|
Post by tsmspace on Mar 10, 2021 0:32:07 GMT
I have a Windlass 1840 union nco sword,,, it retails for about 120$. I sharpened it myself.
So far I have to say it is wildly outperforming my expectations. I certainly did not expect it to rank so highly in my collection when it comes to cutting performance.
Now, some of this could be my low strength. I don't think of myself as a strong person, and I don't do strength training, I just do my job (which isn't much), and a bit of fun. So the light weight of the sword might allow it to perform where I don't realize how I am unable even reach "performance" of other swords.
anyway, The edge is not some kind of amazing, the sword is not renowned for it's quality, it's a bare minimum performance steel,
also, please understand that I do get excited about every sword when I play with it,,, but I have to say that this one is striking me as very capable in ways i did not expect, and should still be capable in all of the ways that everyone describes it as.
However, these swords were the primary swords for someone on foot during the final era of sword use,, which does mean that they were used during an era where the most refinements should have been in place,, so I think there is a fair argument that actually they simply are more refined, and therefore better in the most ways.
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Mar 10, 2021 0:52:25 GMT
Cool. Thanks for the video. I don’t own a spadroon, so it’s interesting to see one in action.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Mar 10, 2021 0:52:57 GMT
Nice edge alignment on the rising cut. People usually shy away from practicing those.
Spadroons were one of the final forms in use for some contexts but I wouldn't call them the apex of sword development. They existed alongside sabers, cutlasses, and fascine knives which filled different roles. The spadroon was a good military sword for an officer with a classical fencing education.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 10, 2021 0:59:04 GMT
That Windlass M1840 NCO is a sleeper. Some statements by famous swordsmen were quoted to me regarding spadroons I think in a thread that I did on that M1840 or perhaps the P1796 but I think the M1840. Here’s a brief rundown on spadroons from Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spadroon
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Mar 10, 2021 3:31:05 GMT
Nice edge alignment on the rising cut. People usually shy away from practicing those. Spadroons were one of the final forms in use for some contexts but I wouldn't call them the apex of sword development. They existed alongside sabers, cutlasses, and fascine knives which filled different roles. The spadroon was a good military sword for an officer with a classical fencing education. Well,,, sabers, cutlasses, and spadroons or "swords" and big knives are all hugely different from eachother. Sabers are for cavalry pretty much the whole time, while infantry leaders had a mix until they mostly never had sabers, and only had spadroons, at least that's the impression that I get. All sabers are for cavalry, where you are up in the wide open and have a ton of room to swing,,, and everywhere else is a sword (spadroon). ,,, cutlasses are for ships, and really nowhere else, and knives are just something that people would get on their own, and would be randomly everywhere. so in a way,,, spadroons ARE the final form of the foot-man,,, and I disagree with the fencing education,, I argue it has more to do with bayonets. Sabers can cut at their max reach, but they are heavy to be doing that with them, they are better used with their primary cut, and they are not for fencing. Instead, the saber is used in such a situation where the combatant gets into range of a strike, while remaining out of range of a strike from the opponent,, and executes the primary saber strike. So cavalry NEVER plan to run right up onto infantry in formation, because infantry in formation always outrange the saber, and outgun a pistol. Instead the cavalry runs up on equipment, stores, or troops that are in some kind of trench or bunker that keeps them from moving around properly, and they strike at the soft exposed victims when they are defenseless. ,,,, Spadroons are certainly depicted as fencing capable, ,, but fencing just isn't a battlefield technique. Some of the basic parries are probably used, and fencing skills improve parry skills,, and performing a good lunge is critical,,,, but then again basic training can make a person capable enough to justify the weapon if the weapon is inherently more well suited for the situation. So,, in a line of bayonets,, the foot-man with a sword will almost NEVER successfully strike an opponent inside of the ideal powerful saber strike,,, they will almost exclusively hit with the very tip, and they will need to do so suddenly and quickly. Little pokes, never a full lunge, and little swings, never a full strike. A full lunge will commit you into range of SOMEONE in the line, even if you are disabling your target with the lunge, , and a full swing will hit your ally enough to keep the full swing mostly out of your repertoire. So,,, it's not really about fencing skill at all,,, it just comes down to what sort of motions a person can expect to make. You can't get close because of the bayonets, so you will never do more than little hits with the tip,, ..... Sure, there are plenty of stories where the officers would be allowed by their troops to duel on the battlefield,,, but I think that would be much more rare if any real organization is present, because the soldiers would be needing to strike the opponent whenever available,,, so they would never let the battlefield flow around some fencing match,, someone would shoot or bayonet the enemy as soon as possible just like they would team up on an opposing enlisted in a line. In other words,,, I would argue that fencing isn't the strategic reason that the swords became so prevalent. Fencing skills would have been less common as time moved on, while spadroons became MORE common as time went on, (and guns became prolific), and I honestly think it just comes down to the grander strategy of making sure that the weapon given to each soldier is the one that will be most likely to be useful for that soldier the most number of times. A side note is that really,, (some more of me not really knowing but the impression I get) it does look like the dueling weapon of choice was a lightweight saber for these eras , not a spadroon. Instead a spadroon was the compromise it took to get a sword into a battleline and still keep the sword useful. again,, I'm just rambling this stuff, it's what I think to myself watching matt easton videos. I don't know anything. as for the rising cut ,,, well thank you,,, actually the number 4 backhand cut is the hardest one for me, and the one I've failed (against bottles) with the most. So actually the result was very satisfying. I do have to wonder, though,, if the bottle having a bit of air in the top isn't why it remained standing. I accidentally missed the first try (which you do not see) cutting only the cap off, and losing a bit of water. I put a different cap on,, ,but then it didn't quite seal, and it wasn't quite full. So,, perhaps the bit of compression that it was able to have without accelerating the water in the bottom of the bottle is why it stayed standing, and if it were properly full and sealed, perhaps it still would have fallen over. ,,, just the same, I was pretty happy! I remember your review of the honshu messer. I have the double edged sword, which I wanted to get when I didn't have a spadroon,,,, and I honestly struggle with some cuts using it,, I Will have to see if I can make the same use of that one,, but I think the nco replica is better because of the weight and the handle shape (which gives the wrist more room to move). Actually speaking of the small handle on the nco sword,,, I wonder if that's also not a factor in the ease of the number 4 cut. The big handle feels good , but it does seem to limit your mobility, while the small handle allows for the "precision grip" as Roland Weresheshsehsha of dimicator calls it, and I think you get TWO things from that ,,, more angles that feel comfortable and natural, and a bit more speed in the tip of the sword, since you can sort of snap your wrist better in the swing. (like a whipcrack at the apex, is how I was describing it). With a big handle heavy sword, there's less room to whip the tip right at the target,, you need to use the whole swing and you end up with a more even velocity throughout the swing, instead of a more defined peak velocity right at the target.
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Mar 10, 2021 3:33:13 GMT
That Windlass M1840 NCO is a sleeper. Some statements by famous swordsmen were quoted to me regarding spadroons I think in a thread that I did on that M1840 or perhaps the P1796 but I think the M1840. Here’s a brief rundown on spadroons from Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spadroon It definitely is a case where I didn't expect it to be what it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 4:59:20 GMT
I've thought the same about other light swords when I used them against light targets. My driggers arming sword "miss flexie" comes to mind. When I cut water bottles and milk jugs, it might as well be a light saber. I feel zero resistance. Especially since I ground a new edge
But once I put it against a target with a lot of resistance, it tends to underperform.
Now, when it comes to quick cuts, lacerations, counters, repost, mild thrusts and so on, it is the most superior sword I own. But if I wanted to take off a limb, it's not the guy I would reach for first.
I hate saying this, but it always proves itself true, it depends on the context you use it and what you want from it. It's such a cliché thing to say that answers nothing, but man does it always prove itself to be the truth
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Mar 10, 2021 8:14:44 GMT
No, sabers were used quite a bit on foot by infantry and artillery troops in addition to cavalry, and there are many variants of them meant for this. And fascine knife means short sword of the type mostly used by engineers and cannon crews.
But Roland Weresheshsehsha made me laugh, so thanks for that.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Mar 10, 2021 9:04:53 GMT
Different swords for different tasks.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 10, 2021 12:41:33 GMT
Like Adventure’sBlade says sabres were used by dismounted NCOs and officers. The big difference is that the cavalry used, generally speaking, longer blades and perhaps slightly heavier sabres. In fact a contemporary of the famous P1796 spadroon was a takeoff of the P1796 LC sabre, the pattern slips me at the moment. It was preferred by flank officers. Those two sabres were very similar in appearance.
If you like the handling of your M1840 NCO you’d like Universal’s M1902 sabre as they are about the same. It will out cut the M1840 by a slight margin while the M1840 is better at point work. I find the grip of the M1902 more comfortable and it offers better hand protection. But at 227 USD is not the bargain Windlass’ M1840 NCO is. Both are of 1065 steel but Windlass’ M1840 is harder although I’m satisfied with the edge retention of the M1902. It’s better than their EN9 steel.
|
|
|
Post by bas on Mar 10, 2021 19:44:43 GMT
Pgandy, I think you are thinking of the 1803 Pattern Flank officers sabre which came into use after British officers started to favour shortened varients of the 1769 pattern light cavalry sabre. Interestingly I believe that their French counterparts continued to favour the spadroon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2021 20:40:06 GMT
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 10, 2021 20:40:12 GMT
Thanks for the refresher.
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Mar 11, 2021 0:02:42 GMT
Like Adventure’sBlade says sabres were used by dismounted NCOs and officers. The big difference is that the cavalry used, generally speaking, longer blades and perhaps slightly heavier sabres. In fact a contemporary of the famous P1796 spadroon was a takeoff of the P1796 LC sabre, the pattern slips me at the moment. It was preferred by flank officers. Those two sabres were very similar in appearance. If you like the handling of your M1840 NCO you’d like Universal’s M1902 sabre as they are about the same. It will out cut the M1840 by a slight margin while the M1840 is better at point work. I find the grip of the M1902 more comfortable and it offers better hand protection. But at 227 USD is not the bargain Windlass’ M1840 NCO is. Both are of 1065 steel but Windlass’ M1840 is harder although I’m satisfied with the edge retention of the M1902. It’s better than their EN9 steel. www.kultofathena.com/product.asp?item=500618&name=1860+Light+Cavalry+Union+SaberI'm hoping to get one of these, I'm thinking about ordering from Museum Replicas. Especially if the steel is a bit better than the universal swords, it will be the same brand and make as the 1840 nco, and ALSO it will be the same "collection", it is a union army sword, which will be nicely collectible with the nco sword. I also have the windlass 1860 naval cutlass, so the light cavalry saber would finish out that collection in a way, yes there are more of them, but I basically have each fundamental type. (sort of like having a variety of LK Chen swords, which I hope to get at least one more, to make two). The universal swords makes me a bit shy after my en9 one bent all over the place and won't cut mt. dew bottles very well. I also have the atrim designed Kingston arms pair of arming swords, and I really like those two together.
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Mar 12, 2021 5:26:32 GMT
That Windlass M1840 NCO is a sleeper. Some statements by famous swordsmen were quoted to me regarding spadroons I think in a thread that I did on that M1840 or perhaps the P1796 but I think the M1840. Here’s a brief rundown on spadroons from Wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spadroon I ordered the windlass 1860 union light cavalry saber just now, I will make a separate thread but I wanted to comment to you directly since we've been talking about the various sabers.
|
|
|
Post by durinnmcfurren on Mar 12, 2021 5:31:27 GMT
As a disclaimer, I don't know a lot about spadroons. But I do enjoy listening to Matt Easton talk about them on scholagladiatoria, his YouTube channel. It seems a lot of people love them. Matt isn't really one of them (although he does not hate them, either). I don't know, you may find his videos give another perspective.
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Mar 12, 2021 17:47:12 GMT
As a disclaimer, I don't know a lot about spadroons. But I do enjoy listening to Matt Easton talk about them on scholagladiatoria, his YouTube channel. It seems a lot of people love them. Matt isn't really one of them (although he does not hate them, either). I don't know, you may find his videos give another perspective. i watch them a lot. I get the impression that spadroons were basically the dominant sword type for people standing in a line and firing on command. Sabers that are the size of a spadroon but only slightly curved are the other one. If you have room around you, like if you are on a horse, then you expect to be able to use big powerful swings,,, but if you are in a line, with people and bayonets all around you, then you can't swing your sword the same way, you need it to be right for pokey pokey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2021 22:30:56 GMT
"I get the impression that spadroons were basically the dominant sword type for people standing in a line and firing on command."
Pick a context. So far, it doesn't really seem like you have learned much about the transition of the 18th century spadroons to the sabres of the 19th century.
Do you want to look at the American Civil war? Your assignment, if you choose to accept it would be to look through Matthew Brady's photographs in the field. Yes, you will find some nco and musician swords but many more sabres. A mental fictional image of what might have been is not what reality had to share.
Cheers GC
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Mar 13, 2021 3:15:33 GMT
Thanks, edelweiss.
|
|