When was the sword put out of use?

[Psimancer]

Apparently the sword hasn't quite gone out of fashion as a weapon. According to the news reports, Australia is considering licensing swords now because too many fights seem to involve them.

Well... not quite. The Australian Government realises that there are a lot of swords out there, so the licensing will be on a per weapon basis… the potential for a lot of revenue…

From memory, I can only remember one incident involving a sword… and that was resolved with pepper spray…

Strangely <insert sarcasm>, the Government is keeping this possibility very quiet… most are not even aware that it is in the works…

 

[Dogbrain]

I'd say the real clincher was cartridge ammunition, the point at which the firearm was not only clearly superior, but also easily adopted by anyone.

Not just trained professionals.

What do you mean by "cartridge ammunition"? Cartridges consisting of ball and a pre-measure of powder were in use for muzzle-loading weapons by the late 1600s. By the time of English colonization of North America (late 1600s), the firearm was the weapon of choice for defense and war. Swords were pretty much only used by "trained professionals". An 18th century (I think) manual of "dueling code" from Ireland made it plain that either participant could demand the use of firearms, since so many gentlemen did not trust their own swordsmanship. In the American Civil War between the States (to make everybody unhappy), the most common firearms in use were still muzzle-loaders. Cartridges were still a measure of powder and a "ball" (that was often not "ball" shaped). The difference (and it made a great deal of difference in rate and reliability of fire) was that percussion caps were used instead of the flintlock mechanism. The key to the difference was that you no longer had to prime your pan. You didn't have to worry about flint alignment or wear, either. A lot of flintlocks were retrofitted to cartridge fire. A friend of mine once found a "Brown Bess" that had been retrofitted to use percussion caps.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I'm asking this because I want to write up a character for V:TM (pre-gehenna), and I want him to use a sword, I want to know aty what period of his embrace would he still be using/carring a sword.

That aside 1800's they carried sword, did you say? And 1900's they didn't? Good enough for me.

If he was an aristocrat or landowner in the sort of country where personal violence was still a going concern, then that is more or less accurate.

He might still know how to use a sword, in some fashion, if the character were either very aristocratic, cavalry trained, or had spend some time in the jungle.

If the character were lower class you probably wouldn't use a sword regardless, barring some unusual military training or being Scottish or a nomad or having lived in a jungle.

 

[DrZombie]

Last known use of swords in combat was 1939, when the polish cavalry charged german tanks with their sabers..... Very messy, although they managed to wipe out three tanks.

As for teh Vampire character : doesn't really matter when you play, it matters when your character was sired. Unless i read your post wrong offcourse, sorry if that is the case.

 

[Zappo]

Last known use of swords in combat was 1939, when the polish cavalry charged german tanks with their sabers..... Very messy, although they managed to wipe out three tanks.

I just have to ask: how?

 

[med stud]

On the Polish assault: The Polish cavalry regiments didnt charge tanks as often as it might seem. They had anti-tank guns, mines and often they dismounted before battle. As there is no chance in hell that they could take out a tank with a lance or a sabre I would say that they used the anti-tank gun (just as a fun fact: The .50 machine guns used by the modern US army could shoot out the German tanks from 1939 pretty easily; shows how much weapons and ammunition has evolved).

On the swords: The last organized infantry armies that were issued with swords as a primary weapon that I know of were the Roman legions. But then there is one thing about melee weapons in the pre- repeater era that is important and rediscovered by army leaders from time to time in history; first thing is that rifles that arent rifled have a really bad accuracy and that most soldiers werent very much trained in their use anyway; at distances of over 50 meters they were pretty much useless. The other thing is that a melee in those times didnt last very long; one of the sides would break very soon. Another fact that goes for today but especially back then when formations were so important is that when you break the enemy's formation he is in deep trouble. When a formation breaks is largely a question of moral (as in battlefield moral not ethical moral) and the attacker has the moral advantage.

This means that an organized and effective melee attack could break the enemies formation and when the enemies formation was broken the cavalry could ride in and mop up.

The only case that I know much about is the Swedish army in late 17th/early 18th century. The Swedish army was a standing army of 40000 men, the largest standing army at the time and they had a lot of training for the era (about one day a week and one month added to that if Im not wrong).
The focus of that army was the melee; the swords used were among the best mass produced swords in history and their bayonettes were really good as well. They had very little artillery (in one battle where the Russians brought 60 pieces of artillery the Swedes brought 4 light pieces). Most nations at that time fired 4-5 volleys with their muscets before closing in for melee; the Swedes fired one volley and they were trained to not fire until "they could see the whites in their enemies' eyes".

They didnt kill much with all their melee weapons though; it was still muskets and especially artillery that caused the most casulties in their battles. Still the Swedish army was extremely successful due to the breaking of the enemy moral; it took the Russian winter to defeat them.

This example shows that the sword was a useful weapon in the hands of infantry up until at least the very early 18th century. The swords were issued to Swedish soldiers until 1850 or something like that and soldiers were trained in their use but by then the Swedish army had become weak and inefficient so it doesnt really count.

 

[Arawyn]

Well... not quite. The Australian Government realises that there are a lot of swords out there, so the licensing will be on a per weapon basis… the potential for a lot of revenue…

From memory, I can only remember one incident involving a sword… and that was resolved with pepper spray…

Strangely <insert sarcasm>, the Government is keeping this possibility very quiet… most are not even aware that it is in the works…

You seem to be suggesting it is a federal initative, it is state (Victorian).
The police minister of Victoria has decided that swords are to be added to the prohibited list, it appears as of this moment that this will be limited to those with a "cutting edge".
We currently waiting on Haermeyer to sign off on that. Either way something resembling a sword will be prohibited as of July.

While some renue will be gained it is extremely minimal after costs, this is not a way of gaining revenue (they have speed "safety" camera for that ;-).

Exemptions will be available to some organisations, otherwise you will need a licence on a per-weapon basis.

I am hoping that my WMA school (Melbourne Swordplay guild) will gain exemption.

New South Wales state government are currently reviewing their prohibited weapons list and are looking into the status of swords.
Queensland is considering the same but due to the large re-enactor population they are not bothered by as much as VIC/NSW.

Gangs have been going at each other with cheap katanas you can buy in markets for $50(35USD). A guy lost his hand this year in such a brawl.
Two years ago some kids where killed when they were attacked by a gang with machettes. (they are not to be prohibited though).
There have been other attacks (one that I have heard was related to a nephew of a politician).

If anyone wants further information on sword laws around the world, check out www.swordforum.com and see their "Sword Ownership and Use – Legal issues" forum.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It would appear that reports of the the death of the bayonet as a combat weapon are exaggerated too:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004223179,00.html

 

[Kilmore]

I believe that anything goes for American Special Forces. They apparently particpated in horseback cavalry charges in Afghanistan. From what I hear they were armed with either an old Soviet AK-47 or a ultra-new A-4, cell phones to call in support, and a sword.