Weaponedge: 3 British Napoleonic Swords
Jan 31, 2010 17:23:43 GMT
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2010 17:23:43 GMT
Weaponedge : 3 British Napoleonic Period Swords
Introduction: This is a third installment regarding my recent purchase of eight Weaponedge swords thru Rob Stanford’s Stromloswords. The order was made on 2 Aug 2009. Delivery was on 13 January 2010. The three swords presented here are the 1786 Infantry Officer’s Spadroon, the 1803 British Infantry Officer’s saber and the 1796 Enlisted Heavy Cavalry sword.
Historical Overview
Provision of British Swords At the end of the 18th Century European armies began resurrecting the idea of weapon standardization throughout their forces. Royal British regiments were commanded by men who paid for the privilege: literally paid the exchequer a fee for their commissions. Consequently equipment was often left to the whim and bank account of its officers. Cavalry regiments being particularly extreme in their excesses of enthusiasm for their toys. British infantry sidearms, except for the highlanders were ineffectively light copies of dress swords. Up to the Revolutionary War line officers and senior noncoms carried demi-pikes, called spontoons. These were being abandoned by soldiers. Another trend at the start of the French Revolutionary War was a generalized popularization of the curved saber as a military weapon of choice for most officers. Cavalry never seemed happy with what they had on hand for weapons. A 1796 rethink of English Cavalry weaponry would give rise to a wildly successful light pattern and yet another controversial Heavy weapon.
The 1786 Officer Spadroon This is a prime example of a rethought small sword getting a “militarized” blade and going into combat. Its use was first popularized by the navy.
Statistics Br 1786 Spadroon
Blade Length 31 3/8
Handle Length 4 1/4
Overall Length 37 3/8
Blade Width 1 in
Point of Balance 5 in
Percussion Point 20 ins
Sword Weight 1lbs 13oz
Scabbard Weight 7ozs
Components:
The Blade: A straight blade with long fuller almost to the tip of the sword. Straight backed with about six inches of back edge. Temper is good. The one inch blade provides some cutting power. There is a noticeable blade heaviness as indicated by the PoB.
The Handle: Appears to be a molded black plastic piece. The 4.5 inch length is comfortable and allows the weapon to be fencible.
The Guard: Simple brass quillon with stirrup type knuckle bow and a bow rising off the front of the guard to provide rudimentary back hand protection.
The Pommel: There is a decorative pommel. Weapon is peened. The ring is a mount point for a sword knot.
The Scabbard: A rudimentary leather carrier with lockets at the throat and center. A substantial chape with small runner at the base.
Handling Characteristics: Under two pounds, the weapon retains a lot of small sword character. The one inch blade will cut, but without weight there isn’t a lot of percussive force for the blow.
The 1803 Officer Saber In order to meet the infantry’s craving for a more saber-like weapon for line officers, this design was accepted for service.
[img src="[http://i747.photobucket.com/albums/xx115/kelly1863/Three%20British%20Napoleonics/item432b.jpg/img]![]()
i747.photobucket.com/albums/xx115/kelly1863/Three%20British%20Napoleonics/item430e.jpg"]
Statistics Br 1803 Inf Off
Blade Length 32 in
Handle Length 3.5 in
Overall Length 37 in
Blade Width 1 1/4 in
Point of Balance 8 in
Percussion Point 16 ins
Sword Weight 2lbs 5oz
Scabbard Weight 14ozs
Components:
The Blade: A curved blade with fuller run out to 4 inches below the tip of the sword. Straight backed with about three inches of back edge. Temper is good. The one inch blade provides some cutting power. There is a noticeable blade heaviness as indicated by the outrageously heavy PoB.
The Handle: Originals are almost universally fishskin with precious metal wrap. This is leather and brass. The handle length is only 3.5 inches. This is ridiculous. The sword is an unmanageable club with this sort of handle.
The Guard: A crenelated baseplate about 1.5 inches wide. This isn’t much of an improvement over sideswords in terms of defence. The knuckle bow has been enlarged. Various ciphers ( royal, unit, service branch ) are added to these bows.
The Pommel: Fancy backplate that terminates in a lion head pommel. Weapon is peened.
The Scabbard: A rudimentary leather carrier with lockets at the throat and center. A substantial chape with small runner at the base.
Handling Characteristics: These swords retained a lot of variable purchase options as to the quality of the furniture. By function and user preference blades ran from 26 to 32 inches length. With only a 3.5 inch handle to try and stuff my paws into, I find myself hard pressed to say anything nice about this sword as a weapon. The additional weight of blade gives this weapon some “whacking” value over it’s predecessor, but does so at the price of surrendering all fencibility. My opinion would be greatly improved with a 4.5 inch handle!
The 1796 Enlisted Heavy Cav Saber British observers of their cavalry performance in the continental wars of the period were hot to make changes to the British system. It’s debatable whether or not British swords themselves were that deficient from their continental rivals. The British system did suffer from a lack of standards for training and doctrine, and the impulse was there to press regiments to use similar weaponry to improve logistical support.
This particular Heavy Cavalry design was a compromised decision which adopted a 1775 Austrian Cuirassier style weapon as the basis for their British Sword. In and age of elegant weapons this sword stands out for looking more like an automotive part.
Two major dislikes followed the sword into the field. The hatchet blade was universally loathed. The only way to thrust with it is that “upside down” thrust method described in talking about the French Cuirassier. Filed commands routinely reground the blades to create a standard point.
The other issue was the langets. These tynes pinch down on the scabbard and help lock it into place. Apparently they work too well. They could be a bear sometimes trying to draw the sword. Field expedient in some regiments was to pull off the langets.
Statistics Br 1796 Hvy Cav
Blade Length 34 3/4in
Handle Length 3.5 in
Overall Length 39 in
Blade Width 1 3/8 in
Point of Balance 7.5 in
Percussion Point 23 ins
Sword Weight 2lbs 10oz
Scabbard Weight 1lb 6ozs
Components:
The Blade: A straight blade with fuller run out to 8 inches below the tip of the sword. Straight backed with about 7 inches of back edge. The temper and grind on the blade is acceptable. The blade to hilt ratio, as presented here, makes an efficient sword a very awkward and unfriendly sword.
The Handle: The handle length is only 3.5 inches. This is ridiculous. The sword is an unmanageable club with this sort of handle. Visually the hilt is historically correct.
The Guard: Ugly and practical the large steel circular plate has a 5 ¼ inch diameter. The knuckle bow is broad.
The Pommel: Backplate that rolls over the butt of the weapon. Weapon is peened.
The Scabbard: A very substantial all steel scabbard.
Handling Characteristics: This is a compromise cut and thrust design which leans to the cutter doctrine of melee after the charge. The hilt to blade ratio here is poor, causing a very decent blade to be unmanageable.
Conclusions:
Pros:
Given the historical variability of options for these weapons these are good representations
Fit and finish is generally good
Economic approach to unique modern period swords
Cons:
While I wouldn’t expect fishskin and gild at this price range, officer swords should be etched
3.5 inch handles are ridiculous even if historical. Have some consideration for your buyers, Weaponsedge, and produce fencible handles
Questions about metal durability
The Bottom Line:
I am nowhere near as pleased with this group of swords as I am with the previous two swords.
The 3.5 inch handles on these weapons is actually historical. It’s just that such a short handle isn’t a set in concrete number. The stumpy handles actually ruin the swords, making them hard to deliver a straight edge and very difficult to recover.
Find some way to put some cheap gild and etching on the officer swords and they’d be worth $300 to a low end historical collector.
These are no fun as cutters; except maybe the cav saber. It’s dangerously awkward, but a real cleaver.
Photobucket slide show of all related pix...
s747.photobucket.com/albums/xx115/kelly1863/Three%20British%20Napoleonics/?albumview=slideshow
Introduction: This is a third installment regarding my recent purchase of eight Weaponedge swords thru Rob Stanford’s Stromloswords. The order was made on 2 Aug 2009. Delivery was on 13 January 2010. The three swords presented here are the 1786 Infantry Officer’s Spadroon, the 1803 British Infantry Officer’s saber and the 1796 Enlisted Heavy Cavalry sword.
Historical Overview
Provision of British Swords At the end of the 18th Century European armies began resurrecting the idea of weapon standardization throughout their forces. Royal British regiments were commanded by men who paid for the privilege: literally paid the exchequer a fee for their commissions. Consequently equipment was often left to the whim and bank account of its officers. Cavalry regiments being particularly extreme in their excesses of enthusiasm for their toys. British infantry sidearms, except for the highlanders were ineffectively light copies of dress swords. Up to the Revolutionary War line officers and senior noncoms carried demi-pikes, called spontoons. These were being abandoned by soldiers. Another trend at the start of the French Revolutionary War was a generalized popularization of the curved saber as a military weapon of choice for most officers. Cavalry never seemed happy with what they had on hand for weapons. A 1796 rethink of English Cavalry weaponry would give rise to a wildly successful light pattern and yet another controversial Heavy weapon.
The 1786 Officer Spadroon This is a prime example of a rethought small sword getting a “militarized” blade and going into combat. Its use was first popularized by the navy.
Statistics Br 1786 Spadroon
Blade Length 31 3/8
Handle Length 4 1/4
Overall Length 37 3/8
Blade Width 1 in
Point of Balance 5 in
Percussion Point 20 ins
Sword Weight 1lbs 13oz
Scabbard Weight 7ozs
Components:
The Blade: A straight blade with long fuller almost to the tip of the sword. Straight backed with about six inches of back edge. Temper is good. The one inch blade provides some cutting power. There is a noticeable blade heaviness as indicated by the PoB.
The Handle: Appears to be a molded black plastic piece. The 4.5 inch length is comfortable and allows the weapon to be fencible.
The Guard: Simple brass quillon with stirrup type knuckle bow and a bow rising off the front of the guard to provide rudimentary back hand protection.
The Pommel: There is a decorative pommel. Weapon is peened. The ring is a mount point for a sword knot.
The Scabbard: A rudimentary leather carrier with lockets at the throat and center. A substantial chape with small runner at the base.
Handling Characteristics: Under two pounds, the weapon retains a lot of small sword character. The one inch blade will cut, but without weight there isn’t a lot of percussive force for the blow.
The 1803 Officer Saber In order to meet the infantry’s craving for a more saber-like weapon for line officers, this design was accepted for service.
[img src="[http://i747.photobucket.com/albums/xx115/kelly1863/Three%20British%20Napoleonics/item432b.jpg/img]
Statistics Br 1803 Inf Off
Blade Length 32 in
Handle Length 3.5 in
Overall Length 37 in
Blade Width 1 1/4 in
Point of Balance 8 in
Percussion Point 16 ins
Sword Weight 2lbs 5oz
Scabbard Weight 14ozs
Components:
The Blade: A curved blade with fuller run out to 4 inches below the tip of the sword. Straight backed with about three inches of back edge. Temper is good. The one inch blade provides some cutting power. There is a noticeable blade heaviness as indicated by the outrageously heavy PoB.
The Handle: Originals are almost universally fishskin with precious metal wrap. This is leather and brass. The handle length is only 3.5 inches. This is ridiculous. The sword is an unmanageable club with this sort of handle.
The Guard: A crenelated baseplate about 1.5 inches wide. This isn’t much of an improvement over sideswords in terms of defence. The knuckle bow has been enlarged. Various ciphers ( royal, unit, service branch ) are added to these bows.
The Pommel: Fancy backplate that terminates in a lion head pommel. Weapon is peened.
The Scabbard: A rudimentary leather carrier with lockets at the throat and center. A substantial chape with small runner at the base.
Handling Characteristics: These swords retained a lot of variable purchase options as to the quality of the furniture. By function and user preference blades ran from 26 to 32 inches length. With only a 3.5 inch handle to try and stuff my paws into, I find myself hard pressed to say anything nice about this sword as a weapon. The additional weight of blade gives this weapon some “whacking” value over it’s predecessor, but does so at the price of surrendering all fencibility. My opinion would be greatly improved with a 4.5 inch handle!
The 1796 Enlisted Heavy Cav Saber British observers of their cavalry performance in the continental wars of the period were hot to make changes to the British system. It’s debatable whether or not British swords themselves were that deficient from their continental rivals. The British system did suffer from a lack of standards for training and doctrine, and the impulse was there to press regiments to use similar weaponry to improve logistical support.
This particular Heavy Cavalry design was a compromised decision which adopted a 1775 Austrian Cuirassier style weapon as the basis for their British Sword. In and age of elegant weapons this sword stands out for looking more like an automotive part.
Two major dislikes followed the sword into the field. The hatchet blade was universally loathed. The only way to thrust with it is that “upside down” thrust method described in talking about the French Cuirassier. Filed commands routinely reground the blades to create a standard point.
The other issue was the langets. These tynes pinch down on the scabbard and help lock it into place. Apparently they work too well. They could be a bear sometimes trying to draw the sword. Field expedient in some regiments was to pull off the langets.
Statistics Br 1796 Hvy Cav
Blade Length 34 3/4in
Handle Length 3.5 in
Overall Length 39 in
Blade Width 1 3/8 in
Point of Balance 7.5 in
Percussion Point 23 ins
Sword Weight 2lbs 10oz
Scabbard Weight 1lb 6ozs
Components:
The Blade: A straight blade with fuller run out to 8 inches below the tip of the sword. Straight backed with about 7 inches of back edge. The temper and grind on the blade is acceptable. The blade to hilt ratio, as presented here, makes an efficient sword a very awkward and unfriendly sword.
The Handle: The handle length is only 3.5 inches. This is ridiculous. The sword is an unmanageable club with this sort of handle. Visually the hilt is historically correct.
The Guard: Ugly and practical the large steel circular plate has a 5 ¼ inch diameter. The knuckle bow is broad.
The Pommel: Backplate that rolls over the butt of the weapon. Weapon is peened.
The Scabbard: A very substantial all steel scabbard.
Handling Characteristics: This is a compromise cut and thrust design which leans to the cutter doctrine of melee after the charge. The hilt to blade ratio here is poor, causing a very decent blade to be unmanageable.
Conclusions:
Pros:
Given the historical variability of options for these weapons these are good representations
Fit and finish is generally good
Economic approach to unique modern period swords
Cons:
While I wouldn’t expect fishskin and gild at this price range, officer swords should be etched
3.5 inch handles are ridiculous even if historical. Have some consideration for your buyers, Weaponsedge, and produce fencible handles
Questions about metal durability
The Bottom Line:
I am nowhere near as pleased with this group of swords as I am with the previous two swords.
The 3.5 inch handles on these weapons is actually historical. It’s just that such a short handle isn’t a set in concrete number. The stumpy handles actually ruin the swords, making them hard to deliver a straight edge and very difficult to recover.
Find some way to put some cheap gild and etching on the officer swords and they’d be worth $300 to a low end historical collector.
These are no fun as cutters; except maybe the cav saber. It’s dangerously awkward, but a real cleaver.
Photobucket slide show of all related pix...
s747.photobucket.com/albums/xx115/kelly1863/Three%20British%20Napoleonics/?albumview=slideshow
!!! ... though be it British ;D ;D ;D
! Reading your review, ... I found it odd that the Weaponedge approach to the "French sabers" was more "spot on and close to the real thing" than their British "antagonists" !
The lead off pic I used in discussing the Spadroon is WE's stock one. The sword I recieved is fullered to the point. Hard to vouch for what WE is or isn't doing production wise as their customer interface is nil.
