|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 5:32:01 GMT
The smallsword-bowie (offhand dagger) combo was my idea of an EXCELLENT defense setup as well. If you think about it, the Natchez bowie is heavier than the 31" bladed small sword. Oh yes, a bowie in the offhand and a smallsword in the right...that sounds really nice. Personally (if it were a modern thing) I think the CS Espada xl would EXCEL as an offhand for the smallsword. If not the xl at least the large. But at the moment I think just a normal parrying dagger would suit it just fine. Probably the ultimate for a high firepower concealment blade combo would be that CS Espada xl paired with a heavy duty sword cane. A few weeks ago, I purchased a CS MAA Shell Hilt Dagger (1090 steel) from Midway (some weird clearance crossover deal) for $72 (I already own the Crab Claw), this thing is perfect for pairing with smallswords...and critical for heavy rapiers.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jul 29, 2016 7:54:29 GMT
I don't just mean the weight. It's heavy simply because it's too large in almost every aspect - the blade is too beefy, the grip is too long, the rings are too wide, the plates and bars are too thick (and too uniformly thick)... It really feels more like a very short rapier than a smallsword, and begs to be gripped like a rapier, too, although even then the grip does get in the way. If you're just looking for some kind of pointy sword, it's a perfectly fine stabbing iron! But if you want something that's actually like a smallsword, this isn't quite it. I also don't like the decoration at all, but that's just me. I guess we could get into the nuance (definition) of a specimen being "actually like" a smallsword...but in my opinion it must at least be considered "like" a smallsword. It is lighter than the Natchez bowie. I certainly agree with all your statements about the weight and larger dimentions (could/should have been 1/4lb. lighter, with smaller dimentions), but it's still usable as a smallsword, and technically within historical parameters (under 1 1/2lbs.). These things existed for over 200 years, so you will get variation. Something we can all agree on...you DO NOT WANT some of the stuff that came in the end...flimsy, brittle "Court Swords", which were little more than fashion items, and nobody will say that the CS item is that. It really is good for practice, and even home defense, and at 100 clams...an intriguing purchase. Well, it's kind of like a smallsword in that it's largely the same shape and size overall, and sure it CAN be used as a smallsword, albeit with some effort - but it differs from historical examples in some important aspects of the design, enough so that it doesn't handle like even the heaviest of them, and the differences actively hinder its use as a smallsword. It's well made for what it is, yes, and a perfectly functional weapon in its own right, but not a good choice if you want something representative of actual historical smallswords. The resemblance is really only skin deep and the weight is the least of its problems.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 29, 2016 10:51:21 GMT
Maybe the Cold Steel smallsword is what the original smallswords should have been! Larger and more robust. But that's just an opinion and clearly opinions varied widely in the 18th and 19th century as to what characteristics a sword should have. That's assuming you could get a sword in the first place. During the American Revolution, on the colonist's side, swords were in short supply, as was everything else, and soldiers used whatever they could get. At the time, of course, it was principally horse-mounted soldiers who relied principally on swords, followed by officers. George Washington had a collection of nice swords but I understand he never actually used any in combat even though he was present at a few battles.
What do you suppose created the trend away from the smallsword in the 19th century?
|
|
LeMal
Member
Posts: 1,103
|
Post by LeMal on Jul 29, 2016 11:49:53 GMT
Maybe the Cold Steel smallsword is what the original smallswords should have been! Larger and more robust. But that's just an opinion and clearly opinions varied widely in the 18th and 19th century as to what characteristics a sword should have. That's assuming you could get a sword in the first place. During the American Revolution, on the colonist's side, swords were in short supply, as was everything else, and soldiers used whatever they could get. At the time, of course, it was principally horse-mounted soldiers who relied principally on swords, followed by officers. George Washington had a collection of nice swords but I understand he never actually used any in combat even though he was present at a few battles. What do you suppose created the trend away from the smallsword in the 19th century? Honestly? Ineffectiveness. Using a firearms analogy, it's like the .22 rimfire. Super-popular--for target practice and small game hunting. But virtually no one uses it for either big or even medium game hunting or self-defense--and not for warfare! The .22 has potential to be very deadly over the long haul. (Some trauma experts say RFK might have had a shot at survival if his head wound hadn't been a caused by a fragmented .22 but a bigger bore handgun.) Certainly a .22 is deadly enough to get you in trouble for killing someone, and not something to "play" with. Yet... almost paradoxically it's not anywhere near immediately deadly enough to be of much use. My Sandbar Fight comment being only partly snark. Take everything that George Silver complained about with the rapier and ramp it up by an order of magnitude for the smallsword. It has the ability to be very lethal over time, due to the problems with punctures and infection. Yet no "stopping power" at all. Again, I'm oddly happy with my CS version. It, at least, is useful. As for a "proper" smallsword--hell, I'd rather have a stick.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jul 29, 2016 12:27:18 GMT
Maybe the Cold Steel smallsword is what the original smallswords should have been! Larger and more robust. Hey, if you want a military sword you should get one of those instead of a civilian fashion accessory. Indeed - but e.g. a hilt big enough to hamper its use was never a desirable characteristic in any sword, no matter who you ask.
|
|
|
Post by 28shadow on Jul 29, 2016 13:00:03 GMT
Ok guys, let's think on how we could beed up the smallsword and make it very effective on the battlefield. First thing we do is make the blade a bit heavier and give it some cutting ability. Next let's do away with the quillons. Ok, now maybe we should beef up the guard a bit, make it into a nice D shape. You know, maybe we could curve the blade to give it some slashing ability...oh and add a few inches of blade length to bring it to about 36" and then we-oh wait...I just made a saber...
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 29, 2016 13:01:10 GMT
I've read more comments about hilts being too small instead of too big. Armies have used .22 rimfire pistols, by the way, although for rather specialized applications but still for killing people. As a matter of fact, a lot of people do use .22 handguns for self-defense (as well as .25 autos, etc.) and my father was killed with a .22. So don't laugh at things like that. Plenty of people laugh at the 5.56 "varmint round" the army uses now. A few, very few, even believe we should be using bolt-actions, like maybe Cooper's "Scout rifle."
It maybe all in how we define a smallsword, a decidedly slippery concept. If it evolved from the rapier, it is essentially a short rapier. And it continued to evolve (or devolve) until it all but disappeared and because useless as a weapon.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jul 29, 2016 14:49:38 GMT
Honestly? Ineffectiveness. Using a firearms analogy, it's like the .22 rimfire. Super-popular--for target practice and small game hunting. But virtually no one uses it for either big or even medium game hunting or self-defense--and not for warfare! Again, I'm oddly happy with my CS version. It, at least, is useful. As for a "proper" smallsword--hell, I'd rather have a stick. A .22 RF is a deadly cartridge. I know of a poucher in Africa that had taken 4 elephants with a .22 before they caught up with him. What it lacks is stopping power. In the cases of the elephants the poucher would track for miles. I’ve seen the small sword video on YouTube and I think that I have an old CD of CS with a similar presentation. My concern is while having no doubt of its penetration abilities especially through heavy clothing I have a question about its stopping power. Stopping power is not equal to killing power. I have the same concern about my rapier. My rapier is a super penetrator and I can envision someone charging, running the blade to the hilt with a little help from me and still have more fight left in him than I care to think about. That’s a good price on the small sword and if I lived in the US for $100 + postage I think that I would latch onto one. But for me to spend about $275 solely because of the $100 asking price is a super deal, no, not at this time. But I wish. That's an interesting comment about a stick. I have used sticks in street combat and have a healthy respect for them and carry one daily. One should not confuse a stick with a twig.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jul 29, 2016 16:11:07 GMT
I would love to see a renaissance of sword wearing, and I think the fashion industry is probably the door to acceptance. I'm all for a resurgence in the wearing of the small/court sword as a fashion accessory (and who knows what other directions that might grow into). Now...who here has contacts in the haute fashion circles?
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 29, 2016 17:16:17 GMT
Because there seems to be a renaissance of firearm wearing or carrying, you'll just get laughed at.
If you have been envisioning a sword fight, you have probably been envisioning a fencing duel, even a real duel to the death. Instead, just envision a fight in which you happen to have a sword. Fencing, and I did some in college, does not have the dynamism of a real fight. You can either stab or slap and there is no blood in either case. You can't grab the other fellow's sword blade, you can't kick or jab with you other hand or anything like that. I don't know if I'd rather have a stick or the CS smallsword. Some choice, huh? Depends on the stick, I guess.
I'm from West Virginia and my natural inclination is to wrestle anyway. But I haven't done that in a while.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Jul 29, 2016 17:44:58 GMT
Because there seems to be a renaissance of firearm wearing or carrying, you'll just get laughed at. If you have been envisioning a sword fight, you have probably been envisioning a fencing duel, even a real duel to the death. Instead, just envision a fight in which you happen to have a sword. Fencing, and I did some in college, does not have the dynamism of a real fight. You can either stab or slap and there is no blood in either case. You can't grab the other fellow's sword blade, you can't kick or jab with you other hand or anything like that. I don't know if I'd rather have a stick or the CS smallsword. Some choice, huh? Depends on the stick, I guess. I'm from West Virginia and my natural inclination is to wrestle anyway. But I haven't done that in a while. I started my study of fencing at a very young age (my father was a high-level collegiate fencer and all-around sword enthusiast who could hardly wait for me to be old enough to share his martial passions with). I have no delusions about what a sword duel would be like, nor am I incapable of defending myself by other means (as a lifelong martial artist and military veteran). However, I'm not even suggesting a return of dueling culture (though I'm not against it). I'm suggesting that it would be nice for sword enthusiasts and collectors to be able to openly wear a blade and not be looked askance at (or worse). Honestly, what's the point of collecting art swords if you never get to show them off? I would be ecstatic if it were once again fashionable to wear a sword, I don't think it's even that unlikely to happen at some point since high fashion is constantly renewing trends of the past.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 17:45:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 17:50:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by 28shadow on Jul 29, 2016 18:16:18 GMT
I really like the aesthetics of those swords, particularly the second one!
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jul 29, 2016 18:17:53 GMT
Because there seems to be a renaissance of firearm wearing or carrying, you'll just get laughed at. If you have been envisioning a sword fight, you have probably been envisioning a fencing duel, even a real duel to the death. Instead, just envision a fight in which you happen to have a sword. Fencing, and I did some in college, does not have the dynamism of a real fight. You can either stab or slap and there is no blood in either case. You can't grab the other fellow's sword blade, you can't kick or jab with you other hand or anything like that. Let's not confuse "fencing" with "modern sport fencing". We're almost exclusively talking about fencing in a martial context, here - be it warfare, street crime or a formal duel - as did most historical smallsword masters. William Hope's famous New Method, for example, showcases e.g. grabbing the blade, fighting against heavier weapons and all such manner of very unsportsmanlike things... Just saying, ye olde kick in the nuts is a perfectly valid and honorable technique featured in many well known and respected fencing manuals. Any notions of propriety aside, the reason there isn't much barehanded striking or grappling in smallsword treatises - and there is some, to be sure, just not much - is simply that the swords are a lot more dangerous and significantly less vulnerable than your own body parts.
|
|
|
Post by bluetrain on Jul 29, 2016 18:45:38 GMT
What you just pointed out is the reason even a smallsword should have a sharp blade, not to shave with but to make it dangerous to grab with your bare hand.
Some of the old illustrations, and here I'm referring to even older than the ones above, even include things like getting your horse to kick your opponent's horse. None of this would probably be tolerated in a duel for one's honor, probably, only most of don't qualify for that restriction. Some illustrations from the past can also be very humorous, too, and are probably satirical illustrations for the vogue for Italian fencing or something like that.
Sword fighting aside, there are still lots of people who show up at hospitals and morgues with stab and slash wounds but I don't know how the numbers compare with gunshot wounds.
All my comments about the Cold Steel smallsword are entirely my own opinions and are not based on actually handling one but instead on handling something else that is similiar, so all reservations apply. And you seem to be my main correspondent here.
|
|
|
Post by bbycrts on Jul 29, 2016 19:35:18 GMT
Out of curiosity...how would one wear this CS smallsword? The scabbard has a single ring - is it just clipped on and allowed to swing around? I have a Windlass smallsword (heavy beast, but I do like it) with the dual chains and belt clip that makes sense to me, but the CS single ring has me scratching my head a bit.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 19:55:51 GMT
I guess we could get into the nuance (definition) of a specimen being "actually like" a smallsword...but in my opinion it must at least be considered "like" a smallsword. It is lighter than the Natchez bowie. I certainly agree with all your statements about the weight and larger dimentions (could/should have been 1/4lb. lighter, with smaller dimentions), but it's still usable as a smallsword, and technically within historical parameters (under 1 1/2lbs.). These things existed for over 200 years, so you will get variation. Something we can all agree on...you DO NOT WANT some of the stuff that came in the end...flimsy, brittle "Court Swords", which were little more than fashion items, and nobody will say that the CS item is that. It really is good for practice, and even home defense, and at 100 clams...an intriguing purchase. Well, it's kind of like a smallsword in that it's largely the same shape and size overall, and sure it CAN be used as a smallsword, albeit with some effort - but it differs from historical examples in some important aspects of the design, enough so that it doesn't handle like even the heaviest of them, and the differences actively hinder its use as a smallsword. It's well made for what it is, yes, and a perfectly functional weapon in its own right, but not a good choice if you want something representative of actual historical smallswords. The resemblance is really only skin deep and the weight is the least of its problems. I just don't know enough about the subject of general authentic smallswords (having never even handled one) to comment. But, I do know the thing is still pretty fast at that tip compared to many swords out there for the public to consume. Twenty two ounces and a POB at 3" for a 31" blade is pretty nimble (while still being robust enough to parry/block stuff used by the criminals). I would love to have a personalized collection of the better historic, authentic swords....just not those damn "Court Swords".
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 20:05:05 GMT
Maybe the Cold Steel smallsword is what the original smallswords should have been! Larger and more robust. But that's just an opinion and clearly opinions varied widely in the 18th and 19th century as to what characteristics a sword should have. That's assuming you could get a sword in the first place. During the American Revolution, on the colonist's side, swords were in short supply, as was everything else, and soldiers used whatever they could get. At the time, of course, it was principally horse-mounted soldiers who relied principally on swords, followed by officers. George Washington had a collection of nice swords but I understand he never actually used any in combat even though he was present at a few battles. What do you suppose created the trend away from the smallsword in the 19th century? Yes, there was certainly a lot of variation over the centuries, and I believe the larger ones were at the beginning, when you actually HAD TO USE THEM, compared to the end...the broken tipped fashion item. Firearms, and a general feeling that you should not have weapons hanging on you (supposed ENLIGHTENMENT) were culprits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 20:12:25 GMT
|
|