|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 20:23:33 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. You may have inadvertently kicked over a swarm of hornets (with smallsword stingers) with this, as your getting into a lot of "interesting" subject matter. Stopping power, cut vs thrust, caliber wars.............the APOCALYPSE! George Silver is informative and instructive, but his rapier comments have been universally discounted as prejudiced (even by himself). If you are stabbed (or shot) in critical areas (with adequate penetration), your done, but the problem is hitting those critical areas. More powerful weapons can end the fight by hitting many more parts of the body, like chopping or blowing off a hand, so you don't have to be so precise, which gives you more options. As was mentioned, the smallsword should really be paired with a long bladed knife...and THAT would certainly be a deadly combo...NO QUESTION!
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 20:32:30 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... And then you make the blade hollow, and then add gunpowder to the end and then.....ok....I got a bit carried away. Really, the only interesting thing, defensively speaking, about the CS smallsword, is that you pack a 31" (yet still robust) blade on a 22oz item (which is why I've been bringing up the fact that it weighs LESS than the Natchez bowie...AHHH, the method to my madness....you see). This is a portable, versatile, concealable, and deadly platform.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 20:32:34 GMT
While there were militarized small swords, such as the epee d soldat, they were by and large relegated to be an ornament by the end of the 18th century. One will continue to see kidney hilt and boat hilts on officer and for nco wear. However, the spadroons came along with little more value of worth with the onset of firearm and artillery dominance but those with backstraps quite sturdy and better fit to strike a blow, or block with. Somewhere in my files is a small sword that was clearly even larger in the blade than the CS sword but maintained a shorter hilt. A 33" (or so) blade. $100 for the CS sword looks like a much better deal than the retail price of the GGGodwin stuff. If one is looking to spend that much, they might consider The Royal Sword www.theroyalsword.com/The Windlass small sword more of a loop hilt spadroon.
|
|
|
Post by MOK on Jul 29, 2016 20:34:00 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. Indeed - a point that is also discussed by many historical masters, including Hope. There's nothing dishonorable about that sort of thing if the agreed upon terms of engagement don't specifically prohibit it. Plenty of documented judicial fights and duels of honor, with pollaxes or rapiers or smallswords or what-have-you, ended up with the primaries rolling around on the ground with broken blades or daggers, wrestling and stabbing and gouging and sometimes mortally biting each other, usually to no detriment to their honor or prestige. Gambling with your life is a bloody business, be it for war or honor or fun, and outside of sports there's really no such thing as "fighting dirty" - it's just fighting. The only things you "can't do" are the things that would cause you to lose (your life, random body parts, the argument or whatever's at stake). More closely on topic, I seem to recall an article at ARMA about wrestling in 16th-18th Century martial arts... ah, yes, "Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Martial Arts". Seems like a fairly comprehensive overview in broad terms, if necessarily superficial, including some rather savory bits on smallsword. But if you haven't handled the CS one, how can you know whether it's actually similar to what you have handled or just looks similar?
|
|
|
Post by 28shadow on Jul 29, 2016 20:39:39 GMT
While there were militarized small swords, such as the epee d soldat, they were by and large relegated to be an ornament by the end of the 18th century. One will continue to see kidney hilt and boat hilts on officer and for nco wear. However, the spadroons came along with little more value of worth with the onset of firearm and artillery dominance but those with backstraps quite sturdy and better fit to strike a blow, or block with. Somewhere in my files is a small sword that was clearly even larger in the blade than the CS sword but maintained a shorter hilt. A 33" (or so) blade. $100 for the CS sword looks like a much better deal than the retail price of the GGGodwin stuff. If one is looking to spend that much, they might consider The Royal Sword www.theroyalsword.com/The Windlass small sword more of a loop hilt spadroon. On the topic of spadroons, are there any modern manufacturers that makes some acceptable reproductions? I'm aware of Universal and Cold Steel (the latter being the better of the two) and Windlass' 1840.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 20:44:51 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. Wow, sorry about your dad, unless it touches on an inappropriate (to you, of course) area, what happened? The size/power idea behind guns is to use the most powerful weapon you can properly handle (a big subject, I know). People who think the 223/5.56 is weak for self defense are INSANE...as that thing hits with the force of a 44 magnum, and with hollow points, expends all that energy in 14" of gelatin, unlike a heavy 44 round, where most of the foot pounds end up in the wall after going through the bad guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 20:46:38 GMT
While there were militarized small swords, such as the epee d soldat, they were by and large relegated to be an ornament by the end of the 18th century. One will continue to see kidney hilt and boat hilts on officer and for nco wear. However, the spadroons came along with little more value of worth with the onset of firearm and artillery dominance but those with backstraps quite sturdy and better fit to strike a blow, or block with. Somewhere in my files is a small sword that was clearly even larger in the blade than the CS sword but maintained a shorter hilt. A 33" (or so) blade. $100 for the CS sword looks like a much better deal than the retail price of the GGGodwin stuff. If one is looking to spend that much, they might consider The Royal Sword www.theroyalsword.com/The Windlass small sword more of a loop hilt spadroon. On the topic of spadroons, are there any modern manufacturers that makes some acceptable reproductions? I'm aware of Universal and Cold Steel (the latter being the better of the two) and Windlass' 1840. No.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 20:49:56 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. Yeah, you would ideally want to match up a smallsword, and more critically, rapier, with a long bladed off hand knife, due to the stopping power issue (as well as increased defensive and offensive capabilities).
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 20:52:45 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? There are many open carry states (for handguns...even rifles), so why not long bladed implements.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 20:56:39 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. yup, in those instances, that off hand long knife sure increases the effectiveness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 20:57:57 GMT
Here is that file set. It may have been even longer than I remember. A dozen years or so plays tricks on my memory.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 21:02:12 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. Yes, it would be nice to pick and choose a blade to wear from the old "sword wall", rather than just have a few friends over to ogle your collection. What mood would you be in on a particular day...from a modest bowie...to four foot rapiers and longswords on the hip. Decisions, decisions. Hey, if women can do it with purses....
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 21:08:20 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. Cool pictures. You cannot emphasize enough the importance of historical context. If one confuses the use of the smallsword in the beginning, with the devolution, in the end (flimsy, fragile, fashion item "Court Swords"), you will be ignorant of true potential.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 21:17:32 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. Indeed - a point that is also discussed by many historical masters, including Hope. There's nothing dishonorable about that sort of thing if the agreed upon terms of engagement don't specifically prohibit it. Plenty of documented judicial fights and duels of honor, with pollaxes or rapiers or smallswords or what-have-you, ended up with the primaries rolling around on the ground with broken blades or daggers, wrestling and stabbing and gouging and sometimes mortally biting each other, usually to no detriment to their honor or prestige. Gambling with your life is a bloody business, be it for war or honor or fun, and outside of sports there's really no such thing as "fighting dirty" - it's just fighting. The only things you "can't do" are the things that would cause you to lose (your life, random body parts, the argument or whatever's at stake). More closely on topic, I seem to recall an article at ARMA about wrestling in 16th-18th Century martial arts... ah, yes, "Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Martial Arts". Seems like a fairly comprehensive overview in broad terms, if necessarily superficial, including some rather savory bits on smallsword. But if you haven't handled the CS one, how can you know whether it's actually similar to what you have handled or just looks similar? I believe you can (and I have actually considered) sharpen the two edges of the CS smallsword. I would love to hear from people who have done so.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 21:32:38 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. Indeed - a point that is also discussed by many historical masters, including Hope. There's nothing dishonorable about that sort of thing if the agreed upon terms of engagement don't specifically prohibit it. Plenty of documented judicial fights and duels of honor, with pollaxes or rapiers or smallswords or what-have-you, ended up with the primaries rolling around on the ground with broken blades or daggers, wrestling and stabbing and gouging and sometimes mortally biting each other, usually to no detriment to their honor or prestige. Gambling with your life is a bloody business, be it for war or honor or fun, and outside of sports there's really no such thing as "fighting dirty" - it's just fighting. The only things you "can't do" are the things that would cause you to lose (your life, random body parts, the argument or whatever's at stake). More closely on topic, I seem to recall an article at ARMA about wrestling in 16th-18th Century martial arts... ah, yes, "Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Martial Arts". Seems like a fairly comprehensive overview in broad terms, if necessarily superficial, including some rather savory bits on smallsword. But if you haven't handled the CS one, how can you know whether it's actually similar to what you have handled or just looks similar? Your points remind me of the ancient Olympic games, where the main event was a anything goes wrestling/fighting match between two contestants (pankration, it may have been called). Talk about Thunder dome (two men enter, one man leaves). Regarding the CS smallsword, many (like me) are simply commenting based on the general dimensions, and saying "smallsword LIKE", rather than technical "general classical smallsword"...but I hate putting words in peoples mouths...actually, I like it, who am I kidding...just kidding.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 21:35:49 GMT
On the topic of spadroons, are there any modern manufacturers that makes some acceptable reproductions? I'm aware of Universal and Cold Steel (the latter being the better of the two) and Windlass' 1840. No. Spoken like Scholagladiatoria.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 21:50:39 GMT
Spoken like Scholagladiatoria. No. Definitely not Scholagladitoria, nor would I expect Matt to agree with half my own impressions.
|
|
|
Post by howler on Jul 29, 2016 22:07:38 GMT
Spoken like Scholagladiatoria. No. Definitely not Scholagladitoria, nor would I expect Matt to agree with half my own impressions. Oh, I'm really only commenting on his (Matts) seeming dislike of spadroons. Do you disagree with half of his impressions regarding this particular subject (spadroons), or half of his impressions of all bladed subjects?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 22:11:56 GMT
Indeed - a point that is also discussed by many historical masters, including Hope. There's nothing dishonorable about that sort of thing if the agreed upon terms of engagement don't specifically prohibit it. Plenty of documented judicial fights and duels of honor, with pollaxes or rapiers or smallswords or what-have-you, ended up with the primaries rolling around on the ground with broken blades or daggers, wrestling and stabbing and gouging and sometimes mortally biting each other, usually to no detriment to their honor or prestige. Gambling with your life is a bloody business, be it for war or honor or fun, and outside of sports there's really no such thing as "fighting dirty" - it's just fighting. The only things you "can't do" are the things that would cause you to lose (your life, random body parts, the argument or whatever's at stake). More closely on topic, I seem to recall an article at ARMA about wrestling in 16th-18th Century martial arts... ah, yes, "Grappling & Wrestling in Renaissance Martial Arts". Seems like a fairly comprehensive overview in broad terms, if necessarily superficial, including some rather savory bits on smallsword. But if you haven't handled the CS one, how can you know whether it's actually similar to what you have handled or just looks similar? I believe you can (and I have actually considered) sharpen the two edges of the CS smallsword. I would love to hear from people who have done so. Why bother? They were never meant to be anything but pokies. As freshly ground, the trefoil blades had a bit of a hollow chisel grind. Even the colichmarde was not meant to be a cutter. A stinging laceration, sure. some of the "prettiest" had slim hexagonal blade profiles. The broader 18th century diagonal cross section blades married to a small sword hilt are going the same way as the backsword spadroons. I honestly don't get it guys. Why take any sword out of its original contexts? All the firearm analogies and "what if" hopeful social acceptance is no more than mental masturbation. Home and self defense a hugely misplaced subject of its own and found regularly in many subsections here in happy valley. Instead of looking at the history of a sword type, more often the popular debate is "but how would it be as a cutter?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 22:17:27 GMT
No. Definitely not Scholagladitoria, nor would I expect Matt to agree with half my own impressions. Oh, I'm really only commenting on his (Matts) seeming dislike of spadroons. Do you disagree with half of his impressions regarding this particular subject (spadroons), or half of his impressions of all bladed subjects? Read the two spadroons thread below this one. Matt only agrees with half his own dissertations, even when he is sometimes half right. Watch both Matt Easton spadroon videos and realize he knows a lot less than half the subject matter. Matt is mostly all about Matt and his ratings/followers. Always has been, always will.
|
|