In case you were wondering, I've had to move this video to unlisted, because as soon as I published it the stupid f**king TH-cam bot demonetised it, so it's sitting in review stage. I'll republish when the muppets have done their jobs.
Your comment about officers not wanting to learn I find hilarious. In my time in the service I have met so many lieutenants that were so arrogant it was a genuine pleasure that I as junior enlisted would "take them to school" (cadets were much worse). I had my commanding officer and first sergeant rolling a few times when I got paired with some "butter bar" for combatives training or marksmanship. Usually the worst offenders were the academy brats ("ring bangers" we called them). Now the officers that went through OCS were usually prior enlisted and still carried that mentality. Of course this was before the massive attitude change of the military. If I were to do this to some fresh LT. now I would most likely receive a letter of reprimand or maybe a loss of rank and pay all because feelings were hurt.
Don't want the officer's feelings hurt as training for real combat, they might learn how to prepare for real eventualities to make themselves competent enough to keep themselves and their troops alive on the battlefield.
When, I as Marine Corporal (now 25 + years ago). Would educate a jr. lieutenant, and would be ask why. My answer, Humility is how you learn, arrogance is how you die. Better to learn now, and live. Then to die later, from idiocracy. If, I still got the look. The explanation, was he/she wants to be a MARINE, I don't like burying Marines. I was never asked twice.....
Thank you! I always loved Sharpe's character in the books who sneered at the traditional slim officer's sword and instead, used a Calvary officer's straight sword - because he didn't know how to fence!
As a rifle officer, his regulation sword would be an officer’s version of the 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre. But Sharpe preferred the straight heavy cavalry sword. I think Cornwall explains why Sharpe doesn’t like the curved sword in one of the books set in India. But I could be mistaken. Honestly I think it was just part of setting Sharpe aside from the other, gentlemanly officers of his time.
In the very first Sharpe novel (the one first published, where he is already an officer) he got his sword from the previous commander who was dying. It was given to show the rest of the men that he had confidence in Sharpe, who at that time was simply a supply officer. I think it was in "Sharpe's Sword" that he breaks that original weapon, and his sergeant basically "builds" him another one, by doing a bit of grinding and shaping. The rationale was that Sharpe did not know how to fence (that is mentioned several times) but the sheer bulk of the weapon, as well as his own strength and brutal fighting style, let him beat aside enemy bayonets and slimmer swords. Anyway, thanks for the historical clarification.
The Real Killer B Oh, right. It’s been a few years since I read the series. I do think there is a scene in one of the India books were Sharpe has to use the regulation sword and doesn’t like it. But, of course, those were prequels written after the original books came out. Good books. Too bad his Civil War series wasn’t as good.
He uses curved blade defending Wellington at Assaye (where he wins his commission) but struggles with it because he is never sure where the point is going when he thrusts. At the seige of Gawilghur he picks up a basket hilted claymore and finds it a much easier weapon to use. But essentially the Indian back stories were written long after the first book. Sharpe was always portrayed as big, strong brawler who was brought up on bar fights and back street muggings. Then was given bayonet drills by the army and uses his sword in much the same way, to stab and club people down.
There is a few folks commenting that Napoleonic officers were weenies, dandies, etc. and asking "why didn't they just learn to use their swords?" The thing to remember is that an officer's primary "weapon" is his (or her, but his in the context) soldiers. How often would being a good fencer matter for a line infantry officer on the Napoleonic battlefield? Not that often. But an officer's ability to command soldiers, execute orders effectively and just generally be a leader could change the course of a battle or war. Perhaps they were just more focused on what mattered to them as officers.
Correct. I read somewhere that there was a regular question in military academy final exams that read, "You need a trench dug. How do you go about it?" Correct answer, "I say, 'Sergeant, I need a trench dug over there. We've got three hours.'" Mind over matter.
Have been on exercises with modern officers who didn't bother loading their rifles. It's not what you're there for. You should probably load it in an actual fight though.
But don't forget that you can also help dig the trench, so unless you have more important things to do you should help, it raises morale in most situations.
I won't claim to have a lot of experience there. I do think it's good for officers to make a show of sharing the work occasionally. But I also think that an officer with nothing better to do than help his troops dig a trench has probably forgotten something important.
Yes , it makes sense , it is one of a very small number of militarily sensible ideas, that the idea fairy had[ side note; the idea fairy, is not your friend]. I still find that the spadroon ,as a design , is to easy to get wrong, especialy when the maker is on government contract, or a state arsenal , the choice is usually cheap, over functional. If the powers that be , had given the task of designing the thing to someone with actual expierence of using the sharp and pointy things in a life or death moment , we would have something far more useful , and far different, than what now exists .
Legendary Wave Pool it simulates a weapon, how much of an ass are you? Also, fencing is a martial art, as watered down as it is now, it was to prepare you for small sword dueling.
I still feel like "preval blades" - the really wide hollow ground triangular blades sometimes seen on french swords - are simply better than almost all spadroon blades in every way. Sure, they have limited cutting capacity, but so does a normal spadroon. (like the blade in your "cuirassier vs estoc" video.)
Great video, Matt. I don't know what you're doing different with your presentation, but I love it. It's like I'm in the room with you, having a conversation- your narrative flow moves to answer almost every question I have just as it comes to mind.
This is truly a sign of the end times. But for real, I've come to appreciate the spadroon and not merely just the most frequently thought of version of it, which I think most people will agree was rubbish. On another note, what's that T-shirt that you're wearing?
the t-shirt theme is probably evolution of weapons, arrows on bow or dart launcher were the first manufactured weapon of humankind, then melee weapons, firearms and finally the lego brick, that hurts as hell when someone steps on it. And uses human children to spread on floors.
Excellent vid. Possibly off topic comment: When I was studying Ancient Greek I discovered that British texts presumed one had studied Latin first. American texts not so much, and one Australian text went out of its way to take the British to task for the presumption. Clearly, the same sorts who regulated the swords wrote the text books.
Heck... it shows me this video in the activities and it sent me a push message to my tablet but it does not show in "Videos" on the scholagladiatoria channel page? What's TH-cam messing up now?
Thank you for sharing your research with us! In this case, it sounds like the best (if iconoclastic) description of the sword's intent would be "like training-wheels on a child's first bike."
Whew! I was thinking you were about to convince me that the spud was a great sword. Your logic about the use of the spud makes perfect sense. Fairly recently in become aware of single stick. Wow, I am intrigued. Seems like the perfect self defence weapon? With the stigma against knifes now days, a stick is a perfect compromise. When I walk my dogs at night nobody even looks at it while we chat.
I see you fully embraced the memes. More seriously it's a really interesting video. It's good to have an explanation for why this sword was used so widely and for so long, considering its weaknesses.
Saying it once more, would love a video from you on Germsn student fencing. I'm a member of a German fraternity myself (as evidenced by my photo) but it's a non-fencing catholic one. While I do know some things on the non-technical perspective of this kind of fencing, I would love your personal, technical insight.
Wonderful video! It seems like I haven't heard much discussion anywhere about sabers PRIOR to 1796. It would be super interesting if you'd do a video about sabers in the early 18th century, and maybe up to, and including, the Seven Years War, American War of Independence, etc. Even earlier usage would make for an interesting discussion as well. For example- Were any sabers used in the Thirty Years War or English Civil War?
I think your point is absolutely valid. Another proof is that in Italy the adoption of proper military sabres was very late, and straight swords were predominant for a long time. This happened because the general belief was that the thrust was "superior" to the cut, and this was teached in every fencing school and has roots in the ancient Italian fencing tradition. Even in military fencing treatises of the 19th century, the main focus is on straight thrusting swords.
I’ve actually seen 1812 battlefield engravings that I think depict using the spadroon to cut the jugular. It never appeared to me a very solid cut, but it was a cut nonetheless. Edit: for further detail, it appeared to have cut from the left veins up to and possible halfway into the windpipe.
CONTEXT ! (don't ever stop with that battle cry, it's far too rare, and desperately needed among those interested in truly learning about these topics)
Good video, all makes perfect sense. ALSO, as you've often said, the sword is a sidearm. Most swords ever made were probably never wielded in combat. Give a sword to an officer and he will very seldom be at the front of the press and fighting hand to hand, partly because he has a tactical role, and partly because middle managers everywhere like to avoid getting their hands dirty. The infantry officer would spend most of his time on the battlefield (only a few hours of his whole career) standing at the end of a line of his men while they loaded, fired, and reloaded. He would be ordering his men to advance, ordering them to form defensive squares, ordering them to fire. If an officer ever got to having to use his own sword for poking enemies in the guts, things had gone badly wrong. (It would be different for a cavalry officer who would need to lead charges.) However, a light sword is not only a symbol of authority, but something that can be used to accentuate gestures and coordinate the firing of volleys in the noise, smoke and confusion of battle. Do you know about the Japanese war fan? It is a real thing, and still used by Sumo referees to signal to the wrestlers and the crowd, but was originally used as a way of emphasising gestures and signalling on the battlefield.
I feel when MacBane mentioned "Sheering sword", due to his experience in the Netherlands he probably meant something more like the walloon (with a thumb ring).
Can you do a video about policing before the police actually existed? I always wonder about riot situations, did they just massacre everyone or swap their swords for sticks?
AFAIK, sticks were often the only weapon officially carried by law-enforcement before the formation of modern police. Even then many had a batton and a more lethal option. In the middle ages, they might also have worn a spear. With a spear you could also use the blunt end, if you choose a less lethal approach....
Going back law was often fines for the a hundreds, in the old Anglo-Saxon law you'd be in a hundred with your tithing being one tenth of a hundred or ten hides which are meant to be two fully equipped warriors. So your paying 1/5 of a soldiers wage, or doing garrison duty your self, yes its a 1 in 5 do there duty on campaign. Only that's 2 fully equipped 7th century warriors so by the 10th century your just paying a cash liability. These things keep going long after there just vague measure of land and hopefull counts of numbers, things that make sense in 7th century are carried on in to the 12th, it's not until 1193 after King Richard's ransom that the old hides Anglo-Saxon stop being used. On crimes often the entire hundred had to pay the fine, so you'd soon be keeping a close eye on your neighbors.
Civil guards in medieval-early modern age often were armed with polearms. They could use them sideways and push, if the situation was not so critical, or point the sharp end and advance if it was.
When you say that the Spadroon is worse at thrusting than a Smallsword, how much of an impact does that deficiency have? I assume the spadroon is still able to pierce through a uniform and kill or incapacitate someone, so why would I need more thrusting ability? Same thing goes for more cut-centric swords: How much cutting-ability does a sword need? Do swords really need to be able to chop limbs of? A cut to the weapon hand or the neck, even with a Spadroon, should be enough to end a fight. I would really appreciate it if you could put those thrusting and cutting abilities into perspective.
The accounts of them failing to get through winter uniforms are for a specific spadroon pattern, though. ThegnThrand has a video where he tests a Civil War spadroon.
That spadroon is over a kilogram (Medieval Shoppe tends to make all of their swords a bit heavy). Also Thrand only ever tests and makes it through cloth with horizontal cuts using the tip.
a cut to the weapon hand or the neck are not quite easy to deliver in a fight, and if you can only do supercial cut to the arms, legs or the torso you will not incapacitate the enemy (for example a downward cut to the shoulder must get pass the collar bone to deliver any real damage) and if you think of all the layer of cloting that a Napeonic era soldier would have, even more in winter, i don't think is so easy to cut him effectively with something light and narrow like a spadroon blade
Matt did you see the 3 part mini-series Gunpowder? All the the rapiers they showed had really beefy cut and thrust blades which I found very interesting. I would love to get your opinion on this in terms of historical accuracy.
This may be one of the most engaging and intriguing video I have seen in sometime, my specialty being developing adaptive training for people with limitations. This type of both analysis and the source. Material is perfect. Can you (or anyone reading) suggest a synthetic spadroon to use in hema like fighting against synthetics like PHA or Rawlings? Allowing physically weaker opponents or those with sport fencing backrounds spar with more historical styles has been an equipment challenge.
I feel like history tried to fix the spadroon in the 18th-19th century with the development of the naval cutlass. Similar amount of steel (minus the very large cutlass guard) but shorter, broader, stiffer blade. In fact, a cutlass with a smaller guard would essentially be a cut and thrust spadroon. But obviously it would be shorter, which some may not like.
The Awe-Me-channel made a spadroon that cut amazingly well. From what I've seen, I guess the over all shape and weight was correct, but it had less distal taper and had thus a stiffer blade and more blade presence (which I'd prefer, but probably most gentry wouldn't).
Due to the fact you talk about spadroons way more than the average person does, I would think you loved them. (ignore the fact that the majority of people probably dont know what a spadroon is) :)
Horses for courses, as you say " context". Each type of weapon has it's own style of use and some utility in other areas. Swords have a narrow area of speciality but a wide and robust range of disciplines and fighting styles. The spadroon, a term I have only recently been exposed to, is in context a gap filler and I dare say would have a range of weight and flexibility to better deal with facing heavier battlefield weapons. Only to be overtaken by a preference for various types of sabres. E.g. the Artillery Officers sword with a slight curve to mid Victorian sabres for Infantry Officers. Thank you Matt for the explanation. Not an ideal weapon but at least something.
With regard to what you say about the feel of a blade, I thought I could (as a physicist), give you some support there. In general, the response of a rigid body (which describes a sword well except for a short period of time around impacts) to any force is determined by 4 numbers, 1 location, and 2 angles. The first number is the mass, and the location is the centre of mass. These are the two numbers you talk about people often relying on. In general, these only determine the motion of the centre of mass in response to a force, and not anything about rotation (although when comparing objects of closely related mass distributions they can be used to estimate relative rotational properties). The 2 angles define the principal axes of the object which, in some sense, are the most natural axes to consider rotations of the object about. In a sword these are pretty obvious, they are one axis pointing (approximately) down the blade, one perpendicular to that (approximately) along the cross-guard (or where the cross-guard would be), and one perpendicular to both (in the direction that a nagel would be on a Messer). The remaining 3 numbers are the moments of inertia about each of these principal axes from the centre of mass and they tell you how hard it is to rotate the sword about a line running through the centre of mass (although it is possible to calculate the moment of inertia for other centres of rotation from this moment of inertia and the mass) parallel to one of the principal axes (there is a rotational equivalent to Newton's f=ma, torque = moment of inertia * angular acceleration so the moment of inertia is analogous to the mass in normal linear mechanics). As swords are generally rotated either about the nagel-axis (in the plane of the blade), or about the blade-axis giving these two moments of inertia as well as the mass and centre of mass (the point of balance) should be sufficient to accurately describe the handling-feel of the blade (except on impact). For straight blades it's even better as the blade-axis moment of inertia will usually be very small (as, looking down the blade, all the mass is very near the centre of mass) and so of little interest, so the only info beyond the standard point-of-balance and mass that needs to be given to accurately describe the handling of the blade to sellers is the moment of inertia about the nagel-axis (for rotations in the plane of the blade). So yeah, sellers should give people not just the mass and point of balance, but also the moment of inertia.
The moment of inertia is a bit tricky to measure though. The easiest way is to suspend the blade (making a pendulum) and timing how long it takes to swing from one side to the other making sure the oscillations are small (the calculation gets less accurate the bigger the swings) and have as little motion outside of the plane of the blade as possible (otherwise you'll be measuring a different moment of inertia). From this, you can calculate the moment of inertia (I) as: I = (m * g * r * T^2)/(4 π^2) m is the mass of the blade g is the acceleration due to gravity ~9.82 m/s^2 r is the distance from the pivot point to the point of balance T is the time for one complete oscillation (so to swing from one side, to the other, and back) if you use entirely metric units, the moment of inertia should be in "kg m^2" but this is actually one occasion where imperial units can be a little nicer by giving us I = (W * r * T^2)/(4 π^2) where W is the weight of the object in pound-force (the same number as the mass in pounds). The moment of inertia in imperial units calculated this way will be "lbf ft s^2" but, if calculated with the acceleration due to gravity explicitly it will be in "lb ft^2". The moment of inertia about the blade-axis is more complicated to measure but, luckily, it's only relevant in quite curved swords
How's this for a video idea: what are some of your favourite techniques for different weapons? What are some of your preferred strategies for different kinds of opponents? E.g. the counter striking guy.. the crazy bull.. the guy who avoids you etc
Especially in a military context where officers can generally get their own sword design if they are very unhappy with the official version, it is very practical to pick a design that they are all already trained in. Even if we think that design isn't very good, teaching every single officer a new sword style costs a LOT of money. If every future officer learns Karate, making all of the military officers learn Brazilian Jujitsu is a waste of money even if we know one works better. Generally speaking, officers fighting skills aren't their primary job. If you are going to spend money on teaching fighting skills and buying high quality weapons it should be for the enlisted men.
"but no the saber definitely cuts more effectively than the saber, unexpectedly". 1:55 wow. I'm surprised that you didn't notice that big of a mess up.
I love spadroons personally. I like the balance of function. Stabs, cuts, is light and easy to carry around. Some complain it's neither good at cutting or stabbing being so spread, but as long as it still is sharp enough to do it's "job", doesnt have to be insanely specialised, if it can stab and cut to the point of inflicting injury to the opponent and isn't a butter knife, that's all that matters to me personally. I feel that if one of these swords failed to pierce or cut the enemy, it's the fault of the ones who forge the weapon so poorly, as opposed to it's actual concept or design of the spadroon. Bad manufacturing. Just look at cheap swords on the market right now vs more expensive ones. You can buy two types of the same blade, but one can be awful and the other brilliant.
It's probably a really good idea from an organizational view to regulate that duels be fought with weapons that deal relatively superficial injuries. Then the duellists can do their thing, shake hands and get back to whatever they were doing, rather than having to spend time in a hospital. Not disrespecting the spadroon as a weapon, mind. I still wouldn't want to get hit with one, and I very much doubt that it would've become common if skilled officers couldn't kill with it. But, it does seem to me that a duel with smallswords is more likely to end up with someone's arteries or organs being punctured.
Good comment by Arthur Williams, below: th-cam.com/video/EJpFMMKdW28/w-d-xo.html&lc=Ugy053JpQ0wJGCNf9QV4AaABAg As for why sabres for flank company officers, one other possible reason is that the flank companies, of which there were two (light and grenadier), seemed to consider themselves a bit dashing compared with the centre companies. Sabres were, AFAICT, fashionable weapons carried by light cavalry, and so they might have picked them for the image. I can't recall any evidence for this supposition, though.
I think that in some cases that may have been the case - however, it's clear that as early as the American War of Independence flank and grenadier officers were often carrying beefy hangers, sabres and sometimes baskethilts rather than spadroons, so it suggests that they were choosing something they thought more useful for a melee, given their usual role in protecting flanks, scouting and storming breaches etc.
It's quite possible that both apply to some extend. I get the impression that the special role of grenadiers became less relevant during the Napoleonic period, although the light company would certainly be involved in protecting the flanks (their extended order drill is always fun to try - th-cam.com/video/EOJbqle8Iws/w-d-xo.html).
The chinese sword. I got one and it would cut very well and moves faster than I can see it. Of course it wouldn't do well against heavy clothing (which wouldn't be an issue in tropical regions) and would be bad at parrying...
edi I think you are referring to the training dow used in wushu. It is supposed to be flexible and very light wieght for the purpose of speed and flow during competitions and demonstrations. This type isn't supposed to be used for fighting or cutting. The real Chinese dow is actually quite weighty with a rigid blade and can weigh over 2 pounds. Mat Easton has some of these himself
I got some reproduction at home. It tapers from 4mm to 1.5ish. It would definitely cut very well. I can't say how it would have been used historically.
It's a flat diamond crosssection, double edged with straight edges (no profile taper, but significant distal taper) and a rounded tip (similar to a gothic arch). It's neither particularly narrow nor wide. The odd thing about it is, that the grip is long enough to be a longsword although the weapon weights not much more than a dagger.
Interesting. So it was a sort of compromise, but not a compromise of form a compromise of accessibility for foil users. There is certainly a lot more to this than is obvious.
So the reason it came into being and the reason it was short lived was it basically came about because officers wanted that adapted with what they learned instead of learning new things to be best prepared for the battlefield. Spadroons are entitlement swords!
I would LOVE to learn the smallsword. I love the way that style of weapon relies on thrusts..not just cause it looks xool and fun..but also cause as far as quick and extremely deadly combat when your life depends on it...damn a thrust is VERY deadly. when making a cut or slice if someone wants to they could sacrifice and arm or hand and mitigate the first attack and survive if then they can end the attack quickly. But if the first quick attack is a thrust of a smallsword thru the lung or liver or diaphram or even the heart...its over. if if they do get away or even kill you..they are prolly dead soon after you.
Actually this was a huge problem historically, many western countries trying to fight with the duelling culture, whereas here in Poland where 90% of people used sabres since the 16th century, duelling was not such a big problem, as it is easier to wound but not fatally with a sabre than with a small sword (I am not saying the sabre is not deadly, just that if you do not want to kill, and in most duels of the time that was the case, it is easier to do so). Also, in a battle context, a sabre is more reliable, a thrust may kill or do nothing to stop the other person depending where the point goes, how lucky the are, a heavy cut is really hard to ignore.
I think the emphasis on the thrust as opposed to the cut as the more lethal tactic is likely to have played a part on top of the education of the gentleman in foil fencing. If you are emphasising the thrust as a tactic, it's not too surprising that you'd find thrust oriented cut and thrust swords being very popular amongst military officers. Furthermore, if you compare Victorian sabres and straight-sabres to the Georgian sabres, the compromises they make to improve their thrusting capacity seem to be a sort of compromise between a spadroon and the cut oriented Georgian sabre.
Hey Matt I was wondering, what’s your thoughts on Navaja, or the folding knife used in Spain during the 18 and 1900’s? I feel like you’re among the best to ask since you always seem to give an honest opinion from the your experiences and practise, and also from your research of actual historical materials. Would love to hear your thoughts on the Navaja!
As a Horatio Hornblower fan I have always wondered what kind of sword the "Sword of a hundred Guineas value" the Patriotic Fund would have presented to a naval officer. Have you ever had one of these pass thru your hands, or are they all in museums and family collections? I think that would be a great topic for a video; I have seen images of sabres and spadroons that look like they had a hundred Guineas melted down and hammered onto the blade, scabbard and hilt.
I can only imagine every time there is a cut in the video Matt has started screaming incessantly because of the ludicrousness of the spadroon situation/context, which he is discussing.
The fact that, in period, it was called a shearing sword-combined with the hilt design-tells me a lot of what I need to know of its provenance. It’s clearly a scaled up small sword which is capable of “shearing”. As for why, my guess is that it was an attempt, by gentlemen married to the idea of their small swords, to wield something more useful on the battlefield than a light dueling sword. I imagine they were put off by a saber’s association with the rank and file, and wanted to be distinguished as proper gentlemen. I wonder how many-right and honorable-men died for want of a saber, while holding onto their gentlemanly pride, in the form of a clearly substandard battlefield weapon.
Who are you and where is the real Matt Easton? ;) But good video, and I think your rationale makes a lot of sense. Hmmmm... I did foil fencing back when I was in school, but haven't done any fencing since. Perhaps a spadroon is the sword I should get. Nah.
I wonder if part of the reason was that the light weight of the spadroon made it harder for an inexperienced swordsman to accidentally hurt someone in close formation. "I guess we have to give them something, at least they won't hurt anyone unless they really mean it" - Some high ranking ex-cavalry officer.
That answered many of my questions regarding the Spadroon. Did any Spadroons have more extensive hand protection or would that have restricted the manner in which they are employed??
I have a question. Consider the following context: What weapon set would you prefer in a one on one duel, assuming that the combatants have the best possible medieval armor. Something like late medieval full plate "white" armor out of hardened steel. Perhaps maximillian style. What would have the advantage? Mace and shield? Flail and shield? Poleax? Halberd? A great sword? Something else? What would you pick?
Depends, if you are trying to understand the relative merits of two different things, the magic word is context, if you are trying to get your mother to let you have an extra cookie, the magic word is please. So the magic word being context actually depends on ... context.
I really don’t understand why they couldn’t have made the blade stiffer. There are plenty of relatively stiff cut and thrust blades. Rapiers, side swords, and plenty of examples contemporary to the spadroon. I guess the issue was that they were trying to make the blade as light and nimble as a smallsword and therefore there wasn’t enough mass to make it stiff?
This Matt has been replaced by a clone who loves spadroons. You can tell because he isn't wearing Superdry.
In case you were wondering, I've had to move this video to unlisted, because as soon as I published it the stupid f**king TH-cam bot demonetised it, so it's sitting in review stage. I'll republish when the muppets have done their jobs.
Your comment about officers not wanting to learn I find hilarious. In my time in the service I have met so many lieutenants that were so arrogant it was a genuine pleasure that I as junior enlisted would "take them to school" (cadets were much worse). I had my commanding officer and first sergeant rolling a few times when I got paired with some "butter bar" for combatives training or marksmanship. Usually the worst offenders were the academy brats ("ring bangers" we called them). Now the officers that went through OCS were usually prior enlisted and still carried that mentality. Of course this was before the massive attitude change of the military. If I were to do this to some fresh LT. now I would most likely receive a letter of reprimand or maybe a loss of rank and pay all because feelings were hurt.
Don't want the officer's feelings hurt as training for real combat, they might learn how to prepare for real eventualities to make themselves competent enough to keep themselves and their troops alive on the battlefield.
I am curious as to what "the massive attitude change" is.
When,
I as Marine Corporal (now 25 + years ago). Would educate a jr. lieutenant, and would be ask why. My answer, Humility is how you learn, arrogance is how you die. Better to learn now, and live. Then to die later, from idiocracy. If, I still got the look. The explanation, was he/she wants to be a MARINE, I don't like burying Marines.
I was never asked twice.....
Thank you! I always loved Sharpe's character in the books who sneered at the traditional slim officer's sword and instead, used a Calvary officer's straight sword - because he didn't know how to fence!
I think, while it was owned by an officer, it was a troopers pattern sword.
As a rifle officer, his regulation sword would be an officer’s version of the 1796 Light Cavalry Sabre. But Sharpe preferred the straight heavy cavalry sword. I think Cornwall explains why Sharpe doesn’t like the curved sword in one of the books set in India. But I could be mistaken. Honestly I think it was just part of setting Sharpe aside from the other, gentlemanly officers of his time.
In the very first Sharpe novel (the one first published, where he is already an officer) he got his sword from the previous commander who was dying. It was given to show the rest of the men that he had confidence in Sharpe, who at that time was simply a supply officer. I think it was in "Sharpe's Sword" that he breaks that original weapon, and his sergeant basically "builds" him another one, by doing a bit of grinding and shaping. The rationale was that Sharpe did not know how to fence (that is mentioned several times) but the sheer bulk of the weapon, as well as his own strength and brutal fighting style, let him beat aside enemy bayonets and slimmer swords. Anyway, thanks for the historical clarification.
The Real Killer B Oh, right. It’s been a few years since I read the series. I do think there is a scene in one of the India books were Sharpe has to use the regulation sword and doesn’t like it. But, of course, those were prequels written after the original books came out. Good books. Too bad his Civil War series wasn’t as good.
He uses curved blade defending Wellington at Assaye (where he wins his commission) but struggles with it because he is never sure where the point is going when he thrusts. At the seige of Gawilghur he picks up a basket hilted claymore and finds it a much easier weapon to use.
But essentially the Indian back stories were written long after the first book. Sharpe was always portrayed as big, strong brawler who was brought up on bar fights and back street muggings. Then was given bayonet drills by the army and uses his sword in much the same way, to stab and club people down.
There is a few folks commenting that Napoleonic officers were weenies, dandies, etc. and asking "why didn't they just learn to use their swords?" The thing to remember is that an officer's primary "weapon" is his (or her, but his in the context) soldiers. How often would being a good fencer matter for a line infantry officer on the Napoleonic battlefield? Not that often. But an officer's ability to command soldiers, execute orders effectively and just generally be a leader could change the course of a battle or war. Perhaps they were just more focused on what mattered to them as officers.
Correct, Arthur.
Correct. I read somewhere that there was a regular question in military academy final exams that read, "You need a trench dug. How do you go about it?" Correct answer, "I say, 'Sergeant, I need a trench dug over there. We've got three hours.'" Mind over matter.
Have been on exercises with modern officers who didn't bother loading their rifles. It's not what you're there for. You should probably load it in an actual fight though.
But don't forget that you can also help dig the trench, so unless you have more important things to do you should help, it raises morale in most situations.
I won't claim to have a lot of experience there. I do think it's good for officers to make a show of sharing the work occasionally. But I also think that an officer with nothing better to do than help his troops dig a trench has probably forgotten something important.
I saw Matt Easton Context Spadroons and best sword in one sentence so I knew I just had to come quickly
Great Video Matt and makes total since :D
Since what?? Jk. Love your channel by the way.
Yes , it makes sense , it is one of a very small number of militarily sensible ideas, that the idea fairy had[ side note; the idea fairy, is not your friend].
I still find that the spadroon ,as a design , is to easy to get wrong, especialy when the maker is on government contract, or a state arsenal , the choice is usually cheap, over functional.
If the powers that be , had given the task of designing the thing to someone with actual expierence of using the sharp and pointy things in a life or death moment , we would have something far more useful , and far different, than what now exists .
ThegnThrand not a good video.he should have defined a spadroon. I went through the whole video not knowing what he meant by a spadroon.
Bring back foil-fencing lessons at school! :-)
I would have loved that in highschool
No, teach a useful martial art like a grappling art. But if you must use a weapon Single Stick is far better and more practical.
Evirthewarrior but a foil's not a weapon, nor is it used for martial arts...
Legendary Wave Pool it simulates a weapon, how much of an ass are you? Also, fencing is a martial art, as watered down as it is now, it was to prepare you for small sword dueling.
RS2Russ
Naw, bring back Saber fencing!
You're now a paid shill for Big Spadroon, accept it Matt.
Wasnt that simply big pharma joke? :D
Halberdier its a joke...
Halberdier WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
The spadroon-industrial complex.
Jp Gotrokkits The war economy.... supplied on the back of Spadroons. War... war has had changed {cue mgs 5 theme}.
This is a very nice video about functionality of a Spadroon.
Thank you very much for uploading.
I still feel like "preval blades" - the really wide hollow ground triangular blades sometimes seen on french swords - are simply better than almost all spadroon blades in every way. Sure, they have limited cutting capacity, but so does a normal spadroon.
(like the blade in your "cuirassier vs estoc" video.)
Your headstone is going to read "context"
and i love these kinds of videos, talking about the time period's reasoning for this or that
Great video, Matt. I don't know what you're doing different with your presentation, but I love it. It's like I'm in the room with you, having a conversation- your narrative flow moves to answer almost every question I have just as it comes to mind.
This is truly a sign of the end times. But for real, I've come to appreciate the spadroon and not merely just the most frequently thought of version of it, which I think most people will agree was rubbish.
On another note, what's that T-shirt that you're wearing?
the t-shirt theme is probably evolution of weapons, arrows on bow or dart launcher were the first manufactured weapon of humankind, then melee weapons, firearms and finally the lego brick, that hurts as hell when someone steps on it. And uses human children to spread on floors.
Excellent vid. Possibly off topic comment: When I was studying Ancient Greek I discovered that British texts presumed one had studied Latin first. American texts not so much, and one Australian text went out of its way to take the British to task for the presumption. Clearly, the same sorts who regulated the swords wrote the text books.
Heck... it shows me this video in the activities and it sent me a push message to my tablet but it does not show in "Videos" on the scholagladiatoria channel page? What's TH-cam messing up now?
You've finally found your magic Spadroon eh Matt ? Mission accomplished my dear Sir.
Thank you for sharing your research with us!
In this case, it sounds like the best (if iconoclastic) description of the sword's intent would be "like training-wheels on a child's first bike."
Whew! I was thinking you were about to convince me that the spud was a great sword. Your logic about the use of the spud makes perfect sense.
Fairly recently in become aware of single stick. Wow, I am intrigued. Seems like the perfect self defence weapon?
With the stigma against knifes now days, a stick is a perfect compromise. When I walk my dogs at night nobody even looks at it while we chat.
Great video. Love how you are able to put swords into an historical perspective
Very strange that (at least for me) it shows in notifications, but it is not visible among videos on @scholagladiatoria channel.
I see you fully embraced the memes.
More seriously it's a really interesting video. It's good to have an explanation for why this sword was used so widely and for so long, considering its weaknesses.
Saying it once more, would love a video from you on Germsn student fencing.
I'm a member of a German fraternity myself (as evidenced by my photo) but it's a non-fencing catholic one. While I do know some things on the non-technical perspective of this kind of fencing, I would love your personal, technical insight.
Wow. Such a massively interesting video!
Clears up a lot of confusion about the decision making at the time.
Spadroons and Kyo-Guntos are my favorite swords, practical but elegant.
Wonderful video! It seems like I haven't heard much discussion anywhere about sabers PRIOR to 1796. It would be super interesting if you'd do a video about sabers in the early 18th century, and maybe up to, and including, the Seven Years War, American War of Independence, etc. Even earlier usage would make for an interesting discussion as well. For example- Were any sabers used in the Thirty Years War or English Civil War?
I'd like to hear Mett Euston's opinion on this, come think of it I haven't seen him for a while
He's sold two kidneys to afford the blue and gilt spodroon.
Meth Easton lives in America.
I think your point is absolutely valid. Another proof is that in Italy the adoption of proper military sabres was very late, and straight swords were predominant for a long time. This happened because the general belief was that the thrust was "superior" to the cut, and this was teached in every fencing school and has roots in the ancient Italian fencing tradition. Even in military fencing treatises of the 19th century, the main focus is on straight thrusting swords.
I’ve actually seen 1812 battlefield engravings that I think depict using the spadroon to cut the jugular. It never appeared to me a very solid cut, but it was a cut nonetheless.
Edit: for further detail, it appeared to have cut from the left veins up to and possible halfway into the windpipe.
CONTEXT ! (don't ever stop with that battle cry, it's far too rare, and desperately needed among those interested in truly learning about these topics)
Good video, all makes perfect sense. ALSO, as you've often said, the sword is a sidearm. Most swords ever made were probably never wielded in combat. Give a sword to an officer and he will very seldom be at the front of the press and fighting hand to hand, partly because he has a tactical role, and partly because middle managers everywhere like to avoid getting their hands dirty. The infantry officer would spend most of his time on the battlefield (only a few hours of his whole career) standing at the end of a line of his men while they loaded, fired, and reloaded. He would be ordering his men to advance, ordering them to form defensive squares, ordering them to fire. If an officer ever got to having to use his own sword for poking enemies in the guts, things had gone badly wrong. (It would be different for a cavalry officer who would need to lead charges.) However, a light sword is not only a symbol of authority, but something that can be used to accentuate gestures and coordinate the firing of volleys in the noise, smoke and confusion of battle. Do you know about the Japanese war fan? It is a real thing, and still used by Sumo referees to signal to the wrestlers and the crowd, but was originally used as a way of emphasising gestures and signalling on the battlefield.
_S P A D R O O N S_
I feel when MacBane mentioned "Sheering sword", due to his experience in the Netherlands he probably meant something more like the walloon (with a thumb ring).
Damn Matt, you know your shit. Still amazes me from time to time.
He held out saying context till 11:50. So proud of you lol
*Mah spadroons are THE BEST SWORDS EWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR*
REEEEEEEEEEEE!
Great breakdown. Very concise and entertaining.
Why is this video unlisted?
In a sense, the spadroon is equivalent to the modern sporting "sabre". Currently training in this, and it's bloody good fun!
Can you do a video about policing before the police actually existed? I always wonder about riot situations, did they just massacre everyone or swap their swords for sticks?
AFAIK, sticks were often the only weapon officially carried by law-enforcement before the formation of modern police. Even then many had a batton and a more lethal option.
In the middle ages, they might also have worn a spear. With a spear you could also use the blunt end, if you choose a less lethal approach....
Going back law was often fines for the a hundreds, in the old Anglo-Saxon law you'd be in a hundred with your tithing being one tenth of a hundred or ten hides which are meant to be two fully equipped warriors.
So your paying 1/5 of a soldiers wage, or doing garrison duty your self, yes its a 1 in 5 do there duty on campaign.
Only that's 2 fully equipped 7th century warriors so by the 10th century your just paying a cash liability.
These things keep going long after there just vague measure of land and hopefull counts of numbers, things that make sense in 7th century are carried on in to the 12th, it's not until 1193 after King Richard's ransom that the old hides Anglo-Saxon stop being used.
On crimes often the entire hundred had to pay the fine, so you'd soon be keeping a close eye on your neighbors.
Civil guards in medieval-early modern age often were armed with polearms. They could use them sideways and push, if the situation was not so critical, or point the sharp end and advance if it was.
I’d always assumed singlestick was training for broadsword
When you say that the Spadroon is worse at thrusting than a Smallsword, how much of an impact does that deficiency have? I assume the spadroon is still able to pierce through a uniform and kill or incapacitate someone, so why would I need more thrusting ability?
Same thing goes for more cut-centric swords: How much cutting-ability does a sword need? Do swords really need to be able to chop limbs of? A cut to the weapon hand or the neck, even with a Spadroon, should be enough to end a fight.
I would really appreciate it if you could put those thrusting and cutting abilities into perspective.
I think there are accounts of spadroons failing to cut and thrust through winter uniforms. So they were pretty eh.
The accounts of them failing to get through winter uniforms are for a specific spadroon pattern, though. ThegnThrand has a video where he tests a Civil War spadroon.
That spadroon is over a kilogram (Medieval Shoppe tends to make all of their swords a bit heavy). Also Thrand only ever tests and makes it through cloth with horizontal cuts using the tip.
Source? Because I've heard that in regards to the Crimean war but at that point the sword for infantry officers was the P1845 sabre.
a cut to the weapon hand or the neck are not quite easy to deliver in a fight, and if you can only do supercial cut to the arms, legs or the torso you will not incapacitate the enemy (for example a downward cut to the shoulder must get pass the collar bone to deliver any real damage)
and if you think of all the layer of cloting that a Napeonic era soldier would have, even more in winter, i don't think is so easy to cut him effectively with something light and narrow like a spadroon blade
Matt you should do a video about scythes. I see a lot of people confused about their usage in and out of combat and I’d love to see one as well
This topic was deeply penetrated.
Katanas may cut through tanks... but Spadroons cut through *castles*!
finally i get the destinction. In polish we got one word for both smallsword and spadroon - szpada
Matt did you see the 3 part mini-series Gunpowder? All the the rapiers they showed had really beefy cut and thrust blades which I found very interesting. I would love to get your opinion on this in terms of historical accuracy.
This may be one of the most engaging and intriguing video I have seen in sometime, my specialty being developing adaptive training for people with limitations. This type of both analysis and the source. Material is perfect.
Can you (or anyone reading) suggest a synthetic spadroon to use in hema like fighting against synthetics like PHA or Rawlings? Allowing physically weaker opponents or those with sport fencing backrounds spar with more historical styles has been an equipment challenge.
I feel like history tried to fix the spadroon in the 18th-19th century with the development of the naval cutlass. Similar amount of steel (minus the very large cutlass guard) but shorter, broader, stiffer blade. In fact, a cutlass with a smaller guard would essentially be a cut and thrust spadroon. But obviously it would be shorter, which some may not like.
“A scaled up smallsword” so it’s a “bigsword”?
I would have loved this to be a one-second video, where Matt just says, "No."
"No it's not that. It's this; it's that..."
You the man.
The Awe-Me-channel made a spadroon that cut amazingly well. From what I've seen, I guess the over all shape and weight was correct, but it had less distal taper and had thus a stiffer blade and more blade presence (which I'd prefer, but probably most gentry wouldn't).
edi which project?
It belonged to the fallout project.
As someone who learned foil and was then handed a sabre, this makes perfect sense.
Due to the fact you talk about spadroons way more than the average person does, I would think you loved them. (ignore the fact that the majority of people probably dont know what a spadroon is) :)
Horses for courses, as you say " context". Each type of weapon has it's own style of use and some utility in other areas. Swords have a narrow area of speciality but a wide and robust range of disciplines and fighting styles. The spadroon, a term I have only recently been exposed to, is in context a gap filler and I dare say would have a range of weight and flexibility to better deal with facing heavier battlefield weapons. Only to be overtaken by a preference for various types of sabres. E.g. the Artillery Officers sword with a slight curve to mid Victorian sabres for Infantry Officers. Thank you Matt for the explanation. Not an ideal weapon but at least something.
One wonders just how common duels where at times.
With regard to what you say about the feel of a blade, I thought I could (as a physicist), give you some support there. In general, the response of a rigid body (which describes a sword well except for a short period of time around impacts) to any force is determined by 4 numbers, 1 location, and 2 angles.
The first number is the mass, and the location is the centre of mass. These are the two numbers you talk about people often relying on. In general, these only determine the motion of the centre of mass in response to a force, and not anything about rotation (although when comparing objects of closely related mass distributions they can be used to estimate relative rotational properties).
The 2 angles define the principal axes of the object which, in some sense, are the most natural axes to consider rotations of the object about. In a sword these are pretty obvious, they are one axis pointing (approximately) down the blade, one perpendicular to that (approximately) along the cross-guard (or where the cross-guard would be), and one perpendicular to both (in the direction that a nagel would be on a Messer).
The remaining 3 numbers are the moments of inertia about each of these principal axes from the centre of mass and they tell you how hard it is to rotate the sword about a line running through the centre of mass (although it is possible to calculate the moment of inertia for other centres of rotation from this moment of inertia and the mass) parallel to one of the principal axes (there is a rotational equivalent to Newton's f=ma, torque = moment of inertia * angular acceleration so the moment of inertia is analogous to the mass in normal linear mechanics).
As swords are generally rotated either about the nagel-axis (in the plane of the blade), or about the blade-axis giving these two moments of inertia as well as the mass and centre of mass (the point of balance) should be sufficient to accurately describe the handling-feel of the blade (except on impact). For straight blades it's even better as the blade-axis moment of inertia will usually be very small (as, looking down the blade, all the mass is very near the centre of mass) and so of little interest, so the only info beyond the standard point-of-balance and mass that needs to be given to accurately describe the handling of the blade to sellers is the moment of inertia about the nagel-axis (for rotations in the plane of the blade).
So yeah, sellers should give people not just the mass and point of balance, but also the moment of inertia.
The moment of inertia is a bit tricky to measure though. The easiest way is to suspend the blade (making a pendulum) and timing how long it takes to swing from one side to the other making sure the oscillations are small (the calculation gets less accurate the bigger the swings) and have as little motion outside of the plane of the blade as possible (otherwise you'll be measuring a different moment of inertia).
From this, you can calculate the moment of inertia (I) as:
I = (m * g * r * T^2)/(4 π^2)
m is the mass of the blade
g is the acceleration due to gravity ~9.82 m/s^2
r is the distance from the pivot point to the point of balance
T is the time for one complete oscillation (so to swing from one side, to the other, and back)
if you use entirely metric units, the moment of inertia should be in "kg m^2" but this is actually one occasion where imperial units can be a little nicer by giving us I = (W * r * T^2)/(4 π^2) where W is the weight of the object in pound-force (the same number as the mass in pounds). The moment of inertia in imperial units calculated this way will be "lbf ft s^2" but, if calculated with the acceleration due to gravity explicitly it will be in "lb ft^2".
The moment of inertia about the blade-axis is more complicated to measure but, luckily, it's only relevant in quite curved swords
Did anyone else expect Matt to shout "Lindybeige!" at the end of this video?
Good explanation btw. The militarized smallsword.
How's this for a video idea: what are some of your favourite techniques for different weapons? What are some of your preferred strategies for different kinds of opponents? E.g. the counter striking guy.. the crazy bull.. the guy who avoids you etc
Very informative, fascinating video 😊
Especially in a military context where officers can generally get their own sword design if they are very unhappy with the official version, it is very practical to pick a design that they are all already trained in. Even if we think that design isn't very good, teaching every single officer a new sword style costs a LOT of money. If every future officer learns Karate, making all of the military officers learn Brazilian Jujitsu is a waste of money even if we know one works better. Generally speaking, officers fighting skills aren't their primary job. If you are going to spend money on teaching fighting skills and buying high quality weapons it should be for the enlisted men.
"but no the saber definitely cuts more effectively than the saber, unexpectedly".
1:55
wow. I'm surprised that you didn't notice that big of a mess up.
I love spadroons personally. I like the balance of function. Stabs, cuts, is light and easy to carry around. Some complain it's neither good at cutting or stabbing being so spread, but as long as it still is sharp enough to do it's "job", doesnt have to be insanely specialised, if it can stab and cut to the point of inflicting injury to the opponent and isn't a butter knife, that's all that matters to me personally.
I feel that if one of these swords failed to pierce or cut the enemy, it's the fault of the ones who forge the weapon so poorly, as opposed to it's actual concept or design of the spadroon. Bad manufacturing. Just look at cheap swords on the market right now vs more expensive ones. You can buy two types of the same blade, but one can be awful and the other brilliant.
Well said. Very interesting topic.
I understand that both spadroons and smallswords have their place in history, but I can't seem to like either. Loved the video still.
That spadroon just looks so flimsy...
It's probably a really good idea from an organizational view to regulate that duels be fought with weapons that deal relatively superficial injuries. Then the duellists can do their thing, shake hands and get back to whatever they were doing, rather than having to spend time in a hospital.
Not disrespecting the spadroon as a weapon, mind. I still wouldn't want to get hit with one, and I very much doubt that it would've become common if skilled officers couldn't kill with it. But, it does seem to me that a duel with smallswords is more likely to end up with someone's arteries or organs being punctured.
Good comment by Arthur Williams, below: th-cam.com/video/EJpFMMKdW28/w-d-xo.html&lc=Ugy053JpQ0wJGCNf9QV4AaABAg
As for why sabres for flank company officers, one other possible reason is that the flank companies, of which there were two (light and grenadier), seemed to consider themselves a bit dashing compared with the centre companies. Sabres were, AFAICT, fashionable weapons carried by light cavalry, and so they might have picked them for the image. I can't recall any evidence for this supposition, though.
I think that in some cases that may have been the case - however, it's clear that as early as the American War of Independence flank and grenadier officers were often carrying beefy hangers, sabres and sometimes baskethilts rather than spadroons, so it suggests that they were choosing something they thought more useful for a melee, given their usual role in protecting flanks, scouting and storming breaches etc.
It's quite possible that both apply to some extend. I get the impression that the special role of grenadiers became less relevant during the Napoleonic period, although the light company would certainly be involved in protecting the flanks (their extended order drill is always fun to try - th-cam.com/video/EOJbqle8Iws/w-d-xo.html).
i always got spontoons and spadroons mixed up when talking weapons
Come on. There's no excuse to that floppy blade.
The chinese sword. I got one and it would cut very well and moves faster than I can see it. Of course it wouldn't do well against heavy clothing (which wouldn't be an issue in tropical regions) and would be bad at parrying...
edi I think you are referring to the training dow used in wushu. It is supposed to be flexible and very light wieght for the purpose of speed and flow during competitions and demonstrations. This type isn't supposed to be used for fighting or cutting. The real Chinese dow is actually quite weighty with a rigid blade and can weigh over 2 pounds. Mat Easton has some of these himself
I got some reproduction at home. It tapers from 4mm to 1.5ish. It would definitely cut very well. I can't say how it would have been used historically.
edi is your blade a long thin type or a broad blade with a clipped point?
It's a flat diamond crosssection, double edged with straight edges (no profile taper, but significant distal taper) and a rounded tip (similar to a gothic arch). It's neither particularly narrow nor wide.
The odd thing about it is, that the grip is long enough to be a longsword although the weapon weights not much more than a dagger.
Matt video, yay!!
Set playback speed to 1.25, waffle warp speed....engage!
Interesting. So it was a sort of compromise, but not a compromise of form a compromise of accessibility for foil users. There is certainly a lot more to this than is obvious.
So the reason it came into being and the reason it was short lived was it basically came about because officers wanted that adapted with what they learned instead of learning new things to be best prepared for the battlefield. Spadroons are entitlement swords!
Excellent video.
I would LOVE to learn the smallsword.
I love the way that style of weapon relies on thrusts..not just cause it looks xool and fun..but also cause as far as quick and extremely deadly combat when your life depends on it...damn a thrust is VERY deadly. when making a cut or slice if someone wants to they could sacrifice and arm or hand and mitigate the first attack and survive if then they can end the attack quickly. But if the first quick attack is a thrust of a smallsword thru the lung or liver or diaphram or even the heart...its over. if if they do get away or even kill you..they are prolly dead soon after you.
Actually this was a huge problem historically, many western countries trying to fight with the duelling culture, whereas here in Poland where 90% of people used sabres since the 16th century, duelling was not such a big problem, as it is easier to wound but not fatally with a sabre than with a small sword (I am not saying the sabre is not deadly, just that if you do not want to kill, and in most duels of the time that was the case, it is easier to do so).
Also, in a battle context, a sabre is more reliable, a thrust may kill or do nothing to stop the other person depending where the point goes, how lucky the are, a heavy cut is really hard to ignore.
Really great channel
I think the emphasis on the thrust as opposed to the cut as the more lethal tactic is likely to have played a part on top of the education of the gentleman in foil fencing. If you are emphasising the thrust as a tactic, it's not too surprising that you'd find thrust oriented cut and thrust swords being very popular amongst military officers. Furthermore, if you compare Victorian sabres and straight-sabres to the Georgian sabres, the compromises they make to improve their thrusting capacity seem to be a sort of compromise between a spadroon and the cut oriented Georgian sabre.
Hey Matt I was wondering, what’s your thoughts on Navaja, or the folding knife used in Spain during the 18 and 1900’s? I feel like you’re among the best to ask since you always seem to give an honest opinion from the your experiences and practise, and also from your research of actual historical materials. Would love to hear your thoughts on the Navaja!
I think that the main thing that spadroons have going for them is speed especially against a back sword or saber.
So, if a spadroon is a big smallsword, the "big" and "small" should cancel each other out, and a spadroon becomes just a "SWORD"!
Backsword is by far the best kind of sword any man could need.
As a Horatio Hornblower fan I have always wondered what kind of sword the "Sword of a hundred Guineas value" the Patriotic Fund would have presented to a naval officer. Have you ever had one of these pass thru your hands, or are they all in museums and family collections? I think that would be a great topic for a video; I have seen images of sabres and spadroons that look like they had a hundred Guineas melted down and hammered onto the blade, scabbard and hilt.
I can only imagine every time there is a cut in the video Matt has started screaming incessantly because of the ludicrousness of the spadroon situation/context, which he is discussing.
A Jadoon platoon on the moon weilding spadroons
The fact that, in period, it was called a shearing sword-combined with the hilt design-tells me a lot of what I need to know of its provenance. It’s clearly a scaled up small sword which is capable of “shearing”.
As for why, my guess is that it was an attempt, by gentlemen married to the idea of their small swords, to wield something more useful on the battlefield than a light dueling sword. I imagine they were put off by a saber’s association with the rank and file, and wanted to be distinguished as proper gentlemen. I wonder how many-right and honorable-men died for want of a saber, while holding onto their gentlemanly pride, in the form of a clearly substandard battlefield weapon.
Who are you and where is the real Matt Easton? ;) But good video, and I think your rationale makes a lot of sense.
Hmmmm... I did foil fencing back when I was in school, but haven't done any fencing since. Perhaps a spadroon is the sword I should get.
Nah.
I wonder if part of the reason was that the light weight of the spadroon made it harder for an inexperienced swordsman to accidentally hurt someone in close formation.
"I guess we have to give them something, at least they won't hurt anyone unless they really mean it" - Some high ranking ex-cavalry officer.
If I cut someone with that, I'd get ready for a very annoyed adversary.
Ok. To summarise 14 minutes.....its a young officers cutlass!
11:49 Captain Context strikes again!
That answered many of my questions regarding the Spadroon. Did any Spadroons have more extensive hand protection or would that have restricted the manner in which they are employed??
Shooting, Archery, Fencing and....Legos...
I have a question. Consider the following context:
What weapon set would you prefer in a one on one duel, assuming that the combatants have the best possible medieval armor. Something like late medieval full plate "white" armor out of hardened steel. Perhaps maximillian style.
What would have the advantage? Mace and shield? Flail and shield? Poleax? Halberd? A great sword? Something else?
What would you pick?
My mom lied when she taught me the magic word was please. In fsct, the magic word is context.
Depends, if you are trying to understand the relative merits of two different things, the magic word is context, if you are trying to get your mother to let you have an extra cookie, the magic word is please. So the magic word being context actually depends on ... context.
Dude! When you were point on to the camera, that was kind of freaky.
I really don’t understand why they couldn’t have made the blade stiffer. There are plenty of relatively stiff cut and thrust blades. Rapiers, side swords, and plenty of examples contemporary to the spadroon. I guess the issue was that they were trying to make the blade as light and nimble as a smallsword and therefore there wasn’t enough mass to make it stiff?
Scholagladitoria would you do a comparison of British sabers to American sabers?