Hutton's "Cold Steel"

[KeithFarrell]

Last night SG1 had their first proper formal military sabre lesson and I really enjoyed it (they seemed to also!). It makes a stark contrast to our normal sessions working with Fiore's weapons.

As an introduction I am showing a sort of generic style that covers some of the common features between Henry Angelo, Henry Charles Angelo, Burton and Hutton. It's surprisingly difficult to do, because of the differences between the sources, which of course must be mentioned for context. At this stage however I want to give a foundation of basic generic British military sabre, so that we have a sort of 'average' foundation from which to look at individual manuals. Some of the class have read Hutton's Cold Steel, though for various reasons I would rather steer clear of that source in classes. The first source we are likely to concentrate on is the army regulation Sword Exercise for Infantry of 1845 (by Henry Charles Angelo), as all manuals written after 1845 in Britain refer to, criticise or build on these (Burton's work is basically designed to replace them). They were also the standard work for British officers (and Police!) until 1895 when a new sword type and a new fencing system were introduced.

The class has requested that we again cover sabre next week, so I will be bringing along a variety of infantry officer's sabres (British, French and Swiss), to show the variations between about 1845 and 1890, as well as my original copy of the 1845 army regulations for sword exercise.

May I ask why you don't want to use Hutton's Cold Steel as a main source for your lessons? I'm just starting to get into the sabre manuals, so I'm not yet sure which manuals are good to work with and which ones I shouldn't worry about much.

[admin]

First of all, I do recommend people read Cold Steel as a large and comprehensive introduction to military sabre fencing. I do like many features of his style, such as keeping the body weight quite central or forward (like Burton), rather than the back-weighted stance that had been popular in earlier decades. I like that he (and Burton) have tierce as a main guard, rather than seconde as in some earlier sources.

My personal reasons for not liking it as a core source for practice are several and I fully admit that some of them are fairly subjective and superficial.

I dislike some of Hutton's drills and recommended transitions. I dislike that he uses the low leg parries septime and octave (I prefer the slip and countercut of Burton) and that he uses sixte (known in some backsword treatises as quarte in tierce). I dislike his use of the 'medium' guard.

I dislike that he specifies that he is catering his system towards a very light sabre, at a time when many officers serving in the field were ordering heavier and more robust swords as a result of experiences fighting Dervishes with broadswords, Afghans with poulwars and Indians with tulwars. I find Hutton's manner of holding and moving the sword to be far more appropriate to the use of a light sword than a more robust one - in short, I find it a bit too much like Italian dueling sabre.

It is a late source for cut and thrust infantry sabre (1889) and I think it is quite a lot influenced by Italian dueling sabre methods, which are divergent to military sabre of the period up until about 1880 in my opinion. In 1892 the British armed forces adopted a new style of sword blade which was primarily a thrusting blade (it is still the standard regulation blade for British officers), having only very minimal capabilities in cutting*. Accordingly, in 1895 the British Army adopted an entirely new method of fencing to go with this new sword - this method was devised by the Italian fencing master Masiello:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Infantry-Sword- ... 1847348556
Hutton's work of 1889 can only therefore have really been relevant for line infantry officers for 3 years, except as a general study. Many of his techniques would have been of limited or no use with the new regulation sword.

I believe that the dueling style of the late-19thC Italian masters (which I believe influenced Hutton) is more appropriate to the salle than the battlefield. I believe the British and French methods of the mid-19thC are more appropriate to the battlefield and are more versatile. I also believe that a thrust-centric system (as per the 1895 regulations) is a big mistake for battlefield use. Remember that during the Napoleonic Wars infantry officers who saw the most hand-to-hand combat were quick to abandon to the spadroon and adopt the sabre. This led to the war department being forced to invent a standard regulation sabre for infantry officers (the 1803 pattern) and when a new model of infantry sabre was design in 1822 it was universally agreed that it should be a cut-and-thrust sabre. In every major conflict of the Victorian period of expansion (Crimea, Indian Mutiny, Afghan wars, Maori wars, Ashanti wars, Sudan, Zulu wars etc) we see officers in the field ordering more robust and more warlike swords. This led to Reeves' 'patent tang' and Wilkinson's rigourous strength-tests. I do not believe designing a system for 'light sabre' therefore is of optimum military application.

* Views on this blade by officers were varied - some liked it, some disliked it. What is perhaps notable though is that there were very few occasions for swords to be used after 1892. By the 1890's semi-automatic pistols were becoming the main sidearm of officers, bolt-action rifles came into use (replacing breech-loading rifles) and machineguns accompanied every main field force. The Boar War and 1898 Omdurman campaigns saw very little sword use. In contrast, even up until the 1880's sword were pretty important, because despite officers having pistols and revolvers, these were limited to 5 or 6 shots maximum and they often jammed or misfired (brass cartridges only became common in the late 1870's).

[KeithFarrell]

Thank you for that explanation, I find it very interesting. So "Cold Steel" is more of an intriguing manual to be studied at the side, but should not really be a core text for a battlefield sabre discipline? If you could recommend a few texts for a battlefield sabre discipline, which would they be?

I find it very difficult to memorise the names of the different guards for sabre... I think I'm going to have to resort to an evening sitting down with flashcards!

[admin]

Well lots of people would disagree with me and say that Cold Steel is a great manual to study .
Personally I would go for a book like this first and work through all of the works contained:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Highland-Broads ... 553&sr=8-1

Then go to Burton's sword exercice of 1876. Then any other manuals you fancy the sound of.
The great thing about late-18th to late-19thC swordsmanship is that there are loads of manuals surviving and most of them have a lot in common with each other, so once you've got to grips with a couple you'll find all the others quite quick to get to grips with as well. Then you can take what you like and leave what you don't.

For example, some manuals say to entend your thumb up the back of the grip, others say not to or only when thrusting, and others just don't mention what to do. This morning I was reading a sword manual for Indian cavalry from 1911 and it said (I paraphrase): 'put your thumb up the back of the grip or don't if you don't want to'.. That is essentially my view.

To a large extent I would say with 19thC sabre manuals that it actually doesn't matter that much which one you start with (though avoid Angelo's 1830 cutlass drill to start with, as that is quite odd). Some of the American manuals are very good and very similar to Anglo-French method.

There are only five important guards for sabre:
Prime(1st)/Inside hanging - guarding your chest side, point down
Seconde(2nd)/Outside hanging - guarding your sword-arm side, point down
Tierce(3rd)/Outside - guarding your sword-arm side, point up
Quarte(4th)/Inside - guarding your chest side, point up
St.George/Head guard - held horizontally (more or less) over the forehead

Each of these guards can be held with the point more or less extended towards the enemy, as you prefer, with the sword-arm more extended or closer to the body. Each of these guards can be held higher or lower in parrying (leading to low Prime or high Tierce for example). In parrying, the opponent's blade should normally be stopped with the base (forte) of your blade, as close to the hilt as possible.

Some manuals include point-down parries for the legs (septime(7th) and octave(8th)), others omit these and suggest that when someone cuts at your leg you simply move it back (slip it) and hit them in the head or arm in the same time.

[admin]

Only slightly related, but this video made from a French flick-book of 1880 is really interesting (posted thanks to Chris Amberger):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuYJU9OugZg

[Carletto]

I'm not yet sure which manuals are good to work with and which ones I shouldn't worry about much.

There is sabre for all tastes, one cannot say "absolutes". Each instructor has his pet manuals and styles and can bring sound reasons for that. I, for example, like duelling sabre and salle styles even less than Matt does. My fav. are the 1798 Taylor, the 1686 Marcelli and the 20th century Sweedis system taught by Andreas. Marcelli and Taylor work in a vary similar way and Taylor claims he got his cutting method from the Austrians, this cutting method pre-existed in rapier manuals of the 17th century. The Sweedish system is reminiscent of renaissance and baroque age footwork, that's why I like it. So, basically, I look as backward as I can.

[John H]

That was a nice run down that had many of the same thoughts I have on Cold Steel, I tend to think you can hardly call it a military manual when you are taught how to acknowledge a hit.

My preferred works are Taylor and the 1819 “regulations and instructions for Cavalry Sword Exercise” as it adds in a whole section on foot training that I believe was taken from someone else (I can’t remember who at this point.) I’ll have to read Burton this weekend. Like Carletto I tend to like the ‘older’ ones better as they are written at a time people used the sword as a weapon rather than a rod of command.

[The Salmon Lord]

The reality of "battlefield sabre" techniques is they start with "get on your horse" . The sabre was not an infantry weapon as such by the C19th. The weapon of an officer as Dr Thursten puts it so well is 100 men with muskets. What we are describing is using this side weapon in an affair of swords other than the battlefield.

As to Cold Steel what it has to reccomend it is that it is very well written and laid out, and provides clear pictures of what the guards and parries are. Its by no means perfect, I'm not sure I 100% agree with any one published sabre system. For example I dont like the low sixte it is the very parry of satan and is not taught in my school. However I unlike Matt do like the low parries such as Seconde and Septime. My reasoning is that slipping is very difficult to do when recovering from a lunge.

[KeithFarrell]

Thank you very much everyone. I shall take this on board, and will start having a look at some of these texts when I get the chance.

[admin]

The reality of "battlefield sabre" techniques is they start with "get on your horse" . The sabre was not an infantry weapon as such by the C19th.

Ian, sorry but this is claptrap.
Infantry officers fought 99% of the time on foot and 19thC history is full of examples.

The weapon of an officer as Dr Thursten puts it so well is 100 men with muskets.

I strongly suggest that you read Swordsmen of the Raj or Sword Fighters of the British Empire if you have not done so already. Officers frequently took part in skirmishing, guard, reconnaisance and other duties with only a handful of men - far more often than they ever stood behind their men on battlefields. The various colonial wars of the British Empire are literally full of examples of officers fighting alongside their men, with revolver, carbine and sword. In the Indian Mutiny of 1857 literally hundreds of British soldiers, men and officers, were wounded by edged weapons and took part in hand-to-hand fighting with bayonet and sword. Officers also famously used their swords during the Sikh wars, Afghan wars and Sudan campaign. Swordsmanship on foot was a very real and practical skill for Victorian officers.
Hutton, of course, was briefly in the cavalry and did not (as far as I know) ever see active service. Unlike Burton. Hutton was primarily an academic fencer, not a military one. None of his manuals were adopted by the military.

As to Cold Steel what it has to reccomend it is that it is very well written and laid out, and provides clear pictures of what the guards and parries are.

I agree - this is it's best feature.

I'm not sure I 100% agree with any one published sabre system.

I am the same, though there are many manuals I have not looked at yet.

[knirirr]

Just for clarification, I have never said that infantry officers did not fight with their swords. What I did say is that is is not their primary purpose for being there; they are there to command their men. Unfortunately, the enemy are usually less than keen in letting them do so unmolested.

[admin]

Indeed. And in colonial wars the enemy were frequently much more numerous. Officers often led from the front (in small regular actions and battles) and suffered higher casualties per capita than the rank and file.
By and large I suspect that in many actions it was the senior NCOs who played the largest part in directing the men (and senior NCOs also carried swords and revolvers, like officers).