You just want marching songs or any kind of historical music?

Was the Italian Navy so pathetic in WWI? If they teamed up with the Austrians the Royal Navy would have had to devote considerable resources to countering them. That might have given the Germans a chance at another North Sea engagement.

Peter’s sword was stolen and is a piece of missing history. Peter was supposedly 6’10”.

> annexed Bosnia, where the majority was not Austrian or Hungarian, but Serbian and Ottoman

Wrong, the majority was Bosniak

Bayonet is more pike than sword

The only people in the infantry being trained with swords were officers. Hell, most infantry weren't even trained to use bayonets beyond how to put it on/take it off and point it in front of them.

Cavalry would all be trained in mounted fencing. Navy trained them to fence, but most of their fencing would be done with navy pikes over cutlasses (though of course they still trained cutlass).

The central powers promised Italy a lot of lands and more colonies than the Entente, maybe if looked at from a more rational point of view their offer was actually better, but when you read about the encounters that the Italian foreign minister made with ambassadors from both factions it is clear that Italy only really cared about Trento (a city in Tyrol) and Trieste (a city in Istria).

Those cities and the nearby regions were considered what separated Italy from completing national unification, it was taught in the schools and engraved in the minds of the citizens: Italy one day shall go to war against the Austrian oppressor and unify once and for all.

It was just too important, nothing that the central powers could have offered would have changed Italy's mind and the shared hatred between Italy and Austria-Hungary didn't make talks easier.

The U.S.Army model 1913 Cavalry Saber was designed by 2nd Lt (later General) George S Patton Jr. He was the Master of Sword at the Mounted Service School in the early 1900’s so it was still being taught in the 20th century. US.Navy Sailors were taught cutlass fighting in the Civil War. The Model 1860 & 1863 Naval Cutlasses were carried by the US Navy aka “Union” navy.

So swords have almost never been an actual battlefield weapon, but a side arm. The sword is what someone uses when their spear breaks or they have no time to reload their gun.

The real role of sword masters were in training nobility in private self-defense in major cities like Paris and Milan, and dueling other nobles. Which notably was not the context for America, even a century before the revolution. Hence why pistols specifically came to replace swords for most of the aristocracy and bourgeoise that made up America's upper class.

That being said, there were a number of famous fencers and teachers of swordsmanship. George Patton saw himself as quite the expert swordsman and set standards to be taught to US calvary, and Teddy Roosevelt was an avid fan of cane fighting.

There may be people notable for using a sword, but probably not notable for their skill with it if that makes sense. The saber didn't really change between about 1640 and the Civil War because the niche they served didn't change, and it doesn't take much skill to be effective with it.

Modern militaries still use edged weapons because they're useful when guns aren't. They would probably still use swords if they weren't impractical to carry

Interesting answer so with I was wondering most of the patriots and volunteers of the continental army were made up of colonial born citizens foreigners and immigrants who just joined or already were apart of the army and a chunk of them being either slaves and freedmen or indigenous Americans who either volunteers or were already joined the army with approval

With that being the case most of them don't have any prior experience or exposure with swordsmenship and I'd imagine most of them would have been in there early 20s to mid 30s

So with that being being said most gained of them received some training or experience the during the revolution right or wrong?

TL:DR: Look for Cavalry officers who saw lots of action, or infantry officers who engaged in close-combat raids or ambushes. Also check out foreign fighters like the German Auxiliaries and Foreign-born American officers. Also is this about dueling or combat? Because fencing =/= combat.

​

Most officers in the American Revolution carried swords. Most cavalry in the American Revolution carried swords. Some light infantry in the American Revolution (including some militia and the German light infantry), and nearly all French and German Infantry carried swords in the American Revolution. (notably, English-speaking armies had largely phased out infantry swords by this time for several reasons).

However, your instincts that sword use was in sharp decline is correct. In most cases, if a soldier was going to fight in a war, he wanted the weapon that would best support him, and a firearm gave better range, firepower, and with a bayonet a better close-combat effect especially when fighting in a close formation.

However, some men certainly became good with a sword to the extent they were known, though generally the men who are well known are officers, and generally they are cavalry officers since they fought in the front much more often, and saw more hand-to-hand combat.

Here is where I would ask a question of my own though. Are you looking for a "fencing master" or someone who was good with a sword in combat?

Those are vastly different things. Duels certainly existed and happened, two German Auxiliary officers had a sword duel on the voyage to America and one killed the other in the duel. But they were generally illegal in most militaries and deeply frowned upon. Which is probably the biggest blow to your research if you're looking for "fencing masters" since being one in the classic sense of one-on-one combat generally got you court martialed when you showed your skill.

For general combat though, swords were absolutely used, but the combat techniques were not about finesse, but about coordination with other soldiers, momentum on cavalry, or shock tactics. In these cases you would rarely see sword-on-sword fights, and if the other guy was prepared for you and had swords, just shoot him instead. Usually swords were used by officers and men who lacked muskets and bayonets when they ambushed enemies or assaulted their forts/camps in secret.

I should also point out that throughout the war the American army, despite have little tactical use for swords generally and primarily giving them to particular officers and NCO's as symbols of rank, the army still had a massive shortage of swords of all kinds up to the end of the war.

As a final note, infantry and cavalry swords are generally top heavy and good slashing swords and are balanced as such. Cavalry sabers are ridiculously long and none of them would be a "fencing sword" as people in the modern day imagine it. Generally if you had a well proportioned, well balanced, well made sword good for cuts and thrusts then you were a wealthy officer and purchased it for yourself.

P.S: as a funny/sad addendum I would bet, from the diaries, journals, court martials, and other documents I've read, that the average American infantry officer/NCO who had a sword was more likely to have hit one of his own men with the flat of the blade as punishment than an enemy with the sharp end. (but that's just a speculation about the average)

The US Navy had a cutlass training manual in the early 19th century.

[removed]

Oh, I can answer this one!

Military fencing in the age of powder mostly consisted of mounted saber, though fencing was still taught in the infantry and navy. Your best shot of using a sword would be in the cavalry. Bayonet fencing existed in an extremely informal and unstructured manner and we wouldn't get proper bayonet systems (at least in Brittan or America) until ~1850s, for a few reasons.

One account from the American Revolution is from the Battle of the Cowpens when Lt. Col. Washington (cousin of George) fought Lt. Col. Tarleton mounted with sabers:

"In this engagement, Colonel Washington had an opportunity of displaying his personal valor in a combat with Colonel Tarleton, in which he cut off two of Tarleton's fingers and would have cut off his head, had it not been for his stock buckle, which deadened the force of the stroke and saved the life of the British officer. However, Colonel Washington, I believe to this day (if he be alive) carries a mark on two of his fingers which he received in the encounter with Colonel Tarleton."

• "The Life & Travels of John Robert Shaw, Written by Himself", 1807

There was a highland Scot who taught broadsword (or a brit teaching highland broadsword, as happened more often than not in the 18th century for a few reasons) who opened the first fencing school in America in the early-ish 18th century in Boston, but I forget their name.

Fencing texts in the 18th century were mostly geared towards smallsword dueling in the civilian sphere, with some military texts here and there.

Military fencing in the age of powder mostly happened in colonial actions in Africa, the Middle East, and especially India in the 19th century. Even then it was still mostly in the cavalry.

From what I’ve heard, they were used on occasion but muskets and bayonets began to take over. Plus I think only Calvary officers were given swords but I could be wrong

[removed]

Farewell to Arms kinda sucked and was badly written.

Italy should of stayed neutral.

Why? So that way it can spend the time to invest in its military while watching and learning what each side is doing.

Once the war ends in the same way and Austria Hungary collapses while everyone is war-fatigue. Italy would be ready to invade the new lands that broke off of Austria-Hungary and take whatever they wanted. No one would've been in the position to stop them other than maybe the US which wasn't ready to enter a new war.

The Atlas of World History.

Swords were still a thing in Europe during the Napoleonic wars with Calvary. To a lesser extent during the Sepoy rebellion and Crimean war.

I was thinking more along the line of a cutlass or sabre rapiers weren't really made for warfare I mean there were war rapiers but I imagine that would been both rare and expensive to come by since the country just got it's footing

There are officers who not only wore the sword but of course, trained with it until they were considered proficient with the weapon (especially the cavalry), and there are battles like Guilford Courthouse where bloody hand-to-hand combat with bayonets, swords, and axes became the deciding factor.
But the truth is, by the time America gained its independence in 1776, swords were already obsolete. Maybe there are swordsmen at the time but they are never "notable" because their weapons are not useful anymore on the battlefield.
Do you remember any Japanese swordsmen in world war 2? At the time they joined the war, their armies still have lots of people known as "Master swordmen" but they are not "notable" because, at the end of the day, the sword is not a factor in the war.

Fencing in Colonial America and the Early Republic: 1620 – 1800 by Ben Miller: https://ahfi.org/wp-content/uploads/library/estafilade_fencing-in-america.pdf

A Bibliography of American Swordsmanship 1734 – 1943: https://academyofdefence.com/bibliography/

Ive visited the grave site at Normandy. It's heart breaking but I appreciate the sacrifice and would do the same to keep our country free.