Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 0:11:01 GMT
Both the fourth and longer silver wash stirrup hilt are "technically" backswords. The short one French&Indian period and a standard type up to the briquet years. It is a French infantry/marines sword of the 1740s-1750s.Below pictures of David's owner of Royal sword and my rather ragged guy. Or all those of mine, I forget. Too many files Others not shown there are spadroons where the fuller terminates before the point and are usually German blades. One I had some years ago is more of an epee blade, as is the helmet head first empire sword he shows in the first video. That blade flexed ninety degrees, no problem. Dmitry from Sailor&Saddle now owns it. I had bought it from Shiloh Relics and Rafael had it listed as American artillery 1830s. A naval epee de ville. Similar are listed as spadroon l'anglais or monture something (?) Better pictures from Dmitry here guns.allzip.org/topic/79/373479.htmlHere is a late spadroon with the German type shorter fuller blade and next to a Berger sabre. The entire sword a bit smaller than the two favored in my first post. There is a vast diversity to spadroons and side by side, some are more friendly than others. My slotted hilt my first and it took some time to enjoy but still more pleasurable to me than others I have encountered. Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 1:28:21 GMT
Regarding stirrup hilts with sabre blades, those are not spadroons. One will find urn, pillow and other pommels (like eagles) on spadroons and sabres. Listing any sabre as a spadroon or spadroon hilted sabre kind of a faux pas of logic. I like the highly personalized and stylized examples for what they are but also try to find the more utilitarian examples. For eagles and others I have tried to pair both with fancier spadroons and plainer sabres but it hasn't always worked out. I think you are probably doomed to collect more spadroons and other 18th century swords. I know I concentrate on pre 1812 swords but have fallen off that wagon more than once. re 1822 vs 1854, the epee I sold Dmitry turned into an 1854 that very day at a show in CT. I have a couple of other straight jobs that are in between the spadroons and the big pallasch types. One of my latest in period is more of the 1840s-1850s era and it has a small broadsword blade My last eagle in for awhile, more like those older French epee type. From the late 1840s put together by Widmann I should upload my spadroon file to the cloud, I had put my eagle files up previously. There are a lot of spadroons in my chaotic eagle file drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9AOFMA8y3ODNllwS21ja1FuVmM&usp=sharingCheers ``````and here is my somewhat dusty spadroon folder drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9AOFMA8y3ODfkNBQkVwbWtNam9WbVI3VnBtYUFWdlFIOGpFaWJfd2pOdk41Q09jOXdyODQ&usp=sharing
|
|
Uhlan
Member
Posts: 3,121
|
Post by Uhlan on Mar 24, 2015 6:08:31 GMT
Thanks for all the information. Glad to see this thread going somewhere. After days of nobody caring one bit it went very well. Lots to see, lots to learn. I will certainly go and poke around in your files. Glad you joined the discussion. I have a question: Would you consider French Officers swords from that period to be Spadroons too? I have 2 that I bought as projects for restouration. They look a lot like the one on the far right in your collection picture. They have what are called I believe, urn pommels, have the old style folding guard. Not peened, under the ball on the pommel is a nut. I cannot make a picture right now, but when I am back from work I will post.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Mar 24, 2015 13:43:29 GMT
Hmmm... Maybe they were not very effective on purpose? For duelling to the first blood? :)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 13:45:00 GMT
IIRC, there are two main revisions of the 1816 type French epee, Once in the 1850s and then again in the 1880s. Epee is kind of a general term but I believe at the start they were termed ÉPÉE D'OFFICIER MODELE 1816. The threaded routine begun in that second revision (as I recall from an old discussion). I have seen ovoid blades on the first of these and mostly diamond shaped blades after the 1850s, I am no authority on the French swords but have a few. If you are regarding the ones that look like the American staff swords of the 1860 model, I think the French model was also just post first empire.
The Spadroon L'anglais term generally reserved for the first empire stuff and the first you show could be regarded as such, as the guard is very continental looking. It is too bad the counterguard is broken off, as that can futher describe it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 14:20:30 GMT
Hmmm... Maybe they were not very effective on purpose? For duelling to the first blood? Yes, no doubt the many thousands fielded on foot or ship were surely meant for dueling.
|
|
Luka
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,848
|
Post by Luka on Mar 24, 2015 14:25:21 GMT
Hmmm... Maybe they were not very effective on purpose? For duelling to the first blood? :) Yes, no doubt the many thousands fielded on foot or ship were surely meant for dueling. I know, it was a joke. :)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2015 14:32:22 GMT
Yes, no doubt the many thousands fielded on foot or ship were surely meant for dueling. I know, it was a joke. Yes
|
|
|
Post by morganx on Apr 6, 2016 17:45:05 GMT
Enjoying this thread. I became interested in spadroons quite by accident. I actually like the pattern referred to as the "1796" even though it was being used for at least 20 years prior. The english encountered this pattern thru the Prussians whom they were allied with in the Seven Years War. I find the earlier the example the more fight-worthy they are. The kidney/butterfly guards are fixed and solid, (unlike the post 1801 folding guards of very thin brass.) the pommels are larger and unadorned and the blades are often stiffer, which is what you need for an effective thrust. I have even seen extra-heavy versions that were distinctly designed with combat in mind. Often these early models will not have the acanthus leaves on the quillion or pommel,or even the guard, only by the fancy grip can you tell that they are not an NCO sword. It really is just one of the final incarnations of the classic Officer's Epee' Soldat. A sword designed to be used with a fencing technique but somewhat stouter for the "rigors of the field" and really, just to be more military. Another term is Gentleman's Campaign Sword, in use since the late 1600's,it's many variations are usually 28 to 33 inches long and 1.18-1.25 wide at the forte. Sometimes these swords are later ground down into a thinner profile when they were retired into civilian/court use. As you can tell, This Gentleman's War Sword is probably my favorite weapon currently and maybe I'll start a separate thread about it. P.S. Admiral Nelson took part in a ship-boarding action and he used a rather courtly loop-hilted spadroon for it. Here is some examples of "Fighting Spadroons" All pre-1801. The first is a very early, simple example, but it has a fairly stiff blade, very fast and handy but a good "back" on it. The 2nd are pics of an excellent example of a full-on officers combat spadroon. I have one very nearly like it but it's a double edged blade so I didn't post it here. This spadroon has extra-durable kidney guard, (inboard guard removed, alas.) And an extra large pommel to balance the blade. The blade is 1.25 at the forte. Needless to say, it's an awesome fighting example. Okay, I lied, I will post a pic of my Double-Edged version. Also 1.25 at the hilt. Ray-skin grip sans wire. Hilt is very similar to the one above, except the rear-quillion on mine is un-fluted. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by victoriansword on Apr 6, 2016 21:37:05 GMT
The spadroon with the lion and shield looks Bavarian to me.
|
|
|
Post by morganx on Apr 7, 2016 2:55:55 GMT
In my enthusiasm I failed to express my admiration of your two spadroons that started this thread. i really like the wire and beads that go on the ivory grip of your first spadroon Mr. Uhlan. The diagonal wrap is unique! I think V.S. is correct about the 2nd being Bavarian. I used to have a sword with the royal cypher of MK. I'll see if I can find the thread with the final I.D.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2016 17:37:48 GMT
The two lead swords are quite special.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 25, 2016 11:29:30 GMT
I'm new around here, so forgive me if I ask dumb questions, although I realize it is in bad form to ask forgiveness before you've actually done anything wrong.
Anyhow, what makes a spadroon a spadroon? Dictionary definitions are decidedly vague on this point, as well as other types of swords, even to include sabers. But perhaps the reason is because of the varieties of blades on swords otherwise referred to, nowadays, at least, as spadroons. The hilts are mostly similar and of a small sword type. Unfortunately, I've never handled one. The contemporary US Navy officer's sword probably qualifies as a spadroon. All modern-day regulation swords, including that one (the Navy sword) appear to be made rather lighter than they were at the time they were introduced. In at least one case, a lightened version seems to have appeared almost right away and I've even seen one of them. It was a 1897 infantry sword. Didn't get to touch it, though.
I've seen the same complaints about the first two standardized British infantry officer's swords, both being spadroons, in several places, almost the same word for word. Personally, they don't look that bad as fighting weapons to me, although, like I said, I've never handled one. I have, however, owned an 1897 infantry pattern sword. It had a plain blade and as far as I could learn, it was on issue at some university. But that was 30 years ago. My question is, how is the 1897 pattern so different from the 1796 pattern as far as the blade goes? Frankly, it doesn't seem to be that different. Note that I am only referring to the design and not to any possible changes, presumably improvements, to the quality of the blade.
The hilt, however, is a different matter. I have a contemporary US Army NCO which purports to be a model 1840 NCO sword, although it isn't. The original, of course, had that same spadroon blade and was virtually the same as the British 1796 patters, that is, the one for sergeants. The one currently used in the US Army has a narrow diamond-shaped blade that is much too flimsy to actually fight with, although it's of better quality than it looks. The hilt is very elegant and much nicer than the original issue NCO sword, although of almost the same shape. But if you've ever done any fencing or had any experience with more modern (!!!) swords, the hilt takes getting used to, to put it one way. I've seen kitchen knives with better handles. Remember, it doesn't take a lot to pierce a human body and people do it with kitchen knives all the time, possibly because ice picks are no longer common in kitchens.
So what makes a spadroon a spadroon and is the 1897 pattern infantry sword so different?
|
|
|
Post by victoriansword on Jul 26, 2016 22:22:45 GMT
Opinions may vary as to whether or not the P1897 is a spadroon, but I would say no. The P1892 blade was designed to thrust and is blunt for 1/2 to 2/3 of its length, leaving a very small portion of the blade for a sharp edge. This portion is quite narrow and light and I cannot imagine it cutting through much other than bare skin. To me, a spadroon blade is meant to cut and thrust equally well, and in this regard the P1897 would fail.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 27, 2016 11:00:24 GMT
As much as I can learn, the general complaint about the 1796 pattern officer's swords was that the did neither (cut or thrust) very well. In theory, all the argument should be on that very point, that is, whether it did either very well or not, or somewhere in-between (such as "acceptable"). But I think there are two other factors worth mentioning.
One is that on the battlefield during the Napoleonic wars, relatively few men on foot carried a sword as their primary weapon. It was the officer's weapon and, what, one in twenty men was an officer? Ultimately, of course, he would almost certainly have to use it and probably not against another swordsman but who knows. One officer from the period stated how they did not like the official pattern sword and "away from headquarters" usually carried dirks instead. That suggests to me that officers were not expecting a lot of hand-to-hand fighting that they would be doing themselves. Remember also that before there was a standard pattern, officer's carried a pole arm, which writers say was a poor weapon. All of these various edged weapons were being carried in action against enemies armed chiefly with muskets and bayonets.
The other thing we fail to take into account, I think, is the effect of fads and fashions on military men, extending to their weapons. Who would dare to carry an old-fashioned and totally ineffective weapon like a spadroon or smallsword when all the young officers are carrying the latest sharply curved sabers carried on slings instead of (old-fashioned) frogs? Then, after the Egyptian campaign, everyone wanted one of those Oriental style sabers, just like the French officers were carrying.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 4, 2016 13:22:44 GMT
How stiff are the blades on these various spadroons, both the originals and current reproductions, if that can be expressed in a non-technical way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2016 16:18:39 GMT
Originals vary quite a bit. Some of the narrowest are stiffer than some of the wider ones. Can't say what the repros are like, as I don't buy them. Thrusting ability is partly a matter of how sharp and the points are. Putting the point in a solid backing or floor and pushing to flex, I find my assortment (by and large) stiffer than my period sabres. Some of the epee like spadroon d Anglais are certainly more flexible and if nothing else, Matt Easton shows that in his two videos. His first impression of spadroons based on a skinny and flexible dress sword. The 1796 infantry he shows in his second video more representative of a median. However, he is still basing his own opinions on a truly sparse overall sample before moving on to discussion of later infantry swords. There really isn't anything magical or mysterious about sword performance and as long as one keeps things in context, one is less apt to be disappointed. I would imagine that as repros tend to have less distal taper, as long as they use a reasonable thickness, the repros may be a little stiffer. The American 1840 musician and nco swords typically have fairly narrow blades (the older German imports wider) and are actually quite stiff and have less distal taper properties. Below an Ames 1840 model nco marked to 1864 and a Roby musician boy short example. They are stiff enough that they would go through a hollow core door (just a fer instance). My post war musician sword has a more flexible blade but is pointier. Both the Roby above and this 1880s example have shorter fullers, making them more epeeish. One can find period musician swords for less than $200 without scabbards and nco swords under $300. Uhlan can probably speak better as to what the postal and civilian degen from Germany are like. Diminutive in size when seen in person. I have never owned one but they re not uncommon on the market. As to origin of the species, the term spadrone was used in Germany to describe light single hand swords with both some cutting capability and thrusting. I have a book reference around here somewhere (Google books)The British 1796 modeled after a German/Prussian type. Spadroons predate that and evolved rather in parallel to the smallswords. My odd assembly kind of marks the time of development from the short French hanger to my 1840s eagles and ACW swords. Uhlans two swords that started this thread an almost epitome of dress while showing some of the best and worst of a spadroon. One could surely run one through with them but the builds are not as strong as the backstrap examples shown previously. I can only say again, everything in context. I am envious of the two starting this thread but realize a place for appreciation rather than action.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Aug 4, 2016 17:20:33 GMT
Thank you for your reply, oh flower of the mountains. I always have my doubts when I read an opinion based on what can't be done, such as some particular sword being unable to pierce a coat, or at least a heavy coat. Of course, if a cavalryman couldn't do so with his heavy saber, then what would you expect with a lighter sword like these? I would definitely advise wearing a heavy coat. Sounds like something for myth busters. And it also sounds like a case for a well-sharpened sword.
Understandably, commentators would naturally discuss one sword, say the 1796 officer's sword and compare it with the one that replaced it, either officially or in practice, the on to the one that replaced that one, ending, the case of the British, with the 1897 pattern infantry sword. Aside from the French epee, clearly not intended for the battlefield (epee d'ville), which was mentioned here, there are others that are left out of the discussion, even though they are contemporaries. One such sword is the German officer's swords carried up until WWI. There were various models but I'm referring to a thin or narrow bladed thrusting sword with a noticeably curved grip and a not particularly large hilt. I expect there's a thread about them here but I haven't found a good discussion of those as fighting weapons. The description makes it sound a little like a rapier.
|
|