Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Mar 19, 2015 12:35:35 GMT
What with Pino's essay on the M1796 and M1811 this section of the forum is getting rather lively. To join in the fun I would like to do a little post on my Spadroons. They just came in and are not cleaned or restored yet, apart from some cleaning of the blades that is. I like spadroons. Their design appeals to me because of the sheer elegance and the straight blades. Some have sabre blades, but those were not standard. Speaking of standards, these were Officers swords mostly and as such, a lot of variation can be seen in the hilts, grip material and quirky personal touches of former owners. Having these two in the house, it is clear why the design did not last long. As far as I can see, the blades are up to the task in some rapieresque, small swordish way, but cannot hold up with the awsome power of the M1796 of course. The blades are not wide enough for serious hacking and the temper and profile is such that they are not good at stabbing too. They are not stiff enough to make a good job at that. And if that is not enough, the hilts are not very sturdy. Build way too light, they will shatter on impact, or the grips will desintegrate. No, these elegant swords were not for the heavy lifting, but boy do they look good! I would like to start with the first one I bought. It has an ivory grip, inlaid with brass strips. The hilt is made from brass too. The loop on the guard is missing and a good look shows that said loop broke off at one point. The base is still there and the base on the other side was filed flat, but there is evidence of it still. The patina is untouched, so this happened a very long time ago. The blade has a flat spine with one fuller and a 5" false edge and there is still a good portion of the gild and blue remaining. The blade is quite sharp, the false edge too. There are no makers marks. The second one has a ebony grip with a very fine diamond pattern, with a brass plaquette mounted on it, in the form of a shield, engraved with M K under a crown. The hilt is made from steel with a very high polish, almost katana like, though it is for now covered in goo. In the loop is mounted a gilded brass emblem, depicting a lion holding a shield. The shield is finely engraved with crowns and crossed sword and a lance on one side. On the outside it has a sort of diamond pattern. As I was using a magnification of 10X I saw that the eyes of the lion are inlaid with steel. This is plainly the work of some jeweller. Under the steel guard is engraved: Gross - Lindau. This would make it a German made blade.The blade has the flat spine again, but has two fullers per side and a much longer false edge as the previous sword. Some blue and gild remains. Engraved on it is G R under crown. This could be British / Hannoverian George III. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Mar 22, 2015 14:14:52 GMT
Beautiful spadroons. I too am partial to them despite their abysmal fighting qualities. That blued blade is particularly handsome.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Mar 22, 2015 16:38:19 GMT
They handle very well, that is the problem. They held on for 30 odd years, despite not being good for anything really. Must be the handling.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 22, 2015 16:45:01 GMT
Don't feed the Ulahn!
They look so delicate - I am surprised they lasted in such good condition. Did they come with scabbards by any chance?
|
|
|
Post by Pogo4321 on Mar 22, 2015 17:46:25 GMT
Cool looking swords. But I don't get why a military officer would carry a basically useless sword in an era in which swords were actually used. At least put a small sword blade on 'em.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Mar 22, 2015 17:57:24 GMT
Fashion and the usual Horse Guards chicanery, mostly.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Mar 22, 2015 20:10:20 GMT
Yep. For battle they had real swords / sabres. Think M1796 Cavalry. Huge thing. These frail swords were more of the,, Officers going to do the town '' variety and as such did the job very well. But Spadroon against Spadroon or small sword? Do not underestimate them!
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Mar 22, 2015 20:24:58 GMT
A spadroon, in the words of Matt Easton, is good only against an unarmed man, or a man with another spadroon. A smallsword has the advantage on the thrust, being far stiffer, and a sabre the advantage on the cut, being heavier and curved (if only slightly). A musket and bayonet in well-trained hands can best all of them.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Mar 22, 2015 20:38:55 GMT
Don't feed the Ulahn! They look so delicate - I am surprised they lasted in such good condition. Did they come with scabbards by any chance? No, no scabbards. Come to think about that, I see more small swords with scabbards than Spadroons. and as for condition, think they had some heirloom protection, if you get my drift. They were part of the Dress uniform and most did not see any serious trouble. These are rather delicate, but there are ones out there that sport heavy sabre blades. I think Matt Easton is right for the general type. There are Spadroons of heavier build.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Mar 22, 2015 20:46:59 GMT
Scabbards for spadroons tended to be wood and leather, an infamously delicate style of construction for a scabbard once the blade was drawn (didn't matter much at the time, scabbards were always cheaper than swords until recently what with all of this nonsense Albion is spouting about paying as much for the scabbard as for the sword), and one that rarely survived any real action.
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Mar 22, 2015 21:55:34 GMT
Amen to that!
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 22, 2015 22:16:34 GMT
Unfortunate. One wonders how the blades managed to stay in such good shape
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Mar 22, 2015 22:25:18 GMT
Were probably stored wrapped in oilcloth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 17:25:43 GMT
Two fine examples of upper crust dressy spadroons.
Let me preface some of my thoughts as not posting much to SBG and especially this section, as what is often posted is quite to the point and accurate. I do though take exception to how Matt Easton experiences spadroons. Indeed, he actually posted a followup video somewhat reversing himself. A lot of spadroons are anything but useless.
Stiffness and blade profiles vary. Hilts as well vary as to sturdiness. The better built examples with backstraps are much stronger in the blow, with the fragile floating pommel five ball guards less able to absorb shock. Many spadroons quite capable of strong thrusts, With Matt Easton's French example more a light epee blade, never made to be a serious weapon. The first example shown here is a French hilt but rather than a skimpy blade, appears to have a good stout blade.
Both shown here great buys and had been on my own watch lists, It is great to see they landed in an extended family here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 17:27:14 GMT
Scabbards for spadroons tended to be wood and leather, an infamously delicate style of construction for a scabbard once the blade was drawn (didn't matter much at the time, scabbards were always cheaper than swords until recently what with all of this nonsense Albion is spouting about paying as much for the scabbard as for the sword), and one that rarely survived any real action. Mostly, simply leather.
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Mar 23, 2015 18:20:14 GMT
Surely you are not meaning to argue that the 1796 spadeoon was a useful weapon? Nearly every officer who had to use one in battle detested it.
|
|
|
Post by Afoo on Mar 23, 2015 19:53:04 GMT
As they said, the main beef Matt Easton had was the temper and blade profile. However, @edelweiss points out that these weapons were extremely customized (and indeed, the ones shown here are very good examples of such customization), so its entirely possible good ones existed. Its possible that the higher up officers, the one with the fancy blued and gilt spadroons found theirs useless, but the lower ranks with more munitions grade spadroons found theirs to be decent
There is also a possibility of a disconnect between the feedback provided by soldiers, and the actual effectiveness of a weapon. In general, people tend to complain when something fails, but will not say anything when something works. As such, the sources in which we see the spadroon discussed may not be representative of the whole population - instead lending greater weight to the minority who had bad experiences. For example, the Sherman was much lamented as being inadequate, but in reality it was pretty good.
In the case, the Sherman crews only saw the bad side of their equipment. At the same time, they only saw the good side of the opposing panthers and tigers - they saw all too well how much better armoured they were, but what they did not see was the mechanical unreliability, their limited mobility and unwieldiness. As such, they could not make a fair comparison.
Not saying spadroons are the best type of sword, not even saying they are good. Just saying ts possible that not all of them are rubbish
:P
|
|
|
Post by aronk on Mar 23, 2015 20:16:29 GMT
Oh, not all spadroons were rubbish, just most of them. I've handled a few, and with a single exception that had what was essentially a sharp smallsword blade, they were terrible.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2015 21:00:40 GMT
Everything needs to be considered in context and what Matt is describing holds both truth and anecdotal misconceptions. I personally dislike the kidney guard types such as the 1796 purely on handiness. Yes, a spadroon will have a hard time penetrating a heavy coat. My feeling is that more need to actually handle a variety of spadroons (and modern early swords in general) before picking up the impressions of Matt Easton and waving it as a banner of absolutes. Matt then defers to other straight swords which aren't really spadroons at all. I am truly reluctant to post in this section but here are a couple of my favorites. Note the backstraps. Yes, I have breezed through light targets with the more flexible ebony gripped one and surely would not like a poke in the ribs with a similar, or even lesser blade. I am not advocating spadroons as an ultimate solution, nor denying some of the anecdotal muses. One could find such about French 1822 sabres as well, when compared to a French 1854 dragon sword. That would be in better context than a British officer compplaining that spadroons were folding on wool coats while on horseback. The British 1796 has been regarded as a "perfect encumbrance", yet spadroons were quite popular and even today, plentiful. Of several spadroons here, one of my kidney guard type is an Ames 1840 US army NCO sword. It is anything but overly flexible but even if it were a sharp, would not be much of a cutter. I am sure I could hammer it through 1/2" of plywood, or similarly skewer someone (lightly clothed) with it. The grip and hilt longer than earlier spadroons. The 1840 modeled after the French 1816 forms. I like spadroons and other straight bladed early modern swords. Again, my main issue is Matt's initial overview and recant. Heralding those as some absolute should actually encourage learning instead of closing a book. Some more of my straight stuff from a few years ago Regards Glen A Cleeton (aka Hotspur, aka Horseclover)
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Mar 23, 2015 23:10:54 GMT
You have or had a nice collection. A back strap would be of great help to stiffen the hilt. Mine do not have that feature and feel like they are ready to come apart. The fourth from the left has a backsword blade? I have seen rather a lot of models lately and indeed some have sturdy wide blades on them. Even a sabre bladed one from US revolution times. Somewhere on Ebay. For me, I do not really care whether they are good fighting weapons. I like the design of the old ball guards, the personal touch of the person who first ordered the one I hold now. The fact that they held out for 30 some years tells me that whatever their fighting qualities, not a few people liked them. So, at the time, maybe things were at play we cannot comprehend anymore. We just weave our modern tales with our modern view of what makes a sword a good sword. While we do not go out and actually use them. In the field.
PS: As an aside, I do not like the M1822 one bit. Give me the M1854 anytime.
|
|