The REAL REASON they chose SMALLSWORDS instead of RAPIERS
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 сен 2024
- Why did so many military and naval officers around the year 1700 choose smallswords instead of rapiers?
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#swordfighting #royalnavy #antiques
In the 18th century, a lot of good jobs came with the right to wear a sword. That meant a lot of people who never had been noblemen or officers suddenly got to wear one as a sign of their rank and accomplishment. These people could be bureaucrats, scholars or even musicians. Johann Sebastian Bach got the right to wear a sword because he worked as Cantor. He even got some use out of his sword, when he was attacked by a drunk oboist, armed with a cudgel. Of course, civilians who had the right to carry a sword, but had no military ambitions or intention to duel, didn't really know how to fence, so they chose a weapon that was small, light, affordable and easy to wear. Often, the weapon didn't even have an edge.
This is indeed an important point that people tend to overlook. At Versailles, even the fairly menial workers who were in charge of putting on wallpaper (valets-tapissiers) wore swords, and the theft of a silver sword-hilt from one of these created enough paperwork to eventually draw in the duc de Choiseul (who was at that time minister of the foreign affairs and the navy), even though this was in the middle of the Seven Years War when you could have expected him to be sufficiently busy with more important stuff.
That's a good point about the middle class carrying swords. One minor point though: most of the most popular sword styles of the period where thrusting blades. Even ones that where actually used often didn't have an edge, because no one expected them to be used for cutting.
Best comment here. Fascinating info
"attacked by a drunk oboist, armed with a cudgel" classical music just can't shake it's association with violent criminality.
Please do not underestimate the convenience factor. Here in Texas (where daily carry of a pistol is both legal and normal) the actual physical carry of that weapon can be a huge pain. It is easier to carry a smaller/lighter pistol vs. that massive boat anchor of a competitive "race gun." If you know you would need to defend yourself, you would obviously pick the most capable weapon that you can use well. (Size, weight, convenience, and social approval be damned.) On an average Tuesday, the inconvenience of 4+ lbs of gun & gear just going to the corner store for a loaf of bread is... annoying. This leads many of us to have "safe queens." These are the beautiful examples of the gunsmiths art that you just won't take out daily, so they rule over their social inferiors in the realm of your gun safe. For concealed carry, size and weight are even more important. The small pocket pistol chambered in an anemic caliber that you actually have on you is beats the comically overpowered hand-cannon you left at home.
I would also say ease of use. If you have less "talent" with a blade. Take your average junior officer. They have more important things to do than practice the blade all day. (Learning how to sail a ship, calculate supplies, site cannon positions, use the proper fork, suck up to your seniors, etc...)
Given the lighter/shorter nature of the smallsword, I would expect acquiring a minimal required level of competency than with a much longer/heavier rapier. While Matt would grab the rapier and start recreating a low-budget fantasy movie (stacking bodies as fast as they cone in range,) for someone who is not all that far from a "Pointy end goes into the bad guy" level of swordmanship might not. Like me.
if the spanish kept using the rapier despite being under a French king like Phillip V who Frenchified a lot of stuff, then they're based. They were forced to abandon their big hats and long capes and wear short capes and tricorns. So if they kept using the rapier it's one of the last fashion things they could keep.
In case you didn't know there was an actual revolt because of this French fashion imposition, the guards were stoping people to cut their capes and force them to uae tricorns and they rebelled. It was called the Esquilache mutiny, a very interesting anecdote about how important local fashion is for the identity of a people. So i wouldmt day they were backwards or old fashioned, id congratulate them for keeping it a while longer, since they lost their fancy hats and long capes already
Reminds me of the Scots being allowed to keep their kilts in ww1. They also tried to take them away at some point, but let them keep them for morale reasons.
@@tazelator1 The funny thing is that the kilt itself was a compromise of their previous traditional clothing, but they act like they had it before the industrial revolution
Well, the mutiny had more to do with the rising price of wheat and other essential goods, and it was probably incited by factions within the government vying for power. The clothing ban was only the last straw in a long list of unpopular measures.
The Spanish army officers and most gentlemen had adopted the smallsword probably by the 1710s. The rapier or other rapier-like swords survived in civilian use by commoners or far from the court, like in the American colonies, or in some design choices like the cavalry swords.
Are there any good books on the subject ?
@@MAZEMIND The mutiny you mean? I haven't read anything specific. There's a long paper available online (in Spanish) by the name of "Contribución al estudio del motín contra Esquilache (1766)" that looks fairly in-depth.
It's important to point out, I think, the practicality of a smaller blade aboard a naval vessel where your day-to-day is very cramped.
I would also think it would be hard to dance while wearing a rapier. I can hear it now: Look at that idiot wearing his grandfather's sword. Demmed nuisance, I say! Keeps hitting everybody. What!?!?
A great excuse to not dance though...........
@@jamesblaze21based
At the Tudor court there was a particular accepted arm position for dancing the gaillarde, young princess Elisabeth´s favorite, with a sword.
Same idea with the secrete, a minimalist skullcap style helmet popular at the time with wealthy soldiers purely because it let you wear a cool looking hat over it.😅
As an army officer, I was a "manager of violence". My weapon was a platoon, not a pistol.
If you were an officer in the US Army, your weapon would be The Saber for All Officers, Model 1902.
@@pyroparagon8945 Then it changed ca 1910-12 (MacArthur - of WWII fame) designed the 1910-12 saber, based on the French cavalry saber style.
The 1908 Encyclopedia Britannica has a marvelous article on cavalry tactics and saber styles / tactics - which, of course, WWI trenches and machine guns rather quickly turned those tactics into mere historical footnotes (grist for Mr. Easton's fabulous lessons!).
Also, in the US Civil War a famous officer in the first battle of Bull Run / Manassas had a beautiful little ceremonial short sword, which he quickly replaced with an 1860 issue US saber taken from a fallen soldier. Short sword vs saber? Sabers won.
@@lifeveteran9766 I believe it has since reverted to the 1902.
@@minuteman4199 Exactly. It matters almost not a whit what if any weapons an officer carries. In fact, it matters so little that Lt Colnel Jack Church served as an infantry officer in WW 2 armed with a basket tilted broadsword and a long bow.
@@user-wd4ge2zh2c Jack Churchill, you mean. The name is important, because it saved his life.
Catt Easton's little kingdom there in the background. Lying on the warm stones, dreaming of fish in the water feature, and hoping a bird will land nearby.
Catt Easton xD
@@talamioros His name is Oscar IIRC, but very early on he came to be known as Catt in the comments. 😄
Mad Jack Churchill didn't get the peer pressure memo
5:02
I've got 6 kids, mate. King Arthur couldn't pull me out 🤣🤣🤣
If a naval officer needed a sword in a fight he could pick up a cutlass off the weapons rack. If he's just carrying it around he can carry a small sword.
And an infantry or artillery officer could have a hangar or some other sword to wear when battle looms.
I imagine a typical officer would be most skilled with one particular type of sword, and that would usually be the one he regularly carried. Picking up a different blade that you're less familiar with would be a last resort if you lost your accustomed weapon. You wouldn't do it deliberately, unless you wanted to prioritise intimidation over fighting effectiveness.
@@tulliusexmisc2191 That's a good point. I suspect midshipmen learned how to fight with a sword from the petty officers and drilled with the sailors. If this is true, they would have learned with standard government issue swords. I don't know for sure that they did that, they wouldn't have by the time they were commissioned officers, but I think the 12/13 year old midshipmen did.
Thank you for this video. This is a topic that I've always wondered about, and the only conclusion I could come to was the "ease of wearing" argument. It's nice to see that there are other factors to consider.
i agree but as matt described, officers just weren’t as involved in combat as often as they were in centuries past. the side sword/officer’s sword was almost ceremonial and so, yes, i can understand how peer pressure could sway individuals into coming to possess “cooler” swords than your contemporaries. makes sense, you know? it’s just another wednesday and i learned something that for the life of me i don’t think i’ll ever have any reason to consider again. lol
For people at court i always imagined it was A fashion and B ease of carrying. Especially as everyone was expected to use a smallsword in a duel.
To be fair, all European courts had a significant overlap between courtiers and military officers; at the French court, if you were a nobleman from a non-judicial background [and by the time of Louis XIV, those were almost completely excluded from formal court access] then you were almost automatically also a soldier. In other words, lots of courtiers had military experience whch would have influenced their choice of sword. So my guess is that even from a purely military point of view, ease of carrying eventually beat fighting efficiency, especially due to what Matt already mentioned (in fact, at least infantry officers were normally not expected to fight) plus the availability of pistols as an alternative sidearm.
Mostly for comfort and portability I'd imagine. Also if your opponents also carry smallswords there's no disadvantage carrying one yourself.. alongside a brace of pistols when the need dictates.
Well, there would be the disadvantage of giving up a possible advantage of reach. But that's splitting hairs.
In the example given re a naval officer keeping on point in a rolling sea would be far more difficult due to the extended blade length; a smallsword would be much more manageable.
It's likely almost no one expected to use one in day to day life. So wearing what's most comfortable makes sense. If a duel is looming, or you are going to war then you'll arm yourself accordingly. For just basic self defense, the small sword was probably good enough.
Similar to carrying a firearm nowadays. Only weirdos walk around with carbines even though they are superior to a hand gun, since the latter is good enough for someone who expects to never have to use it but carries it just in case.
Excellent video again.
Nice and fitting anecdote. In the 1973 movie "The Three Musketeers" Michael York (D’Artagnan) gets laughed at for wearing "such an old fashioned sword"...
And that was in the original book, because Dumas was an absolute master of the small, establishing details.
Sí, una espada que le regala su padre. Probablemente de tiempo de Enrique IV. No es extraño que al llamativo D’Artagnan Dumas lo describa así:
@@nobodyexpectssi4654 Dumas was a world treasure. And personally an interesting man.
If we think of a sword as a side arm, a rapier is indeed a great side arm. But as time went on, officers probably also started to carry a pistol as a side arm. Now we have two side arms. So it makes sense to reduce the size of at least one of them.
Exactly my thinking! In the period Matt was speaking about, handguns were becoming an officer's primary weapon with the sword being a back-up in case the officer ran out of pistols.
When the waistcoat and surcoat replaced the dublet in the late 17 century, a sword could get tangled in the coattails. A shorter sword would be less likely to interfere with the drape of the coat, particularly if it was worn inside the coat rather than over it. Paintings of the period show that swords were worn, but they didn't work as well with style as they had in previous periods. You also see men carrying walking sticks rather than swords, which wasn't the case in earlier times.
Even in early 18 century portraits, swords are not universal, and these were men who could afford a portrait. When swords were worn, the hilt was at the upper thigh, not at the waist. That meant that a sword had to be shorter or it would either drag on the floor, or if it was worn at an angle, which portraits show that it was, it would project too far outside of the coat and knock into things. Btw, the hilts shown in the early 18 century portraits were all of the short sword style. No rapiers, which are prominent in portraits from the 16 century.
Hi Matt, we've both been traveling and playing with swords for quite some times and something I figured out is that the rapier is not business compliant and is a serious source of inconvenience when traveling. It remained popular in cultures in which the upper classes weren't expected to do business (Spain), whereas the economically active upper classes of other countries were quick to adopt the smallsword, better fit for the office, traveling, being actively present in court. Imagine a bunch of people with rapiers in an office, government building, meeting at court ding-dong, the swords get in the way all the time. I think officers needed to be active on an administrative level and the smallsword is simply a better businessman's sword and the social stigma of the rapier could come from this factor as well: it is a sword for non working people
How about this?: Rapier out-ranges smallsword. Pistol out-ranges both. Smallsword is retained as a baton for pointing at things, style, and a badge of rank, functions for which the rapier is way, way overbuilt.
On the other hand, the rapier never runs out of ammunition...
So rationality sacrificed for fashion? Things never really change.
But fashion has been formed with some thoughts before that - it was fashionable to wear long rapier before, then fashionable to wear smallsword after.
The reduced size makes it easier to move around in. M16 vs m4. The m4 wasn't adopted because of better accuracy or ballistics, but because it was more maneuverable. Or hanger vs sabre might be another good comparison.
fashionsouls ftw!
@@brianc9374the problem is that both swords aren’t long enough for maneuverability to be a real issue, especially when thrusting. Unless you end up grappling, but if you’re an officer grappling with an opponent by the time small swords came about, everything has gone wrong several times.
@Specter_1125 If you're an officer using your sword, everything has gone wrong several times.
That rapier is one of the best looking designs to come out of Spain. And what Matt has is on par with what we see in the Met. Such a beautiful piece.
The comment about the Spanish and Portuguese holding out with the rapier for longer made me wonder what treatises or historical accounts may say about smallsword against rapier combat. Especially from the smallsword perspective, as I think the reverse might tend to dullness. _"When facing the tiny smallsword with one's rapier: stab and rejoice!"_
"If facing a rapier with a smallsword, throw it, to make up for the reach disadvantage."
@@jamesblaze21 And even when that does nothing, you can then run away much faster than the guy who wants to hold on to his rapier!
It's like an orchestra conductor's baton.
Interesting that you brought up seasonally appropriate dress. I live in Southern Oregon, USA; it gets beastly hot here (111 Farenheit/44 Celsius) in the summer; one can almost always spot those with concealed carry (firearm) licenses here simply based on attire. You can also spot new-to-Oregon folks in general by the same. 😁
A sword you mostly wear to show your authority and point at things but is still good in a fight in those fairly unlikely circumstances, is much more likely to to be influenced by practicality and peer pressure/fashion than a sword that you are likely to actually use on a regular basis
Also, if you have short legs, a sheathed longer sword is a pain, slapping you in the ankles and creating its own circle of unfriendliness around you. Plus the smallsword hilt looks more elegant, that's a big curve of metal at your waist. If you need a longer sword for battle, different story, you can hitch it up higher if you are just carrying it, and carry it unsheathed into battle.
That's actually an interesting point and I believe there is some truth in that. As a reference, there is a trend in Police in my country (Poland) where some old, thick-headed policemen ridicule younger ones for putting on bullet-proof vests during the street patrols ("what are you, a Rambo or what?"), which leads to the situation where actually many of the patrolmen do not wear them, even when they could. And that is actually increasing the risk of them getting seriously injured or killed, exactly for the points mentioned by you: peer pressure and convenience (bullet proof vest is not exactly the most comfortable piece of clothes ;) ). Cheers!
I think that the small sword became a better choice once pistols became more effective. Given a choice of carrying more sword or more gun to a duel, the gun has some reach advantage over the sword.
Very excellent video, Matt. I agree and this is also topical, I would say. The social aspect is a constant element in our lives, and not enough discussions connect those dots together.
The peer pressure is real. When I was in the army in the 90s, there was immense social pressure to starch your uniforms and spit polish your boots. The lifers were fanatical about doing this because they wanted to get promoted. But for those of us who knew we weren't going to reenlist, and weren't going to be promoted anyway, this was just a lot of work for no real reward. So we would simply iron our uniforms and brush shine out boots (per regulations).
But the lifers resented us because THEY were doing it and wanted us to do it to. DESPITE the fact that you technically weren't supposed to starch your uniforms or spit shine your boots because it damaged the uniform.
Forgot to say thank you for an interesting video on an intriguing question, especially as I was relieved that there is apparently no universally acknowledged explanation yet! I also agree on the point about peer pressure (though to be fair that would still leave the question unanswered about how the proecss started, i.e. why those peers would all have worn small swords in the first place). The only thing I might add to that is that a naval officer on board of his ship is probably a less compelling example of how it worked, since by definition he will have barely more than two or three peers there. A stronger example might therefore be an infantry officer coming either to the capital or to a big provincial city where he would encounter not only many other officers, but also high-ranking civilian nobles and courtiers.
Of course, in my experience of researching 17th and 18th c. social history of the élites, cavalry officers were always the 'smartest' and most socially high-ranking men of the military, and hence the ones most likely (together with royal guards units) to establish new trends. That said, as far as this video's specific question is concerned, I do not know whether (though I would assume that) 18th c. cavalry officers replaced their actual fighting swords with smaller 'decorative' swords when participating in aristocratic society events.
Finally, I think that while early modern people undoubtedly did have a concept of nationality and did often have national preferences in such matters, that argument works less well with rapier vs. smallsowrd, precisely because the rapier's national identification is more Spanish than French. But at the time when the change occuured, Spain was no longer the main opponent of Britain (or of France, come to that, given that the French also developed a small sword to replace the rapier). In the 1688-97 war, Britain and Spain were on the same side, i.e. part of the anti-French coalition, while in the next war (1701-1713) half of Spain under Philip V was allied to France and fought the other half of Spain which was allied to Austria, Britain and the rest of the anti-French coalition.
These coalitions, incidentally, also remind us of how national preferences or even animosities were often much weaker than pragmatism. In other words, it is worth remembering that when British, Dutch, Austrian, Hungarian, Prussian, Portuguese, Catalan, Savoyard, Italian and Danish officiers and politicians coordinated those great anti-French alliances, they would invariably do so in French (which must often have sounded hilarious with all those accents), simply because French at that time played exactly the same rôle which English plays nowadays - it was the only language which you could expect upper and upper middle class people from all of these countries to speak and understand to at least a reasonable standard.
I would be the disliked weirdo, wearing the rapier. I know that, because I am always the disliked weirdo.
But you will have a reach advantage, so it doesn't matter if they don't like you.
They’ll have to dislike him from further away
@@jamesblaze21 I am a dachshound....not much reach for me
@@allmachtsdaggl5109 You look more like a weirdo Schnauzer!!!
If you would prefer to be the disliked wierdo today, you probably wouldn't be a military officer back in the day.
I was a fencing coach for 32 years and taught stage swordsmanship for about 10 years. I have first hand experience with both small swords and rapiers. Rapiers have the reach you speak of, but tend to be heavy and are slow on parries. The longer the blade, the more awkward the rapier became. Because of that, a dagger was usually used for parrying in rapier fights, though rapier parries were very much used as well. The weight of most rapiers made changing the direction their points during an attack slow, though not impossible. The small sword you show in this video is called a colishemarde and was characterized by the widened blade for the first quarter to third of the blade length. This strengthened the blade to more effectively parry a heavier rapier blade, while the lighter, needle-like part of the blade easily pierced heavy clothing and torsos. The swordsman could parry, continue to push the parried blade to the side with their (gloved) free hand, and lunge in as quickly as possible. If the opponent was using a parrying dagger, the lighter tip of the colishemarde was more likely to avoid engagement of the dagger blade to reach the target. As more people switched from rapiers to small swords, the widened section was replaced by a blade with an even more pronounced triangular cross-section, making it stronger, lighter and even faster. I feel the change to small swords was more due to the speed of the new weapon compared to the older rapier, though fashion and peer pressure were certainly factors for their increased popularity.
One of the most confusing thing about “Three Musketeers” is that they are described as using swords which leads to controversy weather they use rapiers or small swords.
As soldiers, I would say rapiers.
In a city, perhaps smallswords?
At least in the German translation they're explicitly using Rapiers. No idea about Dumas' original text.
The setting of the Novel is Paris 1625. This date makes the rapier the most likely blade of choice. Rapiers began transitioning into smallswords in about 1640...and the transition wasn't complete until about 1725. I have two antique French smallswords...one from 1756 and the other from the 1770s. They're both very similar in size and weight...owing to the fact that the smallsword had standardized by that point.
In a formal duel, aren't the weapons supposed to be identical/equal and approved by the seconds? So you show up with your four foot long rapier, and hand it to your second, and take whatever the seconds agreed on. If the "duel" is actually a brawl, won't it likely be in a city, and even possibly a bar? Not much room to draw there, the opponent might already be inside your reach.
I own a replica rapier and two original antique smallswords. The smallswords would be much more effective in a crowded space like a tavern or cramped European alley. Rapiers...while beautiful and deadly...are an incredible pain in the ass to carry around!
So, as Matt always says, “context!”
Depending on the time period and location, the longer blade may have violated sumptuary laws. IIRC, Queen Elizabeth I limited civilians to 40 inch blades for rapiers and 12 inches for daggers.
I would imagine that many duels were fought with equivalent weapons agreed upon in advance. If the smallsword was the standard dueling sword of a particular time and place, then it might make sense for a young gentleman to acquire one and train with it regularly. If the same gentleman later went to war, it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to carry the same sword he used/carried in civilian life.
You should look up the Mexican Espada Ancha sometime, they are halfway between a 1700s war sword and a modern machete. Very interesting.
Spanish no mexican come form the dragones de cuera
People were just as human centuries and even millennia ago as they are now. I have no doubt that the very earliest humans had a desire to "fit in" with their peer group. "Thag, nobody wears bearskin any more. All the cool people wear buffalo hide now."
Considering most men who ponced around wearing swords were never going to use them, swords were status jewelry for most small swords make sense, then when it becomes fashion and officers came from the monied class who were the greatest followers of fashion, and they were lighter and more convenient to carry the officers inevitably wear them.
Not true in France. French gentlemen used their swords. As a matter of fact...Napoleon lost more officers to duels than battle...which led him to outlaw the practice! One of my relatives...General Reynier was punished for killing another French General in a duel!
An officer used his sword as a command signal. On the Plains of Abraham in Quebec, there’s an information graphic showing the different gestures an officer would make with his sword to signify to the drummer what command to beat (general advance, charge, retreat, reform and advance, muster or close ranks if already mustered, and fall in).
Specifically for military officers, I think the combination of the following factors is the best explanation for choosing the smallsword:
1. Easier to parry a bayonet with the thicker blade stock
2. Quicker defensive draw, while still delivering perforating wounds
3. Easier to see the broader blade when directing troops
4. Easier to use in close quarters and/or rank and file formations
5. Ease of carry
Your thoughts are the same as mine on this subject. Fashion played a great role in what weapon people of means decided to wear/use.
If people were to suddenly start wearing swords, I would wear a messer! It’s still a useful tool in addition to having some weight to it. A rapier is just too much sword to walk around with every day.
Because guns.
It's like why is it less common for people to carry heavy, full size pistols versus carrying small, light pistols. Can you imagine how irritating carrying the rapier would have been over the smallsword?
I read somewhere small swords became popular when men started wearing trousers rather than hose.
Another theory is that smallswords are faster and more agile.
In a HEMA match you face your opponent head on, and reach is vital. In an eighteenth century alley scrap you're allowed to move sideways, run around in circles and stab opponents in the back. Also throw things, flail about with a coat, grab, kick, gouge and bite.
Speed and agility count for more in those conditions than they do in a sporting match with rules for safety.
Although if I knew I would be in a sword fight in front of my house in five minutes I'd be up on the hill in three minutes, sitting under a tree with a scoped rifle; on the theory that if you're in a fair fight for your life, you're doing it wrong.
This reminds me of a point that comes up in the perennial debates here in the US over "best" handgun. And ultimately, it doesn't matter if a handgun is better if it's inconvenient enough to carry that you end up leaving it at home half the time.
Lest we not forget, a further reinforcing of the idea of practicality (and cultural expectation) was the common use of hunting sword-type hangers by officers in most european-style armies whilst on campaign. They are just that much easier to wear than a short sword. Further, by at least the first half of the 18th century, it had become the normal expectation for officers (at least Anglo and American) to choose the hanger while in the field. You can see these two ideas blended perfectly in the figure of George Washington, who owned many small swords and is documented to have carried a green and silver-handled hunting sword in the field during the AWI. What is fascinating to me, in lieu of the present discussion, is that this particular hanger is actually longer than many (all?) of the extant small swords owned by him, which really blurs the line between practicality as a reason for choosing over a small sword in the field. At least in the case of Washington's hanger, etiquette actually seems to have trumped function. That said, there are certainly practical reasons to use a shorter, slashing weapon on an 18th century battlefield, however vestigial, considering how unlikely it was for an officer - particularly Colonels and above - to ever need to use a sword in combat.
I believe that the same thing may be true of the transition from the tachi to the katana
There is probably some truth to that notion, in that the tachi ‘took up more space’ around the wearer when he was not horse-mounted. However; what eventually became known as the ‘katana’ - and the way it was worn and drawn - initially came about in an era when warfare and battlefield tactics was changing from (predominantly) mounted warfare with focus on archery, to more massed armies of “commoner” foot soldiers (ashigaru; recruited from the peasant class).
The officers in these “new” armies (actual samurai) would still continue to wear their longer swords like a tachi was worn (at least during the initial decades); especially if they were the ‘higher ups’ - who would probably be wearing actual old tachi anyway, when wearing armor.
But fashion would obviously play a role, as time went by. When not ‘on campaign’ the practicality of carrying your swords uchi-gatana style seemingly caught on; in the generations that followed.
Artistic illustrations, and other records, from the Sengoku Jidai furthermore indicate that Japanese swords were worn somewhat more vertically than in later periods, e.g. the Edo period (ca. 17th century onwards). This seems to imply, that it was deemed prudent not to have your sidearm jutting out too much (scabbard-clashing was generally frowned upon!).
In the Spanish Empire, both types of swords were used and they followed the fashion of their time, even if it was foreign, such as Admiral Blas de Lezo who carried that type of sword at the beginning of the 18th century.
On board ship there are plenty of things - rigging for instance - that get in the way, which makes longer swords awkward to wield. The naval cutlass is a relatively short weapon for that reason.
Comfort is my guess.
As far as I know, a new combat system was introduced along with the smallsword, which was statistically more effective for the average user and this could have made it possible to defeat the old rapier combat system.
Thank you for the topic. It may be reasoned that with the more common use of firearms, by the time combatants exhausted their weapons of decreasing range (first muskets then pistols), the rapier as a range weapon may not make a lot of sense. As an epee fencer, I come across quite tall French-grip fencers (pommelers) who have a distinct reach advantage (with the luxury of an unencumbered and dedicated strip on which to fence). However, because epee is a point weapon as both the smallsword and rapier primarily are, one good deflection and a step will render the reach advantage moot. I suspect in a crowded battlefield the smallsword is simply more effective and easier to maneuver.
yeah, those were the three points I assumed you'd bring up. Convenience, tight spaces and fashion.
Tripping over your own blade was never fashionable 😂
The rapier being so long might lend to it being a really good way to point at things on a a battlefield
Excellent well thought out video. Well done.
I completely agree with your thoughts, Matt. I would add two points. 1) even if an 18th century English gentleman DID see the sense of a rapier, where would he find a fencing master to teach him its use, if the fashion had moved to small swords?
2) in the military the small sword was - at least initially - a SECONDARY weapon. The spontoon would have been the officer’s primary weapon for most of that century
Peer pressure is a really good point. Many people, me included, tend to forgot that it's always just people being people.
Hey Matt...great video about my two favorite sword types! One aspect of this debate I think people fail to consider...and HEMA fails to adequately address. Is the fact that real sword fights/duels are very tentative affairs! Like most fights there is usually an extended "feeling out" period. In which both parties are reluctant to commit to an attack that will likely leave them vulnerable to a deadly counter. In this circumstance the weight of your weapon becomes an important consideration. I own a replica rapier (1,200 grams), as well as a couple of original antique smallswords (300 and 400 grams). As you're well aware...smallswords are very light and fast...and can be used without fatigue for extended periods of time. Rapiers are about three times as heavy...but only a few inches longer. As soon as that rapier arm begins to fatigue...you're in real trouble against a smallsword!!! Where HEMA fails, is to truly replicate the tentative nature of deadly fights. If I had to fight with a smallsword against a rapier. I would harass the sword arm...thereby keeping it moving until it was obvious they were tiring out. In my experience using my replica rapier...this doesn't take very long. In my younger days as an amateur boxer...I learned first-hand how difficult it becomes to simply keep your guard up after a few rounds of a real fight! Once the adrenaline of the opening moments begins to wane...fatigue sets in rapidly. Making self-defense difficult...and offense nye impossible! I believe this is the predominant reason that the smallsword replaced the rapier as the sidearm of choice for civilian use. And it's little wonder, with the limitations of HEMA to recreate the real nature of the duel, that this question of rapier vs smallsword has continued to vex us for so long! Thanks again, Matt.
Nice video as always. How about the Spadroon?
We don’t talk about spadroons.
@@jonasbarkaIt’s kinda like a general rule in “SwordFight Club”… 😁
Yes, reach is important...*if* and only *if* you can keep your opponent out beyond the tip of your rapier. Get in past that huge length of steel, and a simple dagger up close is more effective. If you are a skilled enough duelist, you will *quickly* press your advantage, and get in beyond the tip of that rapier opposing you, and quickly finish off your opponent. Swat that rapier aside for just one beat, and lunge, and it's over. Short sword wins.
Far easier said than done
Pffft...ok.
The reach advantage is not better only if you can prevent the opponent from getting past it. The dagger has an advantage very briefly only *if* they manage to get past the rapier point. It is not a matter of skill, if the one with the longer weapon is _decent_ with it, getting past the point almost requires them to specifically make a mistake that the one with the shorter weapon can capitalize on regardless of the person with the shorter weapon being far more skilled.
@@ionlycomment5187 keeping your point in line vs a smallsword is easier said than done. It seems most here have never fought a decent smallswordist. Do not think it's an easy fight.
@@jonathanh4443 Exactly...I own a replica rapier (1,200 grams), as well as a couple of original antique smallswords (300 and 400 grams). Smallswords are very light and fast...and can be used without fatigue for extended periods of time. Rapiers are about three times as heavy...but only a few inches longer. As soon as that rapier arm begins to fatigue...you're in real trouble against a smallsword!!!
”Its bigger, longer and heavier” 😁
"It was much too big to be called a sword..."
Peer pressure begs the question: why do people prefer the short sword? You provided good reasons for that, and I think the fact that officers rarely used the sword is the key background. If they did, I doubt peer pressure would have carried the same weight.
Another interesting video, Matt! ⚔️
If you wear a rapier, you might be advertising for a duel.
An officers weapon, for a less efficient age.
The Brig. "Jenkins ? chap with the wings there. Five rounds rapid".
Convenience of carry was going to be my guess. 99.99% of the time, you're going to be carrying it not using it.
This might well have been the reason smaller swords became fashionable in the first place
When I first started carrying a gun, I was way too optimistic about the size of pistol I could carry. Most of the time, I now carry a small pocket pistol. I am aware of its shortcomings compared to a larger pistol, but I'm happy train a little more often to help offset that.
There's an issue with the logic here. While an individual might carry a "lesser" weapon due to peer pressure, that doesn't explain why your peers chose it in the first place.
It had to have been perceived to have been better *before* the peers chose it. So, peer pressure *cannot* ever explain why something was chosen in the first place.
The other explanations would have to suffice as to why it became popular. Perhaps a really good duelist started using it and everyone decided to copy him? That happens even today, people are more apt to carry the weapon the supposed best in the world does and people want the bicycle that just won the Tour de France...
Exactly...I own a replica rapier (1,200 grams), as well as a couple of original antique smallswords (300 and 400 grams). Smallswords are very light and fast...and can be used without fatigue for extended periods of time. Rapiers are about three times as heavy...but only a few inches longer. As soon as that rapier arm begins to fatigue...you're in real trouble against a smallsword!!!
When you questioned, why using a smallsword over a rapier, conveniance was my very first thought, too. As you said, as an officer on the battlefield, commanding a unit of 100 musket men, if your unit engages a similar unit, what are the threats to your life? Mainly other bullets and bayonets, maybe a hand full of NCOs with a pole weapon and then, finally one officer with a blade (maybe he - same goes for you - he has a pistol as well). I don't think the chance of getting to fight the other officer are not so great, compared to catching a bullet first or having to fight an opponent with a way longer "pointy blade on a staff/musket". In all these cases you are at a clear reach disadvantage, no matter what sword you carry. And if you have, finally, made it to the enemy officer, why not use your pistol (if you have one) first on him, before he tries the same on you?
Your second point was quite convincing. If I was the British officer I only wood carry the Spanish rapier, if I had earned it (= took it from the hands of a Spanish officer me or my unit killed or captured in a battle). But in this case, if this victory was officially credited to me (by higher ups, maybe I even got a medal for my actions), I would proudly present it at every occasion possible (together with the medal), bragging over my victory. But if I couldn't back up this story of gaining a victory and earning it, I also wouldn't carry it around. Peer presure would be a clear issue.
I think you are right. When I get up and out in the morning, I always wear the weapon that fits my tie!😊
I think the ease of wearing argument is crucial. One example of how that could matter comes to my mind immediately. In a letter to her daughter, Madame de Sévigné described the 1688 reception ceremony of the (French) order of the Saint-Esprit (i.e. the French equivalent to the Order of the Garter in Britain or the Golden Fleece for the Habsburgs), where newly appointed but not yet installed knights of the order had to walk in a ceremonial procession wearing a costume which had been in fashion at the orders creation in 1578, and prominently featuring long stockings under short trousers. This probably looked good on the young noblemen whom the order's fairly metrosexual founder Henry III had preferred to appoint, but wasn't ideal for the often elderly dukes and field-marshals appointed in rather large numbers at the 1688 ceremony.
According to Madame de Sévigné, a number of them ended up having their swords badly entangled with those of their neighbours (the knights had to march two abreast), and in the process appear to have dropped their long stockings which in that costume & at that time replaced inexistent underwear. While there is some speculation that she exaggerated the embarrassment in order to console her daughter for the fact that the daughter's husband (the comte de Grignan, deputy governor of Provence) could not participate in the ceremony due to his duties as a provincial governor, even in that case it seems unlikely that she would have invented a problem that wasn't otherwise known to occur, meaning that accidents of this kind were in all likelihood something that happened.
I wouldn't reduce all to Peer Pressure
A small sword can, as you said, be drawn faster, it is more agile and more convenient in tight spaces. These were everyday carry and you can be forced to defend yourself in a room, on the deck of a ship or in a space where you cannot move freely.
The 18th century is also the age where firearm really started taking over, compared to the century before, which means an officer will always rely on a pistol for self defence first, which leaves you to draw your sword in a hurry, after your flint pistol was expended.
I would certainly go for a smaller and more practical weapon that can be a convenient backup, rather then something that can be and inconvenience. Reach has its advantages, and nothing has more reach then a Pistol.
20th Century: Soldiers carried rifles; officers carried pistols.
21st Century. Officers and soldiers carry same. Makes it harder for snipers to target officers.
I hadn't really thought about this before watching this video. I imagine in the gunpowder era a smallsword was perfectly good at pointing at things, and probably deadly enough for the rare times it would be used.
Another major factor could be training priorities and their consequences. If one spends over 90% of training time with smallswords because that's the weapon he'll use for civilian self-defense and dueling, then it may be better to also take it to war because that's what he's more familiar with and has all of his muscle memory wired to. This muscle memory could in fact be fatal to the user if switching to a very similar yet subtly different sword like smallsword->rapier: a split second of getting a part of the hilt or the end of the blade stuck on part of one's own body/outfit or a piece of environment (closed spaces!), or even getting unexpectedly hit by the opponent - which wouldn't happen with the smallsword he's used to - could easily spell the difference between life and death.
Was it commo to have a leather ring in a hilt on a saber/ spadroon style hilt? I'm assuming it's for point control, but I have only seen it in a german sword
You see the same in handguns here in the U.S.
pistols and revolvers loose their usability with barrels shorter than 4”. But a 7” barrel revolver is a pain in rear to carry. Lots of people carry 2” and 3” barreled handguns. Comfy to carry, less useable.
Hey Matt, I have question for you about this period but about muskets?
Would you say the skill ceiling was much lower and the skill floor much higher for bayonet fighting in comparison to say swords? I.e there's going to be a much smaller difference between a bayonet novice and master in comparison to a sword novice and master.
I'm not Mat Easton but I will say outside of rifles being heavier, bayonet fighting is really not that different in principle than spear fighting. And there are not really that many complicated techniques for spears, the simplicity is what made them very popular. There are only so many ways you can stab someone with a point stick. I definitely feel like they are a decent equalizer, especially if the firearms are similar length. It'd kind of come down to who is more prepared to react, a lot of the time. I do think the weight factor does mean that the sword is actually a better foil to the bayonet than it'd be to a spear, the enemy is likely to be more clumsy with it and although they have more weight in binds and such, I think it'd actually be fairly easy to throw them off course and then get too close for the bayonet-user to threaten you anymore.
I've heard a similar story about broadswords vs rapiers. George Silver famously claimed the broadsword was superior (I have no idea if they really are), but apparently at the time Italian rapiers were in fashion, while broadswords were seen as old fashioned. There's a surprising amount of fashion going on in weapon selection.
One more thing to consider : wearing a long rapier with it's big quillons and it's cuphilt may make your men feel like you don't trust them to defend you, it could make you look pessimistic like you expect the fight to degenerate in a messy bloody bayonet melee...
Nice Garden backdrop!
Interesting historical implications. Can we say this period marked the transition of the military leader from fighter to administrator, and his sidearm from practical life or death weapon to symbol?
Here’s a good question. Maybe.
In the Sharpe series of movies made by the BBC, Sharpe (who, along with entire squad) walked. Or rarely, a cool double-time jog. Bet he was never on a horse while fighting. Nonetheless, he uses (according to Wikipedia) “The Pattern 1796 heavy Calvert Sword.”
I’ve forgotten some of the details, but I seem to remember that it was a gift from a friend’s deathbed when he cot it. I could understand sentimentality being a good enough. But I like it when there are valid in-universe reasons for things.
"Officer why would you carry an assault rifle when your troops have plenty ? Here, take this pistol"
An important factor is that your everyday carry weapon doesn't need to be used in actual battle. An officer is rarely alone, after all.
If you are an officer and suddenly in a situation where you need to use your everyday carry weapon, be it some drunk guy or an assassin, you do not need to use it to kill your adversaries. You only need to fend them off for thirty seconds and they will be swarmed by your men.
Now, if you are about to face an armed foe in a boarding action, you probably keep a rapier or cutlass on a wall rack just for that exact purpose.
The brutal impact of peer pressure in societies of the past is shown in Master And Commander. The young officer who failed to win the crew's respect over seeming trifles, but the cost was everything.
It's a bit like asking why modern officers have pistols and not at the front of the group using an assault rifle.
Their job isnt to have the most efficient 1 on 1 weapon, their job is to accompany and direct their soldiers and sometimes the most efficient fighting weapon gets in the way of their main role
A wonderful observation about peer pressure. However I think the reason for the original switch was the blade shape. Officers are increasingly facing bayonets at this point and the smallswords square blade offers greater protection against them.
I don't think people, specially people that study/like war, understand how much fashion also dictates what you use. That officer could be "so last decade" for wearing a rapier. I know when the US was looking for a new fighter, The F-35 had competition in the X-32. It was good, capable, and everything. But it was ugly and more than one pilot said the Airforce doesn't want to fly ugly jets. Everyone still wants to look good.
I'm beginning to develop a crush on smallswords.
One minor advantage to smallsword wearing in Britain, in times of war, was its implication of gentility. This meant that someone wearing a smallsword would be very unlikely to be taken up by the press-gang. I have the vague memory of a contemporary cartoon of a 'shabby gent' wearing a smallsword, with about half of the blade protruding from the scabbard through a hole, being questioned by a press-gang petty officer as to his dubious status as a gentleman.
Walking around without knocking things at every turn, mattered too. Especially indoors, like on ship. And if you command gun battery it really does not matter what sword you have.
They might choose to use it because it matters almost not a whit what if any weapons an officer carries. In fact, it matters so little that Lt Colnel Jack Churchill served as an infantry officer in WW2 armed with a basket hilted broadsword and a longbow. As someone in another comment noted, the unit an officer commands is his weapon. I've heard rumors that many British officers didn't even bother to practice their fencing.
Same reason a dude today might choose to carry a compact or subcompact pistol in civilian dress vs a full size pistol.
Also, a longer advantage isn't a always an advantage, a sufficiency of speed and agression can turn easily it into a disadvantage. Having fenced with people of widely varying heights favoring widely sword lengths agression, speed and ability count for a lot more than reach.
Could these fossils not just be seen as an interesting stone, of which I and many others collect? Thanks for your great work 👍😊
For battle an officer on foot in the early 18th century had a spontoon - even longer reach than a rapier.
You skirted at it but did not get there. The reason officers wore small swords is the same reason that US Marine Officers wore the thin bladed Mameluke known for breaking instead of the much sturdier NCO sword which was heavier but better for fighting: Status and stamina. A different sword shows officer status from afar. A light sword allows officers to control troops during drill without getting tired and looking stupid because their drill commands look sloppy. An officer had his sword drawn during most of the fighting, holding it high to signal above troops heads which is tiring, while a troop only pulled out his sword when the rifle ran out of ammo or was damaged.