Wearing a basket hilt.?.

[kilted hillbilly]

Well I've only been to one Scottish festival, but from a newcomers view I can say that the guys that wore swords were of two classes-1. Those that were in full regemental garb or early Highlander attire looked way cool. 2. Those that carried the biggest hollywood type pig-stickers and only halfway tryed to comlete the look came off as bad fantasy movie goobers.Not to pick on the LARPers, but it looked out of place.Just my humble opinion,and not worth much, but if you are going to wear a sword please do it justice.

[Drac]

A squad of Argylls fixed bayonets and charged a group of Iraqi insurgents back in 2003.

In terms of naval cutlasses, I always think of the movie (and novel) The Sand Pebbles, where Chief Franks brandishes a cutlass and a M1911 during battle drill on the USS San Pablo. Cutlasses were frequently used by China Sailors, along with BARs.

T.

I've been trying to find it but I seem to remember there being international laws on the use of blades in battle. I can't find it but someone a while back trying to explain why I couldn't get a cutlass made out of decent steel said that they were classified as inhumane and that was why all US military sabers were garbage.

Jim

[Jock Scot]

"Mad Jack" Churchill was more than happy to use a sword and a bow and arrow in WW2.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I've been trying to find it but I seem to remember there being international laws on the use of blades in battle. I can't find it but someone a while back trying to explain why I couldn't get a cutlass made out of decent steel said that they were classified as inhumane and that was why all US military sabers were garbage.

Jim

As far as I am aware, there is no international convention banning the use of edged weapons in warfare. As to the problem concerning the quality of the blades in most military swords... well, it's a matter of cost. Good steel goes into good swords, and good swords cost money. A standard issue military pattern Highland broadsword will cost close to US $1,500 from Crisp & Sons in the UK, or US $150 on ebay for a similar sword made in China. Frankly most customers don't care about quality-- they merely want a "wall hanger" or something to LARP about with.

[ohiopiper]

I served on the Ships Defense Force aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson (CVN-70), an aircraft carrier. Our RSLs (Ready Service Locker) help shotguns, M-16s, M-9s and M1911s, as well as cutlasses. I do not recall a single time of anyone choosing to grab a cutlass instead of a firearm!

A real naval cutlass is indeed a functional weapon. The issue is, as MacMillan of Rathdown states, the cost is prohibitive in making a good blade that is both hard enough to use and yet flexible enough to not shatter. Most of the cutlasses we had in store were old, more than 50 years in most cases. Steel, brass and leather. They had a maker (all were Ames manufacturing) and date stamped on the blade just above the handguard.

[Zardoz]

I dunno about broadswords or cutlasses, but I can assure you there are places in the world where a machete is a standard sidearm.

[Geoff Withnell]

I've been trying to find it but I seem to remember there being international laws on the use of blades in battle. I can't find it but someone a while back trying to explain why I couldn't get a cutlass made out of decent steel said that they were classified as inhumane and that was why all US military sabers were garbage.

Jim

I assure you that turns out not to be the case. ColdSteel makes milspec swords that are "combat ready", among other suppliers.

Geoff Withnell

[Tobus]

I've been trying to find it but I seem to remember there being international laws on the use of blades in battle.

Being a collector and enthusiast of militaria from the last century, I often find that there is a lot of confusion on this subject. As best I can tell, here is the situation:

In the 1899 Hague Conference (Hague II, Annex, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 23) and again in the 1907 Hague Conference (Hague IV, Annex, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 23), it was declared against the rules to employ weapons that cause "unnecessary suffering", among other things. This is where, for example, the prohibition on expanding (i.e. lead) balls/bullets came from, and is why signatory nations are supposed to only use full metal jacket projectiles. They pass clean through, and the intent is that if the shot is not fatal, the wound is easier to close and heal than one which is caused by an expanding/flattening projectile.

Anyway, as I understand it, the Hague Conferences with their language on "unnecessary suffering" also put an end to tri-form or cruciform bayonets that leave jagged wounds which are hard to close. So all bayonets after that were simple blade-type bayonets. And again, it only applied to signatory nations, when fighting each other. Some nations (like the Soviet Union, as evidenced by their WWII Mosin-Nagant rifles) still used spike bayonets in tri-form and cruciform shapes.

However, blades themselves have always been considered a necessary instrument of war, and have never been banned or restricted, to my knowledge. Pretty much every military out there still uses bayonets and fighting knives as a last-resort weapon for close combat. The only reason swords are no longer used is because they're obsolete.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Being a collector and enthusiast of militaria from the last century, I often find that there is a lot of confusion on this subject. As best I can tell, here is the situation:

In the 1899 Hague Conference (Hague II, Annex, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 23) and again in the 1907 Hague Conference (Hague IV, Annex, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 23), it was declared against the rules to employ weapons that cause "unnecessary suffering", among other things. This is where, for example, the prohibition on expanding (i.e. lead) balls/bullets came from, and is why signatory nations are supposed to only use full metal jacket projectiles. They pass clean through, and the intent is that if the shot is not fatal, the wound is easier to close and heal than one which is caused by an expanding/flattening projectile.

Anyway, as I understand it, the Hague Conferences with their language on "unnecessary suffering" also put an end to tri-form or cruciform bayonets that leave jagged wounds which are hard to close. So all bayonets after that were simple blade-type bayonets. And again, it only applied to signatory nations, when fighting each other. Some nations (like the Soviet Union, as evidenced by their WWII Mosin-Nagant rifles) still used spike bayonets in tri-form and cruciform shapes.

However, blades themselves have always been considered a necessary instrument of war, and have never been banned or restricted, to my knowledge. Pretty much every military out there still uses bayonets and fighting knives as a last-resort weapon for close combat. The only reason swords are no longer used is because they're obsolete.

Socket bayonets (often with flat, or "sword" blades) were developed because they were easy to attach to the musket. Slip them over the barrel, give them a turn and your Brown Bess musket is now a spear. Since a spear is primarily a thrusting weapon a needle-like, triangular, blade was less likely to bend or break in battle. Hence most 18th and early to mid 19th century bayonets were of this form.

By the 1840s advances in blade manufacture, as well as in precision engineering, made possible the flat bladed, lug-locking bayonet of sword or knife pattern. These were less expensive to manufacture, could be made to much tighter tolerances, and provided the soldier with a "multi-tool" that could be used effectively for a variety of tasks, ranging from camp chores to combat. By the 1870s virtually all of the major European nations had abandoned the triangular bayonet, as had those foreign armies that had adopted Mauser or bolt action rifles.

During the Second World War the British manufactured and issued a large number of "spike" bayonets. These were steel rods approx 1/4-inch in diameter, cut on the diagonal to provide a point.

[creagdhubh]

I have a regimental style brass basket hilt broadsword, with the steel scabbard. I have also the Regimental Cross belt for my Pipers Uniform. But how do you put them together? The sword scabbard does not fit the built in frog on the cross belt, and has those 2 metal rings.. Is their some sort of latigo belt or something I am suppose to have? Please help... Pictures would be great....
L. Rob MacLean

Are you a reenactor? I agree with Scott's initial comment.