Wristbreaker

[cracker9]

1833? vs 1840? vs 1860?


Hello, I'm new to the group and have a question I'm hoping someone can clear up. I have been trying to determine the source and origin of the nickname "wristbreaker" given to the 1840 issued sabre of the pre WBTS American Dragoons.


My first guess was that it was a weight issue between the 1840 and the later model 1860. However upon looking at the ordanance manuals of the day the 1840 blade weighs 2.6 lbs and the 1860 blade weighs just a few ounces less. I believe this was achieved by basically shortening the blade of the 1860 while redesigning the knuckle bow and branches. The iron scabbard of the 1840 seems to weigh a pound more than the scabbard of the 1860, but it would seem if the scabbard were the cause of the nickname it would have been called the hipbreaker for the extra weight attached to the belt rather than carried in hand?


Or can it be documented that the term was developed due the weight difference between the 1840 and the earlier 1833 Model Sabre which was considered to have too flimsy of a blade?


I have also seen undocumented references to the term originating from when training troopers to thrust with the 1840 blade in "tierce point," it was found the 1840 wanted to twist "overhand" or follow the curve of the blade as it sank in and therefore broke or sprained the wrist of the user…. BUT…. most sources claim the 1840 was a very close copy to the wildly popular French 1822 Model Sabre. The French traditionally used the point so it would seem if there were an issue with thrusting such a blade it would be identified elsewhere and I have not seen that documented anywhere else although it may be – though I don't read French.


I have an original 1840 hanging on the wall - I fenced for roughly ten years, not that foot fencing has much at all to do with saddle bound fencing – and have found it be of good forward weight for the slashing and chopping most often described in first hand accounts. I have also read accounts of the point being used, though far less often, and I feel the 1840 blade has superior swinging characteristics than point characteristics but all the true experts (ie veterans) are dead regarding the use of these blades and watermelons, hay bales and stationary pig carcasses are no substitute for live targets. I also realize that a few ounces can make a tremendous difference in the balance of a sword - personally I found the forward balance and weight of cut of the 1840s to be superior to the one original 1860 I have held. I have never held one of the earlier 1833 model originals.


So, having exhausted these routes I turn to the forum. Can anyone document or guide me to the documentation of when the term wristbreaker was first used? Did it refer to an 1833 comparison? Did it refer to an 1860 comparison? And… was it based on weight or use characteristics?


Many thanks and pardon the lengthy screed! Hopefully I didn't miss this answer in a prior post.


Cheers,

Dan Murphy

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

Welcome to CivilWarTalk

I feel sure someone will be along soon to answer your question.
Until then, you may enjoy these threads.

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/1840-wristbreaker-cavalry-sword.82587/#post-619520
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/forrests-sword.82769/

 

[LittleGuy1864]

Dan,
The moniker "wristbreaker" came from the weight comparison to the M1833 Dragoon sabers. The heaviness/bulkiness of the M1840s is what eventually lead to the re-design of the saber and subsequent manufacture and distribution of the lighter and smaller M1860. Until I finally purchased both a M1840 and M1860, and put them side-by-side, it was hard for me to tell the difference. Once I got the M1840, the difference was easy to see, at least for me it was.

It seems the Ordnance Department over compensated when it designed the M1840 in regards to the blade's thickness and length to make up for the 1833 blade's lack of robustness. For the M1860 it seemed the Ordnance Department finally struck an acceptable medium between the M1833 and M1840.

I'm not sure when the first mention of "wristbreaker" happened. Maybe someone else on the forums could answer that question.

I hope I helped answer some of your questions.

Rebecca

*For reference, I turned to John Thillmann's Civil War Cavalry & Artillery Sabers book*

 

[Youngblood]

I was reading about replica sabers and the descriptions said the term wrist-breaker was for straight blade instead of curved swords. The idea being the curved blade could glance a bit while the straight would not, thus jarring your wrist.

 

[cracker9]

Youngblood,

Thank you, but I'm afraid that description steered your wrong. The period "wristbreaker" moniker refers to the 1840 Dragoon saber. The 1840 had a curved blade. During the Napoleonic period straight blades were "typically" issued to for heavy cavalry for thrusting. Curved blades were typically issued to light cavalry for cutting work during melees. The 1840 was an attempt to have a weapon that would both thrust and cut well. Could a straight blade break your wrist? Certainly, but that would seem outside the norm.

Dan

 

[Glen_C]

One thing of note concerning the 1840 trials was that the French model submitted was a better handling sword. While the overall weight is simiar, the distal taper of the French blades puts more mass towards the hilt and those were found more favorable by the troopers. The Prussian S&K won the contract bid. The Ames contracts reflected the S&K contract swords, resulting in the less favorable handling. When we consider the 1833 in comparison, the 1840 was indeed a less friendly sword. The 1833 was patterned after the much straighter British 1821, which supplanted the long used British 1796 lc.

While the term "wristbreaker" may have been coined in period, a better guess would be it was a more modern term. The French fielded the 1822 for many decades and is still a regulation pattern. There were heavy (four bar) and light versions. The lighter somewhat despised as being too light and folding on the thrust.

The big straight pallasches were favored by some during the ACW. Here with a Solingen wristbreaker is a smaller (sic) French 1854 dragoon. Also the Wade Hampton sword from Froelich

Cheers

GC

 

[Seduzal]

Welcome to CWT from the Smoky Mountain side of North Carolina.

 

[Youngblood]

Good to know. Heres the sutlers shop that said it.
https://www.fcsutler.com/fcswordsabers.asp

 

[Lt.Drake]

The gentlemen above have hit upon a major point in all of this. The term "wristbreaker"refers mainly to the 1840 design, and was adopted only because of the misconception that the heavy straight-bladed sabers would break a man's wrist. In truth, when used properly, this wasn't an issue. That said, the straight-bladed weapons were used by heavy cavalry as a thrusting weapon, much like a small, compact lance. Those types of sabers were issued to heavy cavalry, the mainstay of early 19th century equestrian warriors. In the massed, high-speed attacks from horseback that epitomized Napoleonic cavalry warfare, a heavy, straight saber would be almost useless for slashing. Those types of bladed weapons designed for cutting blows were issued to what is known as "light" cavalry units like the hussars.

The later more curved cavalry sabers reflected a change in doctrine for mounted units to utilize light cavalry tactics. This seemed to coincide with the US Army's redesignation of all the different mounted branches into standard "cavalry", but also with the decline of the saber in actual combat.

Given the nature of combat from horseback, I never understood why the cavalry and dragoons didn't use a sabre specifically designed for slashing attacks. I always liked the Ames 1840 light artillery saber. It is possible to render thrusts and cuts with that type of blade, and you don't have to be a bodybuilder to swing one around all day.