|
Post by vercingtorix on Jun 27, 2021 17:08:43 GMT
I don't have the windlass, but the original Ames 1840.
It's a fun little sword, but I don't really like the grip ergonomics. A bit too thin -- I tend to overgrip it, so while the low weight makes me think it wouldn't be tiresome, it tends to kill my fingers quite quickly.
It's light, though. Only clocks in at 785g, so definitely something I could get away with some shenanigans with. Definitely something easy to feint with.
I do think your assessments of the development and periodization of these swords is a bit off. These aren't really the "final form" of infantry swords. They eventually lose out to true purpose-built infantry sabres by the mid 19th c., which are lighter and more rear weighted than cavalry sabres, but somewhat more substantial than spadroons. Examples would be like the French 1845 or the British gothic hilted sabres like the 1845, 1854, etc, or the American m1850 sabre.
I wouldn't say I find them "superior" weapons... I tend to think of the spadroon, infantry sabre and basket hilt as 3 points along a continuum of swords that are all categorically used with "sabre fencing" techniques. I can do all of the same things with all three of these swords, but each one of them will excel a bit more in one thing or another against the rest.
The spadroon is very light. It feints well, and has a grip good for extending a thrust well. If I needed to snipe your right forearm, or play a silly game with disengages under the guard and thrusts, I'd play with a spadroon. Conversely, on the other end, if I need to cut through your guards, protect my hand and get quick disengages over the guard for feints into cuts, I'd play with a basket hilt. And sort of the dead middling sword here would be the infantry sabre.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 28, 2021 12:28:05 GMT
I don't have the windlass, but the original Ames 1840. It's a fun little sword, but I don't really like the grip ergonomics. A bit too thin -- I tend to overgrip it, so while the low weight makes me think it wouldn't be tiresome, it tends to kill my fingers quite quickly. It's light, though. Only clocks in at 785g, so definitely something I could get away with some shenanigans with. Definitely something easy to feint with. I too have the Ames version of Windlass’ M1840 NCO Sword. While the grip feels comfortable to me I made it more so with a single wrap of rescue tape. I also have Universal’s P1796 Sergeants Sword. On that one I built up the grip with tape. Below you will find AndiTheBavarian modifications. Andi prefers grip band while I favour rescue tape, mostly because of availability. Perhaps this will give you some helpful ideas. sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/58261/grip-band
|
|
|
Post by vercingtorix on Jun 28, 2021 15:28:46 GMT
I too have the Ames version of Windlass’ M1840 NCO Sword. While the grip feels comfortable to me I made it more so with a single wrap of rescue tape. I also have Universal’s P1796 Sergeants Sword. On that one I built up the grip with tape. Below you will find AndiTheBavarian modifications. Andi prefers grip band while I favour rescue tape, mostly because of availability. Perhaps this will give you some helpful ideas. sbg-sword-forum.forums.net/thread/58261/grip-band
I probably wouldn't do that on my ames, if only because it's an antique and not really something I do anything serious with.
On some of my repro swords with too thin of grips (e.g. the Hanwei Cromwell), I've taken to using paracord. A big thing a lot of the guys in the HEMA club I go to do is to use hocky tape, as well, so as my collection of feder with bad grips grows, I'll probably go that route.
|
|
pgandy
Moderator
Senior Forumite
Posts: 10,296
|
Post by pgandy on Jun 28, 2021 15:50:51 GMT
I probably wouldn't do that on my ames, if only because it's an antique and not really something I do anything serious with.
When I read your post I overlooked the word ‘original’. Glad to know the weight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2021 20:51:55 GMT
There are subtleties of the US 1840 patterns that were lost in the translation. Start with a French 1816 pattern that had leather and wire on wood, and a good width double edge blade. I was well into my adoption of 18th century spadroons when I started dabbling in the period 1840 model swords. I was frankly surprised as to how spadroony they were, despite their skinny blades. Near half the width of the substantial spadroons and as pointed out, skinny grips to add to the not really a best fighting sword formula. Gone is the more contoured grip of the French sword. Add gauntlets to modern play instead of tennis wraps. Making the best of things was expected throughout the history and evolution of swords but there was little expectation any would be squaring off on foot with the US 1840 patterns. The musicians had an excuse but as pointed out earlier in this thread, you will not find much evidence, especially photographic that shows the 1840 patterns in the field during battle. My slotted hilt urn pommel has a small grip, not just in girth but length. I use size 13 gloves, palms 4.5 inches wide. I use three fingers inside the guard in a handshake grip (even the tip of my pinky fits in there), steering within the slots, not unlike tiny annelets on later smallswords. This grip is much like the p1796 swords that lack traction for steerage. More meaningful spadroons had backstraps and grips one could hold onto. I have many spadroons but have limited my US patterns with brass grips to just three and all bought more as example for show and tell than for use. Imo, the standard musician sword without the donkey foot/ kidney/lobate guard but just the simple D guard is the prize of that production for fighting. An Ames (1864) with a USMC musician boy shortie and a late standard musician sword. Some of the early Hostmann imports have wider blades. Give me a fatty any day Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by snubnoze on Jun 29, 2021 17:36:00 GMT
This thread seems to ignore late 18th through early 20th century military sword use.
Personally I'm not a big fan of Spadroons. They aren't aesthetically pleasing to me, and it seems like a lot of the historical examples are flimsy and not great fighting weapons, but their are of course variation and legit ones as well.
I'll take a Sabre.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 29, 2021 18:33:52 GMT
"This thread seems to ignore late 18th through early 20th century military sword use."
How so? They are all military or used by civilian departments. Their worth is another question and I (at least I think so) am well aware.
Do you have some early 20th century examples you would like to outline?
"I'll take a sabre" I've plenty of these as well but iirc, the topic was spadroons.
Consider close quarters and British naval cutlasses remaining straight, for the thrust and with broad hewing blades. Then, most western countries adopting straight blades for cavalry use. There were exceptions into the mid 20th century but a majority fizzeled out with straight sword for mounted use.
You are then left with the perennial cut vs thrust query and as many fencers agreeing Silver was right in proclaiming "there is no fight perfect without both blow and thrust"
Cheers GC
|
|
|
Post by snubnoze on Jun 29, 2021 21:56:36 GMT
@edelweiss I should have been more clear, not the thread specifically but the certain claims about Spadroons being the final form of infantry swords. My point was that in the late 18th - early 20th century Sabres were certainly being used by infantry. I wasn't disagreeing with any of your points in this thread it seems you made the same one. Thrust oriented blades of quality build aren't a deterrent to me (I really like my Swiss M1899) although I do prefer a cut/thrust blade. I really dislike the looks of the Spadroon hilt though. Personal opinion of course.
I haven't been into this long enough to fully understand the distinction, I know curved blades are "Sabre", but what do we call later model swords that have the same hilt design as Sabre but with a straight blade? Just "Sword"? I don't associate that with a Spadroon because of the hilt design but maybe I'm off.
|
|
|
Post by vercingtorix on Jun 29, 2021 23:05:48 GMT
I haven't been into this long enough to fully understand the distinction, I know curved blades are "Sabre", but what do we call later model swords that have the same hilt design as Sabre but with a straight blade? Just "Sword"? I don't associate that with a Spadroon because of the hilt design but maybe I'm off.
In british english, yes. For instance, the british 1897p infantry officer's sword. It's a straight, thrust centric weapon with a bell guard like a sabre, but it simply isn't...because it isn't curved.
In american english...no. The m1917 "Patton" sabre...is a sabre, even thought it's dead straight.
Defining a spadroon itself gets even weirder when you think about it. When McBane coined it in the 1720s, he was talking about swords the weight of a backsword, but with two edges. When you think about mid to late 18th c. spadroons, like the pre-pattern american "eagle head" spadroons, or the famous "5 ball" spadroons -- these had "sabre" guards; i.e. slotted or stirrup guards (and pre-patterns could have weird things, like proto-3 bar hilts, half baskets etc). So smallsword-ish grip as a definition is a loss, because the early ones had the same grips as contemporary sabres.
It gets even worse when you realise that "spadroon" is a british english word that we've only started picking up because much of the military sabre community in the english speaking world follows british fencing traditions. For instance, american Thomas Stephens' 1843 work A new system of broad and smallsword exercise calls the m1840 NCO sword (which is a spadroon -- or is it? the 1840 has a single edge, which is contra to McBane's useage) a "smallsword". American brevet general and west point master of the sword Henry Wayne, in his 1849 Exercise for the broadsword, sabre, cut and thrust and stick refers to the spadroon as either a "cut and thrust" or as the "espadon" (iirc, wayne served in the mexican american war, so "espadon" may be a spanish way of referring to it).
...so getting hyper specific about the terminology is a lost cause.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 2:24:01 GMT
"In american english...no. The m1917 "Patton" sabre...is a sabre, even thought it's dead straight." The m1913 is often labeled a saber but rarely regarded as a sabre in American English. Those Brit ish guys though.........
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Jun 30, 2021 3:28:14 GMT
@edelweiss I should have been more clear, not the thread specifically but the certain claims about Spadroons being the final form of infantry swords. My point was that in the late 18th - early 20th century Sabres were certainly being used by infantry. I wasn't disagreeing with any of your points in this thread it seems you made the same one. Thrust oriented blades of quality build aren't a deterrent to me (I really like my Swiss M1899) although I do prefer a cut/thrust blade. I really dislike the looks of the Spadroon hilt though. Personal opinion of course.
I haven't been into this long enough to fully understand the distinction, I know curved blades are "Sabre", but what do we call later model swords that have the same hilt design as Sabre but with a straight blade? Just "Sword"? I don't associate that with a Spadroon because of the hilt design but maybe I'm off.
Of course I'm not qualified to claim anything really, if I make "claims" it's just me spouting impressions I get. As far as what's a saber, I guess a spadroon is a saber to some people. The terminology isn't really coming from a community that's particularly rigid with terminology. I would argue the opposite, and if you went running around in the 1800's spouting you were going to draw your gladius, it would have gone over fine enough. So I would suggest that if there's a bunch of people saying spadroon, and what you have is distinctly heavier and beefier, then you have a saber. But if you draw your saber and it's a spadroon, and they don't have a sword, then it's a saber if someone wants to say saber. But if they have a big old saber, and you draw your spadroon, then,, it's a spadroon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2021 4:45:19 GMT
Some may find logic in dismissing period descriptions but it really doesn't need to be this difficult.
|
|
|
Post by tsmspace on Jul 1, 2021 3:29:13 GMT
Some may find logic in dismissing period descriptions but it really doesn't need to be this difficult. there's a long period you're talking about,, and I'm not the one who went calling spadroons sabers, I've just seen it enough
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2021 3:41:24 GMT
|
|