Spadroons - what are they, and are they junk?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 мар 2017
- The British army pattern Spadroon, the regulation infantry officers and Sergeant's weapon of the Napoleonic period. A look at its origins, its qualities and how it fits into the history of British military swordsmanship.
'It's an extraordinary weapon, which none can compare with' is actually a well veiled insult.
The words which have been used are rather ambiguous, and in the pompous manner in which many landed Englishmen spoke leads me to think it was meant sarcastically.
He was a Scotsman, they have no sense of humour :-)
I thought the Scottish were known for their sense of humor
The Scottish sense of humour has been finely honed to be indetectable to the English :)
How dare you! Next you'll be saying there's ill will between us.
I can hear Clarkson using these words, but instead of weapon, for an awful car.
Will somebody page +Mett Euston?
Dafuq iz dis shiz.... u dishoner da spodroon?
@@metteuston7699 =D Spadroon vs a KickIntheHead ....winner KickIntheHead.
I think the "spadroon" mentioned by McBane and MacGregregor is a different sort of sword. The early spadroon is also called "shearing sword". This term was also used in Germany (as "haudegen") for what we now call walloon swords. I have a 17th century wallon and a 19th century spadroon and if you put them side by side you can see some very clear similarities and how one could have turned into the other. Both have a double shell guard and the same type of blade. The difference is that the walloon has an extra bar to protect the outside of the hand, and although its blade is the same shape, it's also stiffer, broader and longer, giving it a better balance and cutting/thrusting abilities. It also has a thumb ring, which means that the grip shape makes more sense for how it's supposed to be held. I think this sword is what the early 18th century authors were writing of. I also think that this is the sword that the later spadroon is derived from, not the smallsword. The best evidence of this is that spadroons never have the pseudo-finger rings that characterize many smallswords, and late 18th century spadroons have slotted rather than the smallsword-like hilts seen on spadroons post-1796. I believe that the modern version we all know and love developed from the haudegen/walloon/shearing sword under increasing influence of the smallsword, rather than from an attempt to modify the smallsword itself, and that this is why it continued to be called "spadroon" all the way into the 19th century.
Note than one shell has fallen out of this one, but you can see where it should be
scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/16836613_10155762971725329_1924568193104468748_o.jpg?oh=d1197a8221853eaca5eea694d320d876&oe=5927A47B
Yes I did talk about this in the video. I think the Walloon is one type of sword they might have called a spadroon, but as one of a larger family of straight swords with shell guards and a knucklebow. Some had thumb rings (mainly for cavalry), and lots didn't.
Also, yes some spadroons do have the finger rings of the smallsword, especially French ones, that they called epee du soldat, or espadon.
I think the smallsword had more influence on British spadroon simply because those European swords that McBane for example would have called Spadroon, did not gain much popularity in Britain. The common swords for British officers through the 18th century were smallswords, hanger/sabre, and broadsword (basket hilt), and I see the spadroon as a means of making a more agile broadsword, better suited to smallsword methods and practiioners. Manuals of the time like Roworth especially note how Spadroon users should practice smallsword.
Your 19th century "spadroon" is actually a French 1817 pattern officer sword (or a very close copy of one). In French collector typology, it's the "modèle 1817 à ciselures", with its very distinctive "split branch" and flaring out pommel. This, in France, would never have been considered a spadroon, it's a pure "épée". That pattern is especially designed as dress sword for high ranking officers, not meant for any battlefield use (it's in the regulations). It fills the showing-off role of a smallsword, with a slightly more martial look and feel to it. It's a very long-lived model, just as the simpler and lower rank 1816 pattern, and it's still supposed to be carried as a dress sword by commissaires de l'Armée de Terre ("Army surperintendants") and commissaires officiers de Marine ("Navy superintendant officers"), and maybe some others.
The walloon is absolutely gorgeous, though.
It's actually Belgian infantry officer's general service sword. It's definitely Spadroon-like, the blade is extremely floppy.
It can't be guessed it's Belgian from the picture, since it's a perfect copy of the French pattern (as far as I can tell, even the scupltures/engravings). I know copies of the French 1822 light cavalry saber were made in Germany, is this copy also German? Does it even have any maker's mark?
Unlike a spadroon, which is a service sword, this is purely a dress sword (at least in the French military), meant to be carried in "petite tenue", so basically when needed to be pretty when in garrison or in town, as opposed to "tenue de campagne", battlefield/campaign outfit; and "grande tenue", basically parade outfit, though depending on the rank, there might be more subtle categories, but usually regulations don't mention them all.
In that regard, these swords are smallswords. One could argue they even are "safe" smallswords, so that in case of a duel, the likelyhood of death is significantly lower than with stiff blade smallswords. I don't claim it's a deliberate design feature at all, but the fact that these sword have no martial purpose, but only are a mark of rank, and of being in the army, nobody cares that the blade is floppy or not. So in the French doctrine (and Belgian, I guess), these aren't junk or crap, they're just not made for anything but for showing off.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, "spadroon" comes from the French word "espadon", which itself comes from the Italian word "spadone", which is a large sword in general, and is nowadays specifically used as an Italian equivalent of the modern term "Zweihänder". In French, "espadon" always meant substantial blades (well, to be fair it's also how we name the swordfish), and by the beginning of the 19th century, was even used interchangeably with "sabre". So, calling this 1817 pattern sword (in French regulation - I have no idea what its year of adoption in Belgium is) a spadroon sounds to me as wrong as calling a smallsword (cause functionnally it's one, or less than one) a broadsword, basically.
As a French, it's sometimes painful to see "my" culture negated and masked through the coining of unfit/unadequate English terms. Especially since I try as much as possible to try to understand how words were used back then, and don't solely rely on modern typology, categories and names. Knowing where you're talking from is extremely important to think straight and accurately.
Mine is near identical to this -
www.antiqueswordsonline.com/french-model-1816-infantry-officer-sword/
It is not floppy at all, it is extremely rigid. The blade is of Klingenthal manufacture, and the hilt by Manceau of Paris. Bear in mind when I call this Spadroon, it is because I am talking about it about it from a British perspective. In British sources it would be called spadroon or rapier. The beauty of the term Spadroon is it easily identifies the type of weapon to anyone who knows anything about 18th and 19th century swords.
Nick, i love your myth-smashing passion and the detailed information and comparisons. Please keep ot up. Regards, Gus
Wow. Even men of the time hated shit out of this thing.
Before watching the video; I'd say yes. I certainly would never choose one if abducted by aliens and put to fight in a gladiatorial competition. That's my initial reaction; why would I ever want one? Why not a sabre, or a rapier? Hell, why not the Patton 'Sabre', that is actually a cavalry _rapier_ with a dish hilt?
Stepping back for a moment, I can then see the spadroon as a tool that was used during a certain era, and then appreciate that, like any tool, it must be used for the specific circumstances for which it was made. If they perform their function within that circumstance, then no, they are not crap.
You're right, it's an often maligned and unappreciated weapon. That makes me even more interested in learning more and seeing where you will go with this.
A sword is best compared to other weapons in use in the same period, for the same purpose, and in this regard, yes it is crap. It was used at the same time as, and according to the same methods as the sabre and broadsword, and it simply cannot come close to them. That is when considering the British pattern models of course, as I said in the video, there are other weapons that were called spadroons. This is why it was so rapidly replaced.
How would we assess the spadroon as a civilian weapon - a smallsword with some cutting potential?
Yes exactly, at the price of being unwieldy for point work, and overly flexible for the thrust.
Academy of Historical Fencing
Yes, I thought that would be the case. I _was_ hoping the title was a bit of clickbait where you would prove me wrong and show me where the weapon shined.
Haha, not for the ol' spadroon though! Oh well.
Ah, my rather contrary nature and desire for the underdog wants me to make the spadroon work...for it to change from the ugly duckling into the peerless, glorious swan of swords?!
Great video as always.
I totally read that title as "Spadroons - what are they, and why they are crap?
That is about the gist of it to be fair.
An entertaining and informative video!
As a side note, can't help but scratch my head sometimes when considering the development of standard/pattern military swords during the 18th century, especially when considering designs like the 1796 spadroon.
(And, while I understand the many factors involved in shaping the nature of European fencing and sword development, the fact that more sword-types from the preceding two centuries didn't last is sometimes a bit confusing too - though that may just be my biases showing.)
I believe it is simply out of a desire for more agile swords, better suited to thrust work. Various things were tested and experimented with. The military is always trying to find something better for the job, but they don't get it right everytime.
By the way, about Mitt Einston, and this channel. We may disagree and agree sometimes. But these videos are addictive, I mean, like a bag of fresh ginger cookies, or chips, you start watching one, after one and you eventually realize that is no more in the bag. Cheers from Chile!!
Haha, glad to hear it!
I am quite interested in the early spadroon. I've just finished reading McBane. Do you have any recommendations of a next reading step or training tools? Aware most swords I see seem to be the later versions.
The 1803 sabre had its detractors also. Two officer accounts say that it had "... utility for chopping billets for a fire" and "It would be useful for shaving ladies' legs" - I am paraphrasing a little, but the sentiment is accurate.
Hello Nick, do you happen to know which edition of Kingsley's Swordsmen of the British Empire is the most complete ?
Matt Easton mentions "More Swordsmen of the British Empire" which is supposed to be the sequel, but I only find the 3rd edition (2013) on Lulu....
I am not entirely sure as there have been so many different editions published it is hard to keep track. The below article might help -
www.encasedinsteel.co.uk/2015/10/09/a-chronology-of-books-by-d-a-kinsley/
Thanks that's quite helpful.
Uh, @16:00 that folding guard sword has the same amount of flex as my training rapier! Maybe the idea was to practice with it lol.
The diamond section double edged on e is bad@ss though very cool!
I recall reading that Wellington demanded his Officers take fencing lessons, because they were fighting very badly in the peninsula. This was in Holmes' Redcoat, which I thought was an overall quite good book, but I don't remember any mention of swords in it.
I suppose there's no rule stating that crap can't be important. Just as shit is used in fertiliser for crops the spadroon was used to make better swords as it was an example of how not to make a sword. So you could say it was the fertiliser for better swords in the very near future from that time.
It may not be the best, but it looks nice!
As a collector and someone who also runs a HEMA School based in the Napoleonic era, I like Spads ... always have. I understand them for what they are, their social and cultural significance. Flaws can be found in all swords ... the Spad is no exception.
I appreciate them for their role and significance in history, but that doesn't make them a good sword. Every choice in a sword compromises in some other way, but the spadroon comnpromises in almost every way.
Something I always wonder when I hear about spadrons being issued because the officers where usually gentlemen who where used to fighting with smallswords... why did they simply allow the officers use smallswords?
Many officers did in fact wear smallswords on the battlefield in the 18th century. However, they are not sturdy enough for the job. As they may well have to face muskets/rifles with bayonets, pole arms and heavy sabres and broadswords. Whilst a smallsword can often humiliate heavier swords in a one-on-one duel with space and time to move. In a battlefield setting, the sword needs to do more work. The ability to cut of also extremely useful, as it has incapacitating qualities that the thrust often lacks.
I have a 1796 with some blue and gilt remaining on the blade. I remember seeing that as a kid in a museum somewhere and being mesmerized by that deep blue. It has a special place in my room. I guess I love it for its looks, not its personality.
BTW, the silver on my grip is actually a ribbed silver sheet made to look like wire. I was under the impression that this was typical. Is yours actual wire?
Lovely, and yes the bluing is simply stunning. I discuss the different grip materials on some of the videos where I look at the 1796 IOS in more detail. The standard was twisted silver wire, but for economy purposes during the Napoleonic wars, pressed sheets to mimic wire were used on many as it saved time and reduced cost during a time of huge demand.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Ah, I'll check the other videos as well, thanks!
Was the spadroon the first/only sword to incorporate a folding hand guard? Regardless of its effectiveness I think its quite innovative for its time period.
It was certainly not the only one. In British usage, the infantry sabres and Naval officers swords from 1822/1827 onwards often had similar folding guards, though largely fell out of fashion in the 1850's. As for other examples, there are a number off Polish, French and Austrian swords I have seen with folding guards, some in a similar hinged fashion to many British spadroons, others had rotating side bars like this, sometimes even both sides. Quite a few of these were made around the late 18th century, so it is hard to say who did what first.
www.antique-swords.eu/A88-18th-Century-French-Infantry-Officers.html
Truly Fascinating.I have much to learn on historical swords and weapons in general.I enjoy your both your channel and your informative videos.They are a credit to you Sir and a much appreciated resource for both myself and others.
Visually, these remain one of my favorite swords. I like the general idea behind them even if execution seems to have failed. Fortunately, it doesn't matter *at all* these days, as I will literally never use one against a live target! It is one of the few antique sword types I'd love to obtain an original of (if I could find one that for sure wasn't a fake), along with the 1895/1897 and 1908/1912 pattern. One day...
I actually have thought to train these in my club, as there is a desire for cut-based swordplay, and we already have exposure to smallsword. Good bridge between that and sabres! In terms of "training" spadroon, how does your club differentiate it from just any other cutting sword - if at all? I presume you stick with Roworth - which leads me to suspect it isn't treated any differently. However, I may be wrong. Other than Roworth's (which, based on your recently released PDF, may well become the cutting sword source for my club), what considerations (if any) are involved in training explicitly spadroon?
The Roworth book/Angelo posters are the best source for British spadroon certainly. It isn't treated differently in our club, as military swordsmanship at the time was a universal approach to all weapons, though Roworth gives a little advice as to how a few subtle things change between the three, of broadsword, sabre and spadroon.
The biggest problem up till now is I can't find anything robust enough for the job. Every spadroon trainer I have made or bought has broken quickly, simply because the blades are flimsy compared to the sabre and broad sword. I am having Black fencer design a synthetic, as that should be robust enough for the job, without being over weight. It is very hard to get a steel to really hold up when it is that light and is going against heavy cutting swords, as it was a flimsy design in the first place.
Roger; apparently Matt Easton is supposed to be putting out something on Roworth...eventually(?)...so I'll be looking forward to that. There's a transcription of his manual out there I should probably go review. Ever thought about doing a compare/contrast between Roworth and, say for example, Angelo? The mid-to-late 19th century we see a flurry of writers who all want to be The Guy; would be cool to one day see (from someone, who knows who) some compare/contrast on the lot.
Speaking of trainers, Purpleheart has one in synthetic that's more alike the D-guard example you have. No shell guard (unfortunate!) but it is "spadroon" in name. That's all the more I know about it though I have considered getting a pair for trying out.
How does the performance of a spadroon compare to contemporary swords with a similar morphology, for instance the hussar straight sword (pałasz husarski)?
Palasz are almost always much heavier and more substantial in the blade that British pattern Spadroons, much more like the earlier 18th century European swords that the term spadroon was applied to.
Does that bare blade have letters on the tang, mine has T P on the right hand side.
That is interesting. Mine is stamped either GH or OH in the same place. Most likely supposed to be GH I think.
Love the name btw.
I like the 1796 Spadroon but I can see it does have a flaw that could be fatal, due to how they are and the fact that I've yet to see one where the knucklebow didn't fix the pommel in place, here we have the problem that the grip tends to loosen with no way of tightening it besides turning the gril, which in turn dis aligns the handle as it's a very specific shape, aside from that; I rather like it to a certain degree, especially since I have a 17th Century dagger that from a design point; goes with it.
All of the ones I have seen have not had a threaded pommel though, but have the tang peened over, so this isn't really an issue. The bare blade I have has had a thread welded on, it isn't representative of how it was originally.
I like the aesthetics of them, but as a fighting weapon, they are very poor.
Well mine is only just like that, a slight hole, but it's enough to prevent me tightening the pommel. Perhaps my love for them is from a standpoint of the other side of my swordplay; Theatrical, as I do both Theatrical and Practical, I like to have more than just Sabres and Smallswords in my Georgian/Napoleonic works wherever it makes sense to apply as such, I'd just like to be able to tighten the pommel on mine.
Nice, though it is unlikely that the knuckle bow is what it preventing you from tightening it up. If it has the peen hammered over the pommel, the only way to tighten it is with a blow torso and a ball peen hammer. There is no threaded section to tighten down The reason most Spadroons are lose today is because they had a leather washer between the tang shoulder and guard, that has usually rotted away. If you want to tighten the hilt, the best thing would be to prize a washer like item into this point to replicate the original washer and provide that tension.
Mine's an unsharpened reproduction, made to be useable, I've had it for nearly a year, I got it from Knightshop.
Ah ok, that does change things. I am not sure how they have put that together. It is made by Universal Swords, though they company goes under a few other names too. Most of the swords I have seen from them are peened rather than threaded, but I have not seen that particular model. If they have threaded the pommel then that would be foolish.
Looks awesome , why people would not like spadroond ?
So what would be the best sword for a British infantery officer in the Napolieonic era, to use if i could pic any sword from the era.
The 1803 pattern Infantry sabre as I showed on the video, it is an exceptional sword for the purpose.
Why triangular cross section swords like the short sword (civilian one) only thrusts and not cut, can't they just sharpen it to give somewhat cut ability.
Phew i was scared i would listen to someone praising the spadroon. :)
Oh and speaking of French implementations of the spadroon concept - do you know anything about the so-called "Epee du Soldat"? Seems to be the same concept but what little I've gleaned (almost entirely through reproduction makers, which is 3rd rate information at best) makes it seem similar to the one you demonstrated - double edged blade, smallsword type hilt. Some of the ones I've seen, though, actually appear to retain the smallsword's vestigial "finger rings", making them even more smallsword-like than Spadroons. Given that it is French, and you are a student of English swords, it may be unlikely you've come across much, but I figure there's no time to ask like the present.
The Epee du Soldat is a type of Spadroon. It was also called an Espadon, some had the rings of a smallsword yes. The French sword I showed in this video is an epee du soldat or espadon. I believe the rings on some, particularly earlier ones, were merely there out of fashion because the influence of the smallsword.
The term "épée du soldat" seems to be circulating around in the English-speaking community, but I'd frankly like to see a contemporary French text or manual using this term. The term I see used in period manuals most often is "espadon", which the term "spadroon" is very likely derived from (FR peloton => EN platoon, FR esponton => EN spontoon, etc), and refers to basically any type of strong sword/saber (as opposed to "épée"/"espée", which by the time most often refered to the smallsword), and is used indifferently to describe a straight blade (be it single or double edge, mostly for fusilliers) or a curved blade (mostly for grenadiers). You can refer to Girard's 1740 Traité des Armes (very interesting, by the way, probably one of the most comprehensive of its century), or Saint Martin's 1804 L'Art de faire des armes, they both talk about "espadon", and "espadon" only. French "espadon" comes from Italian "spadone": long/large sword.
Espadons aren't supposed to have finger rings, even vestigial, they bear more in common with a Walloon than with a smallsword. But mousquetaires were known for keeping hilts with finger rings (though they weren't basic line infantry susceptible of carrying a lowly espadon: they were elite troops, recruited only from the nobility who already had served in Guards, i.e. at the King's wage, thus the sense for tradition). These finger rings, even vestigial, are known in French collector's vocabulary as "pas d'âne".
But in French we have a notion that doesn't seem to really have an equivalent in English, and that is "forte-épée" (litterally "strong/long/thick/wide sword"). It's a modern collector's term, but it's very useful to describe a wide variety of strong cut-and-thrust cavalry swords, with a straight, usually double edged blade, that were in use during the 17th and 18th century. Walloons and schiavonas, even Scottish basket-hilts, would be called forte-épées, for example, but the most iconic forte-épées are the French so-called 1680 and 1730 patterns. These are (heavy/line) cavalry swords, but espadons are a sort of infantry equivalent, though grenadiers, as I mentioned, tend to have curved blades. These forte-épées were probably just called "épée"/"espée" at that time, but so far I know of no manual or treaty about its use on horseback. The French 1767 pattern grenadier hanger (and later An XI patterns), now widely refered to as a "briquet", may have been called an "espadon" back then, though I'm really not sure they were long enough to qualify. Terminology is a huge mess, between what was used in the period, and modern terms and typological categories, it's sometimes quite hard to figure out things.
By the way, Nick, the French sword you're holding looks to be a typical 1816 pattern infantry officer sword, just with a more substantial blade than average, and that wouldn't have been described as an espadon at all. It's just an "épée". A beefy épée, but an épée. On the other end, to a French eye, your 1803 infantry saber might have been called an "espadon" (so a spadroon, etymologically) back then, judging from Saint-Martin's manual. The folding shell seems to have appeared only after 1831. What's funny is that the initial written regulation was for a blade very similar to the British 1796 spadroon, but the model kept at the Saint-Etienne arsenal, so the very pattern of the sword itself, already has this diamond cross section with two fullers. It was mostly a dress sword, since in 1821 a new regulation was issued for a practical battlefield infantry officer saber, as sabers were carried by infantry officers on the battlefield anyway. That general 1816 pattern had a very long career, as it survived as a regulation "weapon" (though only for dress) up until the Second Empire (so up to around 1870), and variations of it are still "carried" today as dress sword by various prestige corps or cadets (police constabulary academy, Polytechnique, CRS - riot police, etc).
I'm a bit rambly, but I think I do have some knowledge on the topic that the vast majority of English-speaking swords and sabers enthusiast don't have.
Edit: I checked, in De La Roche-Aymon's 1817 book "Des troupes légères" (very interesting), he uses "espadon" and "sabre" perfectly interchangeably, such as in this in this sentence: "La science de l’espadon des troupes à cheval se réduit à savoir donner cinq coups de sabre , et à se couvrir de trois manières." - as literally as possible (given that "spadroon" is the translation in English of "espadon") : "The science of the spadroon of horse troops reduces itself to know giving five saber blows, and to cover oneself in three maners". At this time, there were both straight single edge very stiff sabers (An IX, An XI and An XIII dragoon sabers), sligthly curved stiff sabers (Imperial Guard Horse Grenadier saber), and more curved sabers (An IX and An XI light cavalry sabers, Chasseur à Cheval sabers), and he seems to describe them as both "sabre" and "espadon", without the slightest nuance or difference.
Well researched :)
Epee du Soldat is certainly not a term I use, but I would like to know more about its historical context. Sometimes modern terms can be useful too though, just like we use the term sidesword today.
Your 'forte-epee' term, that is surely roughly equivalent to our term broadsword? In the 18th and early 19th century, the term broadsword referred to a straight, heavy cut and thrust sword. Though at times was even used for sabres as well.The French spadroon I show is dated to April 1823, and doesn't look to have ever been tampered with or had anything replaced. And yes it is my understanding that the French used Espadon and sabre very much interchangeably. Including using the term sabre for straight cut and thrust swords too. There is a good article about the subject here. I believe from the things I have read that my French spadroon could have been called a great many things at the time, from espadon to smallsword. Some English texts at the time even call them rapiers.
hemamisfits.com/2015/08/02/treatise-on-the-counter-point-by-alexandre-valville-1817/
One wonders why they didn't use shorter length backsword blades they seem to work well.
The threads for a pommel, but not the pommel itself?
We may have found the cause of the Tunguska incident.
somewhat off topic. during the 19th century, while the British were more or less standardising to the Sabre and ditching the spadroon for good, the Imperial Russian troops were switching from their sabres to the shashka having encountered them during the conquest of the Caucasus, do you know why? because at least to look at it looks more basic or was that the appeal?
Just saw them used on forged in fire and they cut very well.
Any way to watch it online? I'd need to see it before being able to comment.
If it hasn't aired in the U.K. you might have to wait before it becomes available but here's the site. They used lage pigs as an analog and I was surprised.
www.history.com/shows/forged-in-fire
Did they give any specification on the sword? Spadroons can come in a wide variety of forms. The British pattern examples I am discussing here are usually around just 700 grams, and yet some slightly earlier Swedish examples are 1.4kg, and handle more like a Scots broadsword.
Academy of Historical Fencing
1.4kg????
That’s a damn tank, it’s heavier than my feder by almost 150g. Was there any intention for thrusting ability?
Can anyone explain what is meant by the term "pike back" (assuming I heard correctly)?
Sorry I missed this comment. It is 'pipe back'. This type of blade construction has a rod, or pipe running along the back of the blade like a spine, with then a thin blade protruding from it. They started to come in to fashion in the Napoleonic era for British swords, and were widely adopted in 1821, but rapidly fell out of use. Though they are light, they are excessively flexible in infantry form, and create a lot of resistance when cutting.
Academy of Historical Fencing thanks!
Hey guys, one question I alway wondered about:
How applicable would the principles and practices from HEMA to large scall battles?
I imagine you normally wouldn´t have the same amount of space as in 1v1 duels in massed battles.
How would you f.e. fight in ashieldwall, with no space on your sides and rear?
There´s also no room for a lunge forward, since oyu expose yourself to the enemy.
There wouldn´t be as much finesse I´d imagine, but more brute force and endurance,
or simply getting your opponent to drop from trauma to the head.
What´s your take on it?
Depends hugely on the style and period you are looking at. Most combat practiced with say the longsword for example, is unarmoured, and not representative of combat in war, but of the use of the sword in a civilian context.
Go to the military swordsmanship of broadsword and sabre, and it is precisely designed for the battlefield, entirely so in fact. So what we practice is exactly applicable to battlefield combat of the time. But combat in the time period of those swords usually involved no armour of any kind, and frequently looser formation combat than a block like a shield wall. The lunge in this instance was the standard method of attack, and proved extremely successful. As a result, if you read combat accounts of swordsmanship in this period, with the sword, they often boil down to individual combats.
That is military swordsmanship though. Most schools on the renaissance for example, were teaching swordsmanship for the civilian to fight in the street, in self defence, in duels, etc.
There is very little written about military fighting before the 18th century, in terms of individual fighting techniques. And this is especially the case with the sword, which as a rule was not the primary weapon on most battlefields.
thx for this answer, so it´s not possible to accurately reconstruct pre-18th century military swordfighting? Kind of sad, but then again, when did armies become uniformly trained and equipped again after the Western Roman Empire fell? Would you know of any accounts left from Byzantine sources?
I think it's better to look at the available fencing manuals about swordsmanship prior to the 18th century as offering a solid look into the fundamentals of how certain weapons were used, even if their exact use on a battlefield remains a mystery. Learning about the rotella and sidesword in the Bolognese tradition, for example, may give us some ideas into the practical use of that weapon set on the battlefield.
Also I've seen texts/images from the early modern period which show battlefield skills, such as learning how to properly load and shoot a gun or how to properly brace a pike. (There are even texts that describe the bearing and waving of flags which, while not a type of fighting, was certainly related to martial skills/knowledge).
As for when Western European armies began to professionalize, that process really began in earnest in the late middles ages and coincides with the development infantry.
Various manuals from the 15th century on can give some insight into how weapons were used, but with little information on to exactly how it was done on the battlefield. As I said, swords were rarely primary weapons when armour was common, so that changes things. And no, there is absolutely nothing left on Byzantine weapon usage, which is tragic.
thx for answereing all these questions^^
this is the sword that i see on napoleon's painting after he became an emperor
I know this is sort of an unrelated question, but you mention Hangars during the American revolutionary period. My 6th time great grandfather was a captain in the Continental army. A captain of a rifle regiment to be exact. Considering his rank, would he have been armed with a hangar and pistol, or a rifle? I cannot find this information
Hangers are typically weapons for enlisted men for hand-to-hand use in addition to a musket/rifle. They are constructed very cheaply with short blades and all-metal cast brass hilts for this reason. Officers of that period would normally have carried short sabers or smallswords/spadroons/colichemards. He may have also carried a pistol if he could afford it. Being the continental army though, he might have had to carry whatever he could get his hands on, and it's possible he could have had almost anything from a dirk to a cavalry sword, although a short saber like the one below was the most favored by rifle officers. www.sailorinsaddle.com/media/images/product/display_762_BRITISH_INFANTRY_OFFICERS_SHORT_SABER_CA_1776_633621086196388180.jpg
Almost certainly just a sword, and possibly a pistol. The term hanger isn't just for the cheaply produced infantry sidearms. A hanger is simply a short sword, usually curved, so a short sabre, carried by both rank and rile and officers. The main difference being that the officers ones were more finely made, and almost always lighter. The American Revolutionary war period is one of a complete lack of standardisation in terms of swords. I would highly recommend this book, it is great - www.amazon.co.uk/Swords-Blades-American-Revolution-Neumann-x/dp/1880655004
Academy of Historical Fencing thank you very much! I will certainly check out this book! I appreciate it!!
this gothic hilt saber is damn sexy!
I'm not certain if it is the same with swords, but with antique firearms it can be deleterious to the value if you clean it. Maybe double check before cleaning the late 18th century sabre @8:00?
John Shelton And how is properly maintaining the weapon damaging or negating the worth of the blade? Even from a collectors point of view, I doubt that rust and dirt have any worth.
Patina is considered a good thing by most collectors, but rust is not. Most swords I just oil and that's it. But sometimes when you get a rough project like this, it needs work to both bring it back to a decent state, and preserve it.
Hey Chris, I have no idea why this is the case. I only know that in the case of antique firearms, particularly those which saw use in battle, they lose value if they are cleaned of rust (or other stains, even blood from bayonets), which rust, I presume, had been on the weapon approximate to its date of use. Again, why this is the case, I do not know, but can only guess. Examples I can think of are firearms recovered from shipwrecks with salt corrosion (even coral growth), and civil war rifles recovered from battlefields with provenance.
John Shelton Honestly, it seems strange to me. When I see a weapon, I see its value in its design and quality, so I may simply be unable to understand.
I feel similarly. I would often tell my dad as a little kid that he should clean this particular 1700s navy pistol with what looked to me to be rust and coral but he would always remark, as did many other collectors with similar cases, that doing so would decrease the value. I am aware of one case in which it seems to make sense. My family has a rifle which belonged to our ancestor in the American Civil war. The rifle is engraved with his initials and some other custom marks. We have provenance that he fought in a certain battle using this rifle (military records and his own letters home), there is rust and patina on the rifle which is approximate to the use of the rifle itself. So, for instance, presumably the dirt and grit and rain from that campaign and even that battle field, perhaps even his own sweat has marked the rifle. It is a sentimentality, perhaps, to the earth and elements, and the use of the weapon in those conditions and in that environment, inasmuch as they are part of the rifle's (and more importantly my ancestor's) story and history. Still though, it would be nice to see the rifle restored.
I guess my question is why did the Spadroon end up with such a flexible blade? It sounded like the earlier 1786 pattern had a much stiffer blade than what the 1796 ended up with on average.
As I said, the blades on the 1786 and 1796 were identical, it is just that some examples of both can be found with a double edged unfullered blade like the one 1786 I showed. I think they used the fullered backsword blade simply because it was the norm. Most British blades in the 18th century that were designed to cut had fullered blades, and a fullered single edge blade does work well, as is found on the 1845 Wilkinson type sabre blade, but at the lightness of the spadroon one, it does not. I think sometimes equipment simply got adopted without thorough enough tested, and improved overtime, Just like the pipe back blades of 1822, good in principal, but found wanting.
Overall I think the 1786 Spadroons were better than the 1796, because they were left to the sword makers to make a good sword, rather than stick to a poorly conceived and strict pattern
sad day when there are no captions
an anyone tell me if the 1796 Spadroon blades were pattern welded, as i have a blade with a Spadroon hilt (shattered) but the blade is pattern welded.my blade is so flexable that if you lean it at 45 deg against a wall it sags over an inch under it's own weight. if you hold the last 3 inc at the tip it bends at least 12 inches with the weight of the hilt.
I've never seen one, but there are all sorts of individual variations and one offs. Most of this pattern are very flexible indeed. I'd love to see some photos of that sword.
I would love to post some photos but don't know how to do it .
Any idea how the Mcbane and Mcgregor spadroon would have looked like ?
Pretty much like a much heavier (and usually double edged) version of the fixed shell 1796 I showed, such as this 1701 Swedish pattern military sword -
arkiv.cgnord.se/Filer/rustningar/svard/SV-drabant.jpg
And this Walloon sword -
www.michaeldlong.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=995f3653-5f75-4e69-81b6-f59e40d73989
Thank you !
I imagined something different with a bit more in term of hand protection
It seems like the people who designed the 1796 spadroon said "Let's take a Walloon sword, get rid of its thumb ring, make the shell guard less substantial, and give it a narrower and more flexible blade."
Pretty much. When I was talking about the earlier 18th century European swords that McBane and others were calling Spadroons, I believe they were referring to a series of swords of which the walloon was one. The infantry types tended ti not have the thumb ring, a solid rather than pierced shell, and a slightly shorter blade than most Walloon swords, that were commonly for cavalry, but they are all related. I very much think that McBane would have called most Walloon swords a Spadroon.
That has been my opinion, since the Walloon sword would have been in fashion when McBane and Hope were youths.
So it's the sword you love to hate. ;)
I have been planning a follow up video to this, as my perspective has changed a bit. Especially as I have seen so many more antiques.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Nice, I'd love to watch it. I'm what way has your opinion changed?
I don't know why, but since I saw one on a Dutch second hand site it has been calling my name. Looked like an original sword but with a refurbished sheath. I can easily find Dutch 1820 ones, but I would love to have a Peninsular war era one. It's an attractive blade.
Mainly that after handling so many more examples I have found some really good ones. Ultimately the concept of the spadroon is perfectly good, its just that the 1796 hilt is not the best design, and as officers purchased their own, the specification can vary a lot. A decent spec 1796 spadroon can be quite a nice weapon, and the fact that it is only one type among many different weapons that were called spadroon, its a far more complex subject. Hence I have setup the FB group Spadrooners.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing
Nederlandse offciers degen 1820
link.marktplaats.nl/m1346108278
I saw this one, a later Dutch model. He also has a musician's sword
Nick - You cite the slot hilt Hanger as circa 1850-1860 - then mention the 18th Century. I know it happens, but I'm sure you mean 1760 not 1860
Did I say 1850-60? Damn. Certainly a fumble if so, as yes they were common in the American revolutionary war period, most certainly around 1750-60 on.
"...yeah maybe it's possible"
no excuses! TEST IT! :p
what do you think about the 1908 that cold steel made a replica of
I haven't handled it sorry. Very few people bother with CS for sharps here because they cost a ridiculous amount compared to US prices. You can easily buy a good original 1908 for the price. In fact I paid half what a CS costs here for my original.
Also, what reason would you have for wanting it? Aside from a few WW1 re-enactors, Ic can't see why anyone would want to a repro of it.
I'd want one because I think they're quite neat looking. I've not ridden in ages and ages, though!
Have you seen one in the flesh though? In photos they look in proportion to earlier cavalry sabres, but if you see them in person or comparative photos you might be surprised. The whole bowl and hilt is gigantic. An ugly pulpous monstrosity. Basically a small lance with vamplate.
I have not, unfortunately.
Is the most lethal sword the best one though? You only need to sufficiently mame your opponent to win and I mean it's still a sword
The spadroon was known to be a very weak cutter. Also so flexible that it would not always penetrate thick coats. Additionally, weak and prone to breaking. Yes incapacitating an opponent in some way is what is important, but often the spadroon isn't able to do it. Not impossible of course, but very difficult. A weapon that lacks stopping power can get you killed.
Academy of Historical Fencing A common complaint of American soldiers regarding the M-16 is that there isn’t sufficient stopping power. Maybe it’s the spadroon of the modern day.
...doesn't stop me giving a quick moulinette with a smallsword when I can.. if I get caught I receive a stern stare..oops, sorry, back to disengages...
1840s US Spadroon had the best blade of all the spadroons
I wouldn't say best at all, most consistent certainly, as it was a very late spadroon and made to more industrial standards. They are a lot better than the lesser quality 1796s, but handle far worse than the better examples of the 1796 for example. They are rodust, but their lack of much distal taper make them a little clumsy. A consitantly solid spadroon without being that special.
Nice video! I think it depends on the context and weight of weapons. In the modern sport I think the fast riposte is better and with slightly heavier sabers and up the pause works well to catch'em floundering after you have parried them. Here's a good example (perhaps the best) of the modern game's speed of ripostes and then my humble video of one of my counter ripostes. Nevermind my one legged hopping celebration.
ruclips.net/video/5Qwk2IPoOp0/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Xa8MAxqwzkY/видео.html
"I hate to say it, because it's French." Classic!
For infantry officers in 19th century Sweden, we have something that is referred to as a "värja" (translates to either smallsword or rapier, same term in Swedish). I'll add a link to a picture, but would you say that this is really a spadroon? This one weighs 760 g and has a blade length of 81.5 cm. They seem to vary between 500-800 g and blade length 80-84 cm. Seems officers had some options concerning them, or maybe it was just a loose pattern. What do you think?
digitaltmuseum.se/011024415879/varja/media
What about the walloon?
The Walloon hilt and Mortuary are both very much the origins of the spadroon. However, most Walloon swords have quite large and substantial blades, mostly intended for cavalry use, and so they would fall into the broadsword category. The lighter were very much spadroons or sheering swords though.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing , I see! Thanks so much for getting back, Nick! I was wondering if walloons were more in the broadsword category. In this video you were also mentioning that the late 17th/early 18th century fencing masters(maybe McBane, I forget) speak more favorably of the spadroon, and that these earlier spadroons were heavier. Would these have been as heavy as broadswords, somewhere in between, or? Btw, I'm currently looking at a walloon by Wulflund. But when I saw that its weight is 1.6kg, I thought that sounded way overweight. However, after hearing that they're supposed to be more like broadswords, I'm wondering if that weight might not be so bad. What do you think?
McBane published in 1728 and used the terms both Sheering sword and spadroon. It is William Hope who first discussed them in depth in his several works at the end of the 17th and start of the 18thc. They were described as light broadswords, and are specifically lighter in the foible, so more nimble. In fact every British source speaks favourably of the spadroon, it is only with bad examples of the 1796 pattern when it got a bad rep. Exactly how heavy spadroons were at that point is hard to tell as there were not patterns and we do not know the full spectrum to which the term was applied. But typically a spadroon is 600-800g.
I wouldn't recommend any swords from Wulflund, they lack distal taper and are clunky crowbars. 1.6kg would be heavy for a Walloon and theirs is also too short. They were usually 1kg-1.3kg, with a blade length around 85-88cm.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing , See... this is the type of information that is very valuable, it can literally save me money! I was wondering if they were crap or not. The prices did kind of make me think it would be too good to be true. And I did notice that the blade looked awfully thin at the ricasso, which told me that it couldn't have had much distal taper at all, if any. Do you know of anyone who's currently making good quality, sharp European sabers OR Middle Eastern/Indian sabers? On the Mideast/Indian side of things, I would be looking specifically for either an Ottoman-style kilij, or a tulwar. Thanks so much for getting back, Nick!
It looks like a smallsword
8:45 I think you mean 1770s?
Oh yes, that was an odd cock up that got missed!
the naming is confusing as fuck - in polish spadroon, smallsword and epee got the same name - szpada. . Pics of my spadroon/smallsword: imgur.com/a/905UT
Why are you collecting multiples of them if it’s such a “dreadful” sword?
Cause all swords are cool
Why don't you ask the people who were killed by a spadroon if it was a piece of crap or not .
Why don't we ask the people who died because they were using one? Because neither question would really help us understand the weapon.
Almost anything can be used as a weapon to kill, that doesn't mean it is very good at either the job of offence, or defence.
Academy of Historical Fencing don't get me wrong I would not trade my 1860 cutlass for my 1840 nco sword , but if I had to defend myself and all I could get to was the nco sword I would use it . I just think all the hate is unwarranted.
SECOND!!