Questions about the Heavy Artillery Sword Model 1832

Joined
May 12, 2018
So, I have seen in written that the Model 1832 Heavy Artillery Sword was used by Infantry NCOs pre-War, and also Musicians, as the later NCO and Musician Swords were not yet adopted. I know the CSA used some for much the same purpose during the war. Did the Union ever issue the weapon outside of Heavy Artillery units, say among early war volunteers or state controlled units?

Also, are there any texts, prewar, postwar, confederate or union that describe the theroretical use of these swords in combat? All manuals I have found thus far cover only the use of the later NCO swords, and while I know the old 1832 gladius wasn’t exactly the most practical battlefield weapon, neither was their successor and I cannot imagine that some clever person would not have written about how it was intended to be used.

I honestly wonder why the earlier pattern sword did not continue as a regulation NCO weapon outside of Heavy Artillery units, since although it was an imperfect sword it better answered the need of brush clearing, entrenching, and other utility implement than the later NCO swords which where based on the infamously lackluster spadroons of the British and French. Most probably it was a fashion thing, as it was based on the gentleman’s sidesword.
 
Their main value seems to have been being used to clear brush around artillery positions. There were not many sidearms issued to field artillery units as when they were firing the guns; they tended to get in the gunner's way. NCO's were issued pistols, but they were most often used to put down wounded horses. Even today, when you see pictures of field artillery units in combat; you don't see sidearms or long guns around unless they are part of the unit's security force. Also, the Model 1841 Naval Cutlass was modeled on the 1832 Artillery Sword (which was based on the Model 1816 French Foot Artillery Sword) with the addition of a handguard.
 
Last edited:
Rich, interesting note on the cutlass, I have seen the Ames cutlass and it is quite similar, which no doubt was an influence on the decision to issue them. Were said naval vessels involved in the Western Rivers campaign? A lot of Army units got detailed serve aboard river ships, and I wonder if those men were given the swords for a similar purpose. I shall look into Navy manuals to see if there are any cutlass forms I could practice.

Bob, thanks for the info. I think I might not have been totally clear in that I was talking of Infantry NCOs, who pre-1840 did no have a sword of their own and thus used the 1832 Foot Artillery Sword instead. Such usage would have been mostly a Mexican-American War and prior thing. I was wondering if that particular tradition carried over into early war or milita units on the Union, as it clearly did on the Confederate side.

It is interesting to note that the post Civil War “Entrenchment/Hunting Knife” of the trapdoor Springfield days has a suspiciously similar blade shape to the model 1832. I would contend this is not entirely accidental, and that the 1832 might have also seen use as an entrenching tool at some point, the aforementioned knife being the first official tool for such work and the typical bayonet being often unofficially detailed for such work during the war. Just a pet theory of mine, and frankly I wouldn’t want to dig a hole with any of the three mentioned instruments!
 
Rich, interesting note on the cutlass, I have seen the Ames cutlass and it is quite similar, which no doubt was an influence on the decision to issue them. Were said naval vessels involved in the Western Rivers campaign? A lot of Army units got detailed serve aboard river ships, and I wonder if those men were given the swords for a similar purpose. I shall look into Navy manuals to see if there are any cutlass forms I could practice.

Bob, thanks for the info. I think I might not have been totally clear in that I was talking of Infantry NCOs, who pre-1840 did no have a sword of their own and thus used the 1832 Foot Artillery Sword instead. Such usage would have been mostly a Mexican-American War and prior thing. I was wondering if that particular tradition carried over into early war or milita units on the Union, as it clearly did on the Confederate side.

It is interesting to note that the post Civil War “Entrenchment/Hunting Knife” of the trapdoor Springfield days has a suspiciously similar blade shape to the model 1832. I would contend this is not entirely accidental, and that the 1832 might have also seen use as an entrenching tool at some point, the aforementioned knife being the first official tool for such work and the typical bayonet being often unofficially detailed for such work during the war. Just a pet theory of mine, and frankly I wouldn’t want to dig a hole with any of the three mentioned instruments!
There was a slight difference between the cutlass blade and the artillery blade, the cutlass didn't have fullers (longitudinal grooves in the blade). Also, the rather thin, frail blade of the musician/nco/surgeon's sword had also been used pre 1860 or so on the officer's sword and at Harper's Ferry when Marine Lieutenant Israel Green tried to impale John Brown, his sword tip hit Brown's belt buckle and folded double-Green then used the hilt to beat Brown over the head and force him into submission. Later, the heavier bladed Model 1850 Officer's Sword was adopted.
 
Last edited:
The Model 1832 Artillery Short Sword (this one made by Ames in 1834)
IMG_1245.jpg
Short-sword.jpg
 
I suspect that the "clearing brush" argument is an urban legend. Here's why: units had as part of their TO&E axes, picks, and mattocks. Their presence in a company negates the need to use the sword for cutting brush. It also assumes that the chain of command allowed such misuse of government /public property to happen. And I just don't see a battery commander worth his salt allowing that to happen.

If anyone knows of an historical account that can prove the brush story one way or another, please post it.
 
I suspect that the "clearing brush" argument is an urban legend. Here's why: units had as part of their TO&E axes, picks, and mattocks. Their presence in a company negates the need to use the sword for cutting brush. It also assumes that the chain of command allowed such misuse of government /public property to happen. And I just don't see a battery commander worth his salt allowing that to happen.

If anyone knows of an historical account that can prove the brush story one way or another, please post it.
It's not an historical account by any means, but I have a dug one that was dug in front of an artillery position where you may suppose that brush may have been that needed clearing for a open field of fire. Also, the digging/cutting equipment was usually back in the battery wagons and may not have been available when a battery first went into position. Regardless of how the were used, they were an obsolete and reasonably useless piece of equipment (unless you were a Roman Legionaire or a gladiator).
 
Last edited:
It sounds like it was found in front of a field artillery position, not a heavy/siege artillery one. Not to be mean or anything, but the sword and the site may not be of the same time frame; one could be earlier than the other. We'll never know.

I agree they weren't practical. It's an extreme example of taking a knife to a gun fight.
 
I'd like to know if there is any documentation confirming they were ever used to defend a field battery from a cavalry or infantry charge (the bringing a knife to a gun fight scenario), or worse yet, used to dispatch their own horses so the enemy couldn't use them to carry away your captured artillery piece. Though not as dramatic or exciting, it seems to me the brush-cutting scenario is more likely.
 
It may be worthwhile to go over the difference between light artillery and heavy artillery because it seems like we're mixing the two. Light artillery, also called field artillery, was typically equipped with a 12-pounder piece or lighter; to include Parrotts, Napoleons, Rodmans, as well as 12-pounder howitzers. Light artillery served in support of the infantry and the cannoneers marched on foot - except the drivers. Horse artillery, also called flying or mounted artillery, also had light guns; in the MW it was 6-pounders and in the CW Ordnance rifles were common, at least in the Union army. Because the horse artillery was in support of the cavalry, all the cannoneers were mounted. They had to be able to keep up with the cavalry. In both field and horse artillery, the issue weapon was the M1840 artillery saber.

Heavy artillery served 30-pounder guns and higher and was referred to as garrison, foot, or siege artillery, depending on the role they performed. Garrison artillery served in seacoast forts like Sumter, etc. to protect harbors and important cities. (The idea was that an invading force would have to land some distance away from the port, allowing time for the militia to muster.) These were also the guys who helped protect Washington. The guns were on immoveable carriages and could vary in size from 24-pounders to 100 pound Rodmans as well as 8- and 13-inch mortars. Siege/foot artillery accompanied the army into the field with guns heavier than those of the field artillery, but not too heavy: 24- and 30-, and 32- pounders. They had a longer range and threw a greater weight of metal than field pieces and were typically positioned further back from the front lines. Their purpose was to batter enemy fortifications. They were slow-moving and took a while to emplace. As in the Peninsula Campaign or the siege of Petersburg, siege artillerymen could also serve mortars, including coehorns. The personal armament of these guys, both siege and garrison, was the foot artillery sword. It would be unusual to find a short sword in a field artillery unit

The exception to the above rule was the 20-pound Parrott. It was too light to be effective for siege work, but too slow to keep up with the field pieces.

I hope this helps a bit.
 
I’m personally reasonably convinced the primary use of that sword actually was as an implement for clearing prepared positions, as this would explain why the Mexican-American War era army and the CSA both armed some Infantry NCOs with them... that and the swords they were originally modeled on where actually French Heavy infantry swords. The heavy artillery is an interesting subject as it was a hybrid infantry and artillery concern thanks to one of its roles being defense of forts from infantry attack (presumably bayonet charges in the case of bladed weapons to counter).

On the subject of regulation artillery swords, in a field battery who all would actually be carrying a sword anyhow? Presumably on mounted men like the drivers and the guideon bearer?
 
I’m personally reasonably convinced the primary use of that sword actually was as an implement for clearing prepared positions, as this would explain why the Mexican-American War era army and the CSA both armed some Infantry NCOs with them... that and the swords they were originally modeled on where actually French Heavy infantry swords. The heavy artillery is an interesting subject as it was a hybrid infantry and artillery concern thanks to one of its roles being defense of forts from infantry attack (presumably bayonet charges in the case of bladed weapons to counter).

On the subject of regulation artillery swords, in a field battery who all would actually be carrying a sword anyhow? Presumably on mounted men like the drivers and the guideon bearer?
In a field battery in actual combat, I would imagine that the only swords around were probably on officers. Even today, when you see field artillery in use in actual combat; the one thing that you don't see are personal weapons as they would tend to get in the way when you are operating the piece. They have been issued to the artillerymen for sure, but while they may be within easy reach; they are not on the artilleryman's person.
 
Last edited:
I do not think the physical evidence of the swords themselves support the story they were used for clearing brush. If this were the case, you would expect the edges to be more beaten up. I don't think I have seen many showing evidence of such use.
 
Very interesting thoughts on this topic! To continue with Mr. Schenk's direction, I don't think just clearing brush would damage the blade. My personal experienc clearing substantial brush with a heavy Machete shows no damage to the cutting edge because you are not chopping into the ground to get at the root structure. In clearing a gun position and firing lane you wouldn't chop to ground level with a short sword. The Artillery had picks, mattoxes, and shovels for ground leveling work. If it were a hasty set up you wouldn't chop anywhere near ground level.

On to the existent short swords themselves. They were issued with dull, non-cutting, edges. Over the past 50 years I have seen numerous examples that had been sharpened, along with many others with nicked up blades that hadn't been sharpened. The nicked up blades I have no doubt are from post war sword fighting done by children playing with the relics from the attic. The sharpened examples are quite often well worn and exhibiting much use and years of sharpening. I believe these examples were used on the farms for cutting corn and sugar cane stalks.

Just my thoughts!
J.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this link. When the author talks about cavalry carbines being issued to the gunners, it might be worth noting that a small percentage of Smith Carbines was configured as carbines for the use of artillery. Instead of the saddle ring it came with swivels for a sling. Presumably it could be worn by the battery crew when it looked like close work was imminent.
 
Back
Top