious pistol stopping power ye want, go fer a Civil War era LeMat: a seven (if memory serves me correctly) shot .45 revolver, with a second barrel firing a 20 gauge shotshell.

Invented by a New Orleanian (a druggist, I believe) and popular with cavalry officers. Not much used by the infantry; would give the wearer a permanent tilt to sta'bord!

Capt. William

[capnwilliam]

Shipmates,

Mate Royaliste was kind enough to share with me some pics he has of authentic naval swords of old, and yes, the pics clearly show the blades as not being merely "dull", but as never sharpened.

Royaliste says he has the provenance of these blades (some of which are dress, some working) and knows that they were carried thus in battle, and I will not naysay him. Also, he says, from personal shipboard experience that most of us lack, that sharpening a blade enhances damage from rusting. I have no reason to doubt this.

While I admit that it seems counterintuitive to carry an unsharpened sword as a weapon, I also have to admit that it makes sense to me that even an unsharpened heavy cutlass, swung by a man whose blood is up, is going to have one hell of an impact.

Also, I'm reading a book called CAPTURED BY PIRATES (edited by John Stephens, available from Fern Canyon Press, and highly recommended).

Some of the stories tell of pirates striking prisoners, not especially vigorously, with the flat sides of their cutlasses. The recipients of such ill treatment still suffer injury. Also, there's at least one instance of a pirate's cutlass breaking when he misses his intended victim and smacks the bulkhead instead. Might not sharpening the sword make it more likely that such would occur?

In fine: I'm coming around to the Royaliste's viewpoint here.

Capt. William

[the Royaliste]

The biggest fact missing here is the men. Prisoners were 'treasure', whether pirate, privateer, or naval. Exchanges during wartime were much more important than money, as referenced by Benjamin Franklin on comissioning privateers in the late 1700's. Thus, Navies only wanted dull weapons to cripple, not kill or bleed the opponent. All cutlass blades were heavy to do just that; break arms, shoulders, or just incapacitate. And, for redundancy, it takes extra manpower to help crippled, not dead, opponents..Just as splinters were the main objective of cannon fire, causing men to help victims and thus be removed from the fight, boarding weapons were made to sieze, and take hostage, the enemy. Pirates didn't manufacture blades, nations at war did. Recycled naval weapons were highly sought by all for their quality for the time period.

[John Maddox Roberts]

Mate William:

Got the gladius from Hank Reinhardt, founder of Museum Replicas, around 17 years ago. It's a Del Tin blade, and may be the prototype they sent Hank when he first decided to put a gladius in the catalog. A couple of years ago I had it rehilted in more authentic fashion by Fred Talley of Texas: cowbone grip and 100-year-old hardwood from Fred's granddad's barn. Just holding it tells you why the Romans conquered half the world and held it for centuries.

By the way, the LeMat usually had a 9-round cylinder, plus the shotgun barrel. Fantastic firepower for that era.

Concerning personal defense, I'm a lifelong collector and user of edged weaponry and used to be pretty good at hand-to-hand, but I'm not fooling myself. At 56 I'm not going to duke it out with some angel-dusted 20-year-old and my knees are so bad that I can't run either. Thus the little .357: light, portable and hellishly powerful for its bulk. I carry hideaway edged ware, too, but it's not for duelling. I figure a man should learn that you have a knife after you've already used it on him. I recommend the Spyderco Civilian. Love the big Bowies, but they're not very practical for street use these days.

[John Maddox Roberts]

Mate Bloody Jack:

Even the sharpest sword won't cut through a scabbard if it be proper made. Note that I emphasized the heavy leather and the brass throat and chape on my new cutlass scabbard. Each brass piece is heavy-guage and about 4" long. Thus held, the edge should never touch, much less cut through, the scabbard. In fact, your big danger in a fall is having the hilt break your pelvis should you land wrong. That's why stuntmen have rubber pistols and swords when they do falls.

But, many swordmakers these days supply all-leather scabbards for their swords. These are indeed inadequate, as are wooden scabbards covered with thin leather, if they lack metal throat and chape. Beware of these.

The debate of sharp vs. dull is an old one, and it raged during the 19th century. Find if you can a book titled, as I remember, "Arms of the Victorian Soldier." One chapter deals with this very subject. Capt. Nolan of Light Brigade fame was a proponent of sharps, having seen the incredible damage done by razor-edged swords swung by Rajah's troops in India. These were not mystical Asian blades, either, but for the most part English swords cast off as unfit for service, rehilted and sharpened by Indian artisans. As I recall, the debate was purely for cavalry weapons and cutlasses never came into it.

[Matty Bottles]

Thanks for the updates, gents. I threw the question about a fall out there because I was suddenly reminded of my Paul Bunyan class in Boy Scouts, and how they told us of the dangers of climbing with a hatchet on our belts, and the danger to our tender young loins. But I guess the question is obvious, upon reflection: if the scabbard isn't going to protect you, why wear it?

But that begs another question: the rolling deck, ships shuddering from gunfire and collisions, would make it seem as though accidental slashings and stabbings would be inevitable. I don't mean to impugn the skill of those sailors of yesteryear, or imply they cannot handle their weapons, but battle is chaotic. I remember another time from boy scouts, when we were trying to clear a logjam on the Nippersink River, and a developementally disabled young man, who probably should not have participated in that particular project, rather carelessly waved his bow saw around, balancing on a log, and when another log drifted into it, he lost his balance and accidentally sawed his neighbors head. The neighbor was okay, of course, and there is a huge difference between a professional fighting sailor and this crazy-ass kid, but still.....

[Deacon Frye]

... The debate of sharp vs. dull is an old one, and it raged during the 19th century. Find if you can a book titled, as I remember, "Arms of the Victorian Soldier." One chapter deals with this very subject. Capt. Nolan of Light Brigade fame was a proponent of sharps, having seen the incredible damage done by razor-edged swords swung by Rajah's troops in India. These were not mystical Asian blades, either, but for the most part English swords cast off as unfit for service, rehilted and sharpened by Indian artisans.  As I recall, the debate was purely for cavalry weapons and cutlasses never came into it.

Captain Nolan asked himself how this could be, that at Villiers en Couche three squadrons of English Dragoons, charging through a body of European cavalry, lose but seven men, four of whom were only wounded; while against Asiatic cavalry two squadrons coming into collision with the enemy but once only lose 46 men.

He determined to see what sort of cavalry these were that had shown such prowess, and had caused us so remarkable a loss; and he took the first opportunity that offered of visiting an encampment of them. He found them small, mean-looking men, mounted upon small, mean-looking horses, and armed, to his great surprise, with our much-abused sabres of the old pattern - the old regulation Light Dragoon sabre - of which it was said, I recollect, when they were in use in our service, that they never cut at all, but only bruised an enemy. The Asiatics, however, considered them (when sharpened as they had them) as the best weapons in the world. They had altered them in some respects, however. They had accommodated the size of the hilt to their smaller hands; and there was this remarkable change from the original shape of the hilt, - that whereas when used by us they had a round grasp, the Sikhs had substituted a square one, which not only enabled them to hold the weapon more firmly, but enabled them to apply the edge of the blade exactly to a nicety; so that in this way, they (literally) lopped off, at one shave, heads and arms, wherever they struck, the blades being as sharp as a razor, and kept so by being, when not in use, thrust into a close-fitting wooden sheath, instead of the rattletrap steel thing we use, which turns every blade. Let us have some such cavalry light men as 'Jacob Omnium' recommends, armed with swords with square-hilted grasps, and sharpened as a razor, upon horses from 14 hands 2 inches to 15 hands high, and as near the Arab as possible, and they will give a good account of the enemy's heavies, you may depend upon it, except, it may be, in a confined space, as in a street, where weight will tell, as it told before Waterloo, in the charge of the French Cuirassiers against the gallant 7th Hussars, which were brought up against them, perhaps unadvisedly, by Lord Anglesey, when the army retired from Quatre Bras to Waterloo.

From a letter to the editor of the London Times, April 5, 1855.

The question as to whether (American) Civil War sabers were sharpened or not is often debated as well. Their seems to be a widespread notion that they were not, even among collectors. I've seen it stated that it was a court martial offense to do so. Yet there is eye-witness, documented evidence that those actually used in battle were in fact sharpened.

I should note that none of this necessarily applies to naval swords. Furthermore, the above indicates that the English at the time weren't particularly keen on a keen edge.

In particular, Royaliste: I wouldn't want you to get the notion that I am doubting your hands-on experience.

I'd be very interested to hear more about your swords.

[John Maddox Roberts]

Thank'ee, Deacon, I think that's the very quote I was trying to remember. As I recall, there was much grumbling in the papers in those days, not only about the poor swords the soldiers were armed with, but the exceedingly poor training they got with them. This, too may account for the poor performance of the sabers. It takes a swordsman to use a sword properly. Apparently, the Indians considered aggressiveness and a sharp sword more important than formal training. They put the sharpened sword into a wooden scabbard and drew it only to fight. Their saying was "A sharp sword will cut in any hand." Luckily, we have the peaceful leisure to debate these things. It's no longer a matter of life or death for us.

[BILLY BONES]

I had once dealt with many original Civil War cavalry sabers, and I never found any originals sharpened for use. The cavalry saber was for breaking collar bones etc., or stabbing with the point, so that it could be pulled out as the rider passed his victim, HOWEVER, Gen. N.B. Forrest, for one, had his men sharpen the saber's edge, so there's about a thousand sharpened sabers right there. I'm not sure there's anyway one could prove one way or the other as far as pyrate cutlasses. Seems to me pyrates were pretty independant cusses, and would do what he liked with his cutlass.

[John Maddox Roberts]

I'll share wi' yeone of my most treasured memories: Back in '73-'74 when I was living in Scotland, I haunted antique stores. While my wife looked at furniture, I looked at swords. Every store had a few of them, usually in an umbrella stand. The vast majority were Victorian era ceremonial swords. In one particular store, the swords were laid out on a long table. I hefted a dozen or so of the usual 19th century weapons suitable only for saluting the Queen on the reviewing stand. Then I picked up one that was different. It seemed to be 19th century, but it had the balance of a true fighting sword. It had a rudimentary basket, a slightly curved blade with a crow-quill point section, and the remnants of a sharpened edge. I knew that this had once been a fighting sword. It looked vaguely German or Hungarian, but I can't be sure. Reluctantly I laid it down since I was too broke to think of buying it. Two old Scottish ladies were in the room looking over stuff and they came up to me. One of them said, (imagine a fine Scottish brogue), "Was there something different aboot tha' last swerd?" I said something like, "Yes, these others are ceremonial swords, but this one is a real fighting sword. " She replied, "We thought so. Ye were lookin over these others, then ye picked up that one, and of a sudden ye looked so dangerous!"

This remains one of my favorite memories.

[El Pirata]

Pics???

[John Maddox Roberts]

Here's the best I can do:

go to:

www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com

click "enter"

click "swords and armor"

under Naval Swords hit "click here for pictures"

my cutlass is the "17th-18th Century Dutch Cutlass."My Webpage

[Deacon Frye]

... I'm not sure there's anyway one could prove one way or the other as far as pyrate cutlasses. Seems to me pyrates were pretty independant cusses, and would do what he liked with his cutlass.

There was a cutlass in a chest reported to have belonged to Thomas Tew in the Driscoll Library collection. They were both auctioned off at Christie's a while back.

It would be interesting to know if that cutlass was sharpened.

Red Maria knows more about this.

[capnwilliam]

Great story, John! It's sometimes interesting how supposedly weapons-dumb people say profound things about same.

Reminds me of the time I was tryin' to teach a young lady the difference betwen a revolver and an auto pistol. I thought she was getting it; then she pointed to a picture of a Luger and said, "THAT'S a revolver!" I said. no it isn't; but why do you say so? And her response was, "because the front part (the barrel) looks like a revolver".

And indeed it does!

Another interesting thing is that, in my opinion, a supposedly gun-dumb woman will generally pick a better pistol for personal protection than a man. Why? She usually opts for something "small and cute", like a .25 automatic. The guy generally selects something like a .45, .357, or high capacity 9mm.

Who has the better weapon for protection? She does. Why? His gun's too big and heavy to carry, so it's at home when he needs it. Hers is with her.

Capt. William

[capnwilliam]

You sound pretty up on ACW sabres, Billy Bones. Did ye once work around same in a museum or antiques store?

Capt. William

[Hawkyns]

Ahoy, Mates. Sorry to be out of the discussion, I was out of town for the weekend and spent today flying back through the latest storm.

I don't think there's a huge disagreement about sharp or not. I think we are all dealing with different items and areas of expertise. My knowledge is 16th/17th century, for the most part, when the sword was a much greater part of a fighting man's armament. I would not dispute the knowledge of the 18th/19th century people who say they weren't sharpened, it's not my field. Hangers were certainly sharpened in the mid 17th century. They were withdrawn from general issue to English Civil War armies since they were being used for menacing civilians and chopping wood, far more than they were used on the battlefield. That indicates sharp, at least in some form.

Taking all that's been said so far, I would deduce that as the sword became less relied upon, and soldiers and sailors became less trained with the weapons, then the blades were less likely to be sharpened. It is always difficult to find a rule that holds true for 3 centuries when it comes to weapons.

Hawkyns

[capnwilliam]

Aye. very goode points, Mate Hawkyns. I remember reading somewhere that in the late 17th century American colonial militia units, every man was expected to furnish his own sword as well as musket (matchlocks, I'm sure).

But by the time of the American revolution, I daresay that it was a rare colonial's home that would have had a sword in it!

Capt. William

[Deacon Frye]

Aye. very goode points, Mate Hawkyns. I remember reading somewhere that in the late 17th century American colonial militia units, every man was expected to furnish his own sword as well as musket (matchlocks, I'm sure).

But by the time of the American revolution, I daresay that it was a rare colonial's home that would have had a sword  in it!

Capt. William

Matchlocks had essentially been dropped from use by mid-17th century, capnwilliam. They were abandoned here even earlier than in Europe. Peterson gives the figures and dates in his Arms and Armor in Colonial America, I believe.

Swords were still quite common at the time of the revolution. Many if not most of the militia muskets lacked bayonets, and it was often a requirement that the soldier carry a sword, or had the choice of a sword or tomahawk. The use of hangers by British and European infantry troops had persisted almost until this time as well, and was just being phased out.

I also think Hawkyns has a good point.