It's basically the effortless little subcompact pistol. (I actually like the universal relatability of your camera analogy. I'm gonna start using that lol)
Peter Pond was an 18th c. American Fur Trader who did a lot of work in Western Canada. He famously got into a swordfight with another trader in Northern Saskatchewan which resulted in the other trader's death. The only reference I've been able to find for his sword is an auction listing which describes it as a smallsword. It's kind of funny to imagine a guy carrying a sword associated with European gentry deep into the middle of nowhere (and where is today is still a very remote area). But on the other hand it may make sense to carry a nice light weapon when you're needing to portage big canoes and hundreds of pounds of furs and trade goods from river to river.
Not just light, but probably less likely to get caught on brush and branches. Also not unthinkable that he'd already have a hatchet and/or axe as well as at least one knife as tools, plus perhaps a firearm. A sword would _only_ need to serve as a personal defense weapon against other humans.
Serious educated guess on the curved nature of the foil grip - you want practice swords (both foils and epees) to bend when you strike your opponent so you don't accidentally hurt them (especially if the blade should break). A curved grip on a relatively thin straight blade causes the force behind the blade to be slightly off-center, causing the blade to be more likely to bend. With the "real" sword (smallsword and rapier), you want the grip to be in line with the blade because you want the force to be completely behind the point, making it more likely to penetrate what you hit
I think you’re likely right about why you don’t want to bend the handle of a small sword. You want that piercing power. Not sure you’re right about the reason for the foil bend. Modern fencers still do it and it has nothing to do with the bend. I believe it’s just pure ergonomics. The tip then aligns better with where the forearm and fingers I think. Although I’m not 100% sure.
As a respected smallholder, I shall enjoy this discussion of the small-sword whilst wearing my small-clothes, sipping my small-beer, playing my small-pipes and avoiding the small-pox.
I have two theories. First. Why are the french grips longer? Probably to compensate for stripping the knuckle bow of the real prototype. They had to compensate for weight and balance redistribution. Besides they had to make the grip more comfortable to use with a fencing glove on, which I imagine they already used for practice. Second theory is about curvature of the hilt. Since practice blades are supposed to flex rather than penetrate when thrusting, having your hand slightly off center from the spine of the blade may help with that. Back in my foil fencing days I preferred the french grip to a pistol grip as it felt more historically authentic.
Agreed that the canted grip helps the blade flex. Once it starts flexing, it’ll flex plenty. But if there’s nothing to encourage it flexing one way more than the other, it can maintain rigidity longer than is ideal.
About the smallsword-rapier confusion in older sources: In Swedish, smallswords, rapiers, and spadroons are *all* referred to by the same term: "värja", which also is an old verb which means "to protect" and is related to the English verb "to ward (off?)" and the German word "wehr"
I could imagine, that has a similar reason as to why there are finger holes, that aren't used: The technique evolved, but the weapon kept its form, its expected (gentleman) look.
Could it be because the foil blade is intended to bend rather than penetrate one's opponent, that the handle is canted so as to help one always bend the blade in the same direction, limiting stress and reverse elbows?
I think that is exactly the reason for it. A foil is supposed to bend upwards when hitting a target; the ergonomic shape of the French grip forces you to always hold the foil the right way. Why bending upwards? Say you take a hit in the chest and the point of the blade slips away, then the blade will flick upwards causing no damage (your upper body part is well protected), if the point flicks downwards you are very likely to get a rather unpleasant hit on one of your thighs. Believe me, you do not want that, it's not an experience I recommend.
A possibility is that practise was usually done wearing thick gauntlets, an elementary precaution against hand injury. If so, that would explain the lack of a knucklebow on foils and, if stiff cuffs were on the gauntlets, the flexibility of the wrist would be limited, hence the curvature of the grip. In day-to-day life a gentleman might be bare-handed or, at most, wear thin kid gloves.
I'm very into XVII century - but more into first half of it. But not gonna lie, the second half is getting more and more into me - all those smallswords, transitional rapiers, plug bayonets, (original) grenadiers etc. are pretty interesting stuff too!
My hypothesis that the long grip of the foil lets one use a band to bind it to a wrist if the person is weak, without the band resting the pomel against the wrist/arm trains the student on the correct angle and blade orientation by feel, gives room for different hand sizes, and gives room to hold near the pommel to give room for the fingers should the guards clash and help prevent finger jams. Possibly they were designed after salle culture of some elites that preferred the design and the rest followed. Maybe rectangular blades were easier to produce since even children could smith nails back then?
Hi Matt, the Italian smallswords I've seen keep the double edged blade (although it is not intended to cut with, I read it makes a cleaner wound) and a ricasso for two fingers. I've seen some French samples that have canted grips like an epee and they date to the era of Louis the XV and Louis the XVI, incidentally that's my favorite type. My guess is that the foils' grips were shaped like they were because they were meant to be used a lot, as a matter of fact, I use a french grip when I teach, because it is more comfortable, the smallswords retain a straight line I think for esthetic, you don't need one to be straight to fight with it.
Fun fact: the Hollow Sword Blade Company was formed in England in 1691 to provide a domestic supply of small swords with triangular ('hollow") blades. Prior to 1689 most small swords in England were imported from the Continent, especially Germany. The new works were in Shotley Bridge in Durham. The promoter, goldsmith-banker Sir Stephen Evance, went to special effort to hire skilled metal workers and smiths, both French Huguenot and Germans ("Herman Mohll and Adam Ohlig with 17 other swordmakers and their families came to Shotley Bridge from Solingen in Prussia"). But the sword manufacturing business never took off before the peace of 1697. Not long after that it was sold in London and was converted into a financial holding company, and even had some involvement in the 1720s financial bubble. (See Wikipedia for more details). It would be interesting to know if any swords from the 1690s Hollow Sword Blade Company have been sold on the open market, or if they are in any museum collections.
Using protective gloves would be one reason for the larger grips. As well as being a one size fits all situation. Along with that the grip shape may be to deprioritize face hits for safety in training. If the point is always forced down, stabs to the face are less likely.
You don't need very big gloves with the foil or a smallsword simulator. And the small curvature is not the kind that you would aim lower, it just makes the blade more wieldable and helps you aim, as you don't need to bend your wrist as much as with a straight grip to thrust.
It may be down to the fact that the foil 'practice' weapon became it's own 'thing', and thus had it's own design development which diverged from that of the smallsword. And became so popular in it's own right it no longer had to refer back to the sword that it was originally the practice weapon for. Especially as the foil is (I believe) a 'sports' sword. And sports use has it's own demands which it puts into the deign of it's 'weapons'. Just guessing, but it seems likely to me.
Maybe practice swords had different grips so that people could easily feel which one they were using. Modern non-lethal guns try to look and feel different from lethal firearms to minimize the chance of confusing the two.
"Italian" grip foils, from the early 20th century, look almost exactly like small sword grips AND are straight.. I still have one from my fencing in college in the mid 1960's, but you're right, most people in non electric matches of which there still were some when I started, used French or "Belgian" variant grips.
Regarding your questions at the end, It would be interesting to get some experimental data from your fencing group. Get hold of a straight-handled foil vs one with an angled grip. How different do they feel in use? Then compare them both to a true smallsword grip. Does the difference in angle somehow simulate the weight and balance of a smallsword grip? I have no practical experience with either foil or smallsword, so I have no idea, though.
Per the training foil hilt, perhaps it's shaped that way to ensure the is always conscious of holding it the correct way, which will ingrain that habit and transfer it to any sword used in the future? Making it an automatic/subconscious part of presenting the blade under stressful circumstances?
You spoke about RPGs - I literally changed rapiers into smallswords and made rapiers an "improvement" over the smallsword one can acquire with a game option in my campaign, after (due to older video of yours) I came to know the difference! Sorry for the nerdy note :P
I tried it the way that you're saying but I still personally like putting my fingers through the rings of a small sword I feel like I have a lot more control. Next time I practice with mine I'll try it the other way again and see how I feel about it.
Not really. Hangers, messers, chinquedea were all around at the same sort of time. It was more optimisation for a gentlemans sidearm smaller than a battlefield weapon.
Try wearing a rapier around town while in an elaborately frocked coat with huge cuffs, wearing an extravagantly curly wig and a large tricorn hat covered in long ostrich feathers... It's quite awkward. I've tried 😅
RE: finger rings, cants. The modern (but almost never seen) Italian style olympic fencing foil has a straight grip and I was taught should be held with a finger slightly through one ring and against the crossguard. I don't know what the Italian treatises on smallsword say, but it would have assumed before this video they generally would have recommended something very similar. And it's harder to picture them training with long, canted grips which seem associated with the French, and nations whose fencing was primarily influenced by the French. The other interesting thing about the Italian style grip is it's generally used with a wrist strap. My impression is that's an innovation that only goes back to the 19th century, but I can't recall where I might have gathered that, and it might not be true.
This. Was going to post but thought i would check to see if someone already had. Yes.The Italian grip is very like a smallsword hilt without the knucklebow.
My guess on the foil hilt length is that the extra length was needed so that the weighted pommel could bring the center of gravity back closer to the hilt. The foil blades had to be thin all the way down, so they do not get the help of the wider part of the blade of the smallsword. Fencers would appreciate having a lighter-feeling blade while they practice. Seems like a practical solution to the problem.
Your videos are always interesting. Just a wild guess, but is the straight hilt on the real small sword for strength or ease of construction, i.e., a straight tang going through it to the pommel is less prone to break? I don't know what the foil was made of, but it looked like wood, which could more easily be bent and it's strength didn't matter? The hilt of the foil is so long it must be touching your forearm when fighting...maybe this is something to help training? It impedes you from doing a wrong move?
The sword Commodore Perry carried when he opened US trade in Japan looked like a small sword. When he fought a duel against a samurai his first cut removed his opponents right hand ending the duel. I wonder if his sword was perhaps a small strait cutless instead?
Maybe a longer curved hilt is more advantageous for competition where you’re just trying to simply touch your opponent. Where in a real fight you’d want a stronger more steady grip to keep hold of your weapon?
I can't remember which manual I picked it up from, but I've always found it works best to put the first knuckle through the finger ring. It's not awkward like trying to cram a whole finger through but gives much greater leverage than just placing it alongside the ring.
The canted grip is largely for comfort, and also to allow the extra long pommel to be canted away from the wrist, so that when you do a parry sixth, you have more clearance of the pommel over your wrist. This would not be necessary with a shorter grip, where the pommel is closer to the hand.
I would say as someone who makes things that they did it that way because its easier to make and lends itself to being slightly more versatile for teaching techniques with different weapons.
The foil French hilt also comes in left hand versions. And some, i don't know if all, flex one direction better than the other. I.e. up & down rather than side to side.
My only guess with regard to why the practice sword has a curved handle would be to emphasize thrusting. Possibly, it helped to reinforce the proper grip to thrust with. Even with a straight handle, the wrist and hand will automatically search for proper thrusting leverage. A shot in the dark guess, as I've never handled anything past a crow bar.
So British naval officers wore these throughout the 20th C also, no? I learned fencing on a 'French grip' and I've sort of asked myself this question too. Perhaps... the grip on the real sword maintained its traditional shape while changes to the first guard position (as I was taught - sixte position?) called for the curved grip to pull the pommel down into the wrist? Another thought might be that the traditional smallsword grip kept the sword much more comfortable for hours-long wear about the belt as I've seen them shown in 18th and 19th C outfits? Despite the schools favouring a more 'ergonomic' grip for actual fighting?
You can do sexte with a normal smallsword. I think why it became a more popular guard, was because foil became almost entirely a sport after the Napoleonic era, and moving between quarte and sexte is much quicker and doesn't open the writs as much. Before that tierce (3rd) was mostly used as it is a structurally stronger and can give more control in the bind. Which meant a lot as a smallsword could still reasonably be needed for defense against other objects in civilian and miliary life. Especially before military patterns became the norm.
I'd like to put forward the theory that the training weapons have a hilt unlike the duelling weapon because at least by the 19th century, duelling was often looked down upon, at least by those responsible for the training (if not the young hotbloods themselves, possibly). Maybe the young gentlemen's tutors and parents, and the fencing instructors at the universities, and whoever else trained young men in the smallsword, didn't primarily want to train them in their skill at mortal combat anymore, and maybe more of the young students wanted rather to impress their collegues with their fencing skills on the training ground than face potential death. Being goods with the blade is a required gentleman's skill, but being deadly with it maybe less so, by the 19th century at least. And you can show off your fencing skills on the training grounds way more often then in the duelling grounds (at least after dueling became illegal), so that is an advantage, too. Since modern fencing foil grips are more like the training swords then the actual small swords (bent and without fingerrings), the formers grip seems to be superior for sports fencing. In a duel, you want to make a hard connection with your thrust to wound, in fencing, a touch is enough, so there are reasons for a divergence. Also, a less stiff blade may change the requirements of the hilt. Modern air rifles at shooting yards and fairs do not look like modern assault rifles, even though they easily could, and maybe would even give the young a feeling for what a combat rifle feels like. But we do not want to give them paramilitary training nowadays, we want them to do shooting as a sport, so the link between combat rifle and sports rifle is not so obvious. Perhaps it was the same with smallswords and training swords. Do we have surviving training swords from the 17th century? Are they so different in the grip, too?
Matt, I read that part of the reason fro the curve of a scimitar was to help it find its way through gaps in armor. Can you comment on convex shapes in the role of gapping through armor?
9:51 I hypothecize that the original foil's extended grip length had to do with hand protection that was being worn while training. I don’t have evidence toward it, but the situation occurs in modern HEMA, where more "historically shaped" swords include longer grips and wider baskets or knucklebows to accommodate bulky protective gloves. Any thoughts?
As far as I know Italian foils and epees for that matter, are legal in competition, even with the wrist strap, I actually used an Italian epee with the wrist strap in an international meeting once, no problems. They are much closer to smallswords than anything else. Cheers
@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110 Yeah. I'm not a big fan of the smallsword, but there's no question it gives you a lot for how light it is. The smallsword has at least a decent chance against (& may be favored against) many larger, heavier swords in unarmored single combat.
My ideas: the guard/hilts are simpler on foils to keep cost lower? The grips are cantered on foils because one anticipates training for longer periods of time than one would actually use a sword and therefore and more ergonomic grip allows one to train longer without hand fatigue?
It seems that having at least the last few inches sharp would open up a lot of opportunities. Armor wasn't popular during that period, and super quick wrist cuts to the wrist, face, and especially the throat would make your opponent defend differently. And if they didn't consider the cut......that could change the fight!
I hope you will be able to answer this question Matt: The small sword evolved in part because the rapier was just too big/cumbersome for civilian wear. But is it "better" - is someone armed with a small sword at a big advantage in a fight vs a rapier wielder? The reach advantage... good video!
I own four antique sabres of different weights, lengths and curvatures, two antique smallswords, an antique spadroon, and reproduction rapier, longsword and katana. And after having extensively handled all of them. I can confidently say that the smallsword is at no disadvantage whatsoever! They are lightning fast...and that speed nullifies the supposed advantages of the other types of swords. All cutting swords require lateral space and time to affect a cut. The moment you take the blade offline you are immediately susceptible to a thrust. The rapier is probably the most formidable foe of the smallsword...primarily because of its length and thrust centricity. But even a rapier is easily parried and countered by the speed of the smallsword! And once inside the optimum rapier distance...the smallsword has the distinct advantage. As then the rapier's length and weight become cumbersome!
I was taught that the long foil grip was to support the tendons on the back of the wrist, which tend to be weaker the other side, which also used for gripping, and so tend to be much stronger. I think this us also the reason for palm up hold of the small sword, so the stronger muscles are fighting gravity, when your opponent really leans into it. Why would you want to baby those weaker tendons? I think for newbs, use during recovery from injury, and to reduce chance of injury during training.
According to my mentor, Maitre Jean-Jacques Gillet, the shape of the French handle was intended to minimize or delay hand fatigue during extended practice sessions involving the countless repetitions necessary to acquire precise technique and sentiment de fer. Whether his explanation was accurate, I cannot say, though it seems plausible to me. How well the French grip accomplishes that intended purpose is up for debate. Personally, I never much cared for it. I prefer a short straight grip more closely approximating the smallsword. Love your channel, by the way.
Potentially the ergonomic concerns are more important on a practice blade than on the actual smallsword. In use smallswords could see use for a shorter duration while the practice blades could see hours and hours of use continuously at which point fatigue could be more critical. Potentially the angled grips were thought to enforce good form that was useful later. Perhaps the inline handles on actual smallswords were seen as aesthetically superior and more visually balanced- the visual elements of such blades were certainly important when being carried. Maybe slightly more important than some aspects of ergonomics/function.
I know little of sword fighting or fencing and have done neither, but it strikes me that perhaps the reason foils have curved hilts is because they are lighter towards the point than the sword equivalent? If using a more front heavy sword when thrusting there would be a natural tendency to dip the blade down more, but when using a foil you might tend to thrust too high due to the lighter weight towards the point. Maybe the curved hilt is a means to cause you to dip the blade more like you would if there was more weight on the end to avoid inadvertently thrusting too high.
Interesting to see the difference in grip angles. If one practices with a grip that drops off, when he uses the straight grip “in action “, does it cause him to hold the tip higher? And is that desirable for some reason?
I was thinking about this. But as I recall, you did put two fingers into the finger rings _and_ you strapped it around the wrist - which I was taught led to its banning due to some deaths in competition.
Hey Matt! Thanks for making this video and giving the smallsword some love! I suspect that the grip of the foil was longer and different from the smallsword grip for two reasons 1. to accommodate a larger padded glove for practice and 2. for ease of production/maintenance. I also wanted to add that for Italian and Spanish examples of smallswords (and other locations where the rapier had more staying power) many of the blades are longer (sometimes to 35' to even 40') and the finger rings remained larger and sometimes functional like their rapier predecessor.
I have to argue that a straight tang and grip would e easier to produce and maintain as far as I can see. The Italian foil grip that was banned in the mid-20th C according to the lore I was taught, was very straight - and had finger rings - much like the actual sword.
Perhaps they made the grips on the practice foils different so you would never confuse them with the real small sword? At a glance, and from feel, you could tell the practice sword from the real sword.
I'm wondering if edged smallswords were intended to discourage the opponent from seizing the blade. Wasn't that the reason the Fairbairn was designed as a thrusting dagger with edges?
Regarding the grip I first had to think about vanity. For the huge majority of the time you will only see the grip of the sword in its sheath. So as long as it is functional enough you don't want to be that one weirdo with a crooked hilt showing all the time.
Is it easier to learn the most ergonomic body mechanics with the weird foil grip than with the "normal" bar like grip? Im not a swordman, but I have dabled in "combat" and non "combat" sports for almost two decades. Often, in practice, "form" and safety are the key. In a real fight, reliability and function are the key.
Could be because foils are sporterised versions. As with any sport, the spirit of the fight becomes less important than winning. So the equipment tends to gravitate towards whatever would give the most advantage.
Would the canted hilt make it easier to practice the fine motor control of the thumb and first finger? I must admit I have bad hands so when I fenced many years ago, quite literally in the last century, I used a pistol grip. Are there any examples of historical swords with hilts etc altered for the sake of a disability?
I really like small swords, they’re super elegant! That would definitely be my choice of weapon.. if I had to start wearing and using some antique melee weapon. Of course it’s probably the only one I’d have to use anyway lol, apart from daggers or something pathetic like that.
I wanted to say that if a smallsword's blade cuts, we're dealing with a spadroon. And there's some truth to that (like in the French case and similar). But the weight distribution would feel off compared to a classic spadroon (but I guess that's subjective). So I'm not sure if I could use it with a spadroon fencing system. I have a court sword type smallsword. Lovely fittings, chiseled silver hilt, triangular blade. But at 350g weight, it feels so light that, if the blade could cut, it would still have no power behind, and unless you would swing it in a really fast motion I don't think it would do a lot of damage (but maybe you don't need to deter a potential attacker; and in the case of duellings, they were not to the death anyway). Honesty, I bought mine for the artistry, and it feels to me like a piece of jewellery more than a weapon. And yea, the thrust would be quick and would deal damage, but still, it's hard for me to take it seriously as a weapon. I kinda look down on the era of its adoption as a side piece. From a martial perspective, it feels like going backwards (e.g. Washington you bum, get a sabre and join the fight 😤, or at least row your own boat over the Delaware 😇).
I own four antique sabres of different weights, lengths and curvatures, two antique smallswords, an antique spadroon, and reproduction rapier, longsword and katana. And after having extensively handled all of them. I can confidently say that the smallsword is at no disadvantage whatsoever! They are lightning fast...and that speed nullifies the supposed advantages of the other types of swords. All cutting swords require lateral space and time to affect a cut. The moment you take the blade offline you are immediately susceptible to a thrust. The rapier is probably the most formidable foe of the smallsword...primarily because of its length and thrust centricity. But even a rapier is easily parried and countered by the speed of the smallsword! And once inside the optimum rapier distance...the smallsword has the distinct advantage. As then the rapier's length and weight become cumbersome! I honestly can't believe you own one...yet don't take it seriously as a weapon!!!
@@Master...deBater So I agree with what you wrote, but I want to address this: "I honestly can't believe you own one...yet don't take it seriously as a weapon!" I think my case shows why so many people look down on the smallsword. There's a phycological bias if nothing else. Yes, it's light and fast, very, very fast. And that triangular blade would leave such a nasty wound after a successful thrust. But the more you add decorations, airy chiseled fittings, silver and all that, the more it will feel like jewelry than a weapon. That and the low weight combine to give this idea. So maybe I should elaborate that this is how I feel rather than that I think I'm being right. Especially when you consider the time and circumstances it was used. And as a counterexample to how I see things: I gave to a burly man, a retired sergeant in the British forces, a proper blue-collar worker's man, a Napoleonic era sabre to hold, and then I gave him the smallsword. He was more impressed moving the smallsword around than the sabre. Just saying...😇
i could imagine that the grip from the foil differs from the actual smallsword because as a practise weapon its much easier to hold the sword in one hand for a longer period of practise time cause of the longer grip with the pomel as counter weight to the blade. I Could imagine that even Children had to start practise fencing early on. Their Wrist is not so strong to hold the small sword for a long practise session.
It was always my impression that the small sword was little more than a badge of rank or honor that military officers, ambassadors, courtiers and the like were expected to wear when they were being presented to a monarch, attending a ball, or some other ceremonial event. i suspect few people who wore small swords in the 17th, 18th and increasingly in the 19th century ever expected to have to use their small swords in ernest. In fact, I would be willing to bet that few people required to wear a small sword had much idea of how to properly use any sword even to save their lives, except perhaps to wildly thrust or hack. I doubt even George Washington ever needed to use his sword in battle except to wave his troops forward to the attack. I would like to know if there are historial accounts of people using small swords to defend themselves in a street brawl, in battle or in a formal duel.
It is completely speculating here, but foils are sporting equipment, not self-defense tools (duh), but the desire to make a better sporting object that doesn't need to fit in a scabbard, be drawn, or worn is too attractive. We have the ergo grips now that also are not seen on actual smallswords which is just the next logical step to further sport optimize. Maybe?
I've been wanting to add a modern spring-steel smallsword replica to my collection, but most of the ones I have seen seem to be substantially heavier than historical weights suggest was accurate. Do you have any recommendations or thoughts about smallsword weight?
I just love the fact that smallswords fencing has treaties that utilize numerical thrusts and guards and parries just like the military sabres. I don’t like ancient sources that over to throw in some wacky analogies and philosophies into the practical menu. But I do understand that this is just a personal preference, and swordsmanship is not something that is super practical for modern society, so there is nothing wrong with being mystic and elaborate.
My knowledge of historical swords is pretty sparse (Love learning stuff on your channel!), but I'll take a guess about the foil grip based on my experience with modern fencing. My first instructor in college was a traditionalist who loved to connect what we were learning with the historical development of the weapons and techniques that preceded it. Naturally, we all learned on "French" grip, "dry" (i.e., non-electrical) foils. What the maestro taught us about this particular grip design is that its purpose was NOT to be as easy to grip as possible; its purpose was to train you to grip your weapon with an appropriate balance of stability and maneuverability. You want to hold it like you're holding a small bird in your hand: firmly enough that it can't escape, but gently enough that you don't injure it. Obviously, this changes dynamically moment to moment as you use the weapon, but the point is, even if you momentarily squeeze the grip firmly when, say, executing a quick parry, you are training your hand to always return to a relaxed, highly maneuverable state...similar to how you approach footwork -- stay loose and relaxed so that you can move quickly in any direction at any time. If you later switch to an orthopedic ("pistol") grip and an electric weapon for competition, having trained your weapon arm to stay loose and ready at all times will still serve you well, even as the pistol grip gives you greater control at higher movement speeds.
I would hazard a guess that there are at least three reasons small swords have the hilts and grips they do: 1. The small sword was an item of apparel. It’s appearance in some cases being more important than its function. Its use by high ranking officers reflects the expectation that it would not see actual combat. This is not to disparage the small swords effectiveness as a weapon. The more ergonomic “French” grip is quite ugly, and looks bent. 2. As a weapon the more traditional grip provides a stronger purchase on the weapon, it forces the fingers to wrap around the grip and makes a disarm less likely. The fencing grip is weaker in that the fingers are extended allowing the point to be more readily presented but compromising the strength of the hold. This is reflect by the fact disarms are quite common in foil fencing but do not count against the contestant. 3. The traditional grip is ambidextrous and would allow the use of a firearm in the strong hand. I know men practiced shooting pistols in both hands and I expect some weak side sword practice was also undertaken in case the strong hand was injured in a fight. The fencing grip would be far more awkward in the left hand ( I can vouch for this personally). As for why the practice foils weren’t hilted like small swords: 1. The fencing grip is superior to the traditional in every way having anything to do with scoring points. 2. It was and is considered unsportsmanlike and rude to use a foil aggressively in practice. The more extended finger position prevents as strong a thrust with a foil. 3. The foil grip makes even weak cuts difficult and forces point only practice. Just my thoughts on your question, thanks for the interesting video.
You show relatively modern weapons all the time. This is perfectly understandable, because you are trading it. I would like you to tell us more about bronze weapons, more ancient ones, do you sell them, how much does it cost?
I'd like a 'Needle' or a big main-gauche. Using a very pointy gladius lefthanded atm, but thinking a quicker point might be more useful than defensive slashing. What do you guys think?I'm finding that it's during grappling-close fighting that my lefthand blade really makes a difference. Most of my opponents are trained fencers and often they'll lock down my main weapon fairly effectively most of the time, but somehow always leave themselves open to my other weapon. I've often wondered if their training was at fault and not the man. I don't know, is that true? It's like that mace with the fencing basket-hilt, made for a fencer who doesn't know how to adapt to mace fighting.
I have read in a couple places that by the 1730's the sword was on the way out with it becoming unpopular in public and flintlock handguns being the choice for dueling and self-defense. The smallsword was the lightest and fairly easy to carry with a folding shell guard and was quite deadly. It was "the last sword." And after its several decades of existence the smallsword was gone and the handgun came to be the rule and still is. The sword was never important on the battlefield with one exception: the Roman gladius and even then, as Matt points out often, it was not just the sword but a 2-part system with the large shield. I have always been enamored with the sword and buckler for some reason. But it has never been popularized in movies or media.
"Never important on the battlefield" is a *serious* overcorrection. Any pre-industrial soldiers who *could* afford swords carried them as sidearms. Among those who didn't, we still have ample record of axes, clubs and knives being used on that role. We have ample record of infantry ending up in close enough quarters that they ended up switching to their sidearms. It wasn't an ideal situation, but it still happened, and happened frequently enough to be a regular occurrence in historic record. Yes, pole weapons and bows were the *primary* battlefield weapons, but that doesn't mean they were the *only* important weapons. The idea that they were the be-all-end-all and everything else didn't matter is nonsense peddled by contrarians on the internet.
@@garychurch9237 Your original comment was that swords were "never" important on the battlefield. That's the point I was responding to with my initial comment. If you're bringing up bayonets as some point about history *in general,* then that's asinine. Bayonets only started entering use in the 17th century, and regular soldiers still carried hangers (or other cutting implements) as sidearms up until the Napoleonic Wars. The same Napoleonic Wars that saw huge, sweeping changes in firearm technology and military operation. And also the same Napoleonic Wars where, like the other commenter mentioned, swords *still* played a very important role as cavalry weapons. Or are you trying to take the classic contrarian route and lie with statistics? Because there's more to the importance of a weapon than the number of kills it's gotten on paper.
I think it's useful to look at small swords and perhaps spadroons as personal defense weapons. In military/police firearms, there are classes of troops who aren't expected to be involved in combat, but need something to defend themselves if attacked. You aren't going to have the radio person carrying a battle rifle, which would only be in the way and wind up not being close at hand. The M1 carbine in WWII is an example. Just as you aren't going to walk down the street with a rifle or shotgun slung over your shoulder (well, in those countries where you can carry firearms and frankly, here in the US in some states you just might see some numbskull doing that)) you're going to choose a pistol for its carrying convenience. You wouldn't want to be prancing around with a honking great long rapier indoors, or at court, but as a gentlemen you have the right to defend yourself, so a smallsword works just fine. It's the 'snub-nose pistol' of bladed weapons, sort of. Okay, so's the Bowie knife...and the Kukri...and daggers...
![[กูเพิ่งซื้อมึงปิดหนี] 20 นาที ผมรีวิวเกมที่แย่ที่สุดในโลก CONCORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XhC-3q3Ii7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Swords are like cameras. The best camera is the one you have with you.
Unless the guy next to you has a better one
Bugger!!(Not you)@@IanK3b
This is true😊
It's basically the effortless little subcompact pistol. (I actually like the universal relatability of your camera analogy. I'm gonna start using that lol)
The same could be said of guns.
Peter Pond was an 18th c. American Fur Trader who did a lot of work in Western Canada. He famously got into a swordfight with another trader in Northern Saskatchewan which resulted in the other trader's death.
The only reference I've been able to find for his sword is an auction listing which describes it as a smallsword.
It's kind of funny to imagine a guy carrying a sword associated with European gentry deep into the middle of nowhere (and where is today is still a very remote area). But on the other hand it may make sense to carry a nice light weapon when you're needing to portage big canoes and hundreds of pounds of furs and trade goods from river to river.
Not just light, but probably less likely to get caught on brush and branches. Also not unthinkable that he'd already have a hatchet and/or axe as well as at least one knife as tools, plus perhaps a firearm. A sword would _only_ need to serve as a personal defense weapon against other humans.
Serious educated guess on the curved nature of the foil grip - you want practice swords (both foils and epees) to bend when you strike your opponent so you don't accidentally hurt them (especially if the blade should break). A curved grip on a relatively thin straight blade causes the force behind the blade to be slightly off-center, causing the blade to be more likely to bend.
With the "real" sword (smallsword and rapier), you want the grip to be in line with the blade because you want the force to be completely behind the point, making it more likely to penetrate what you hit
I think you’re likely right about why you don’t want to bend the handle of a small sword. You want that piercing power. Not sure you’re right about the reason for the foil bend. Modern fencers still do it and it has nothing to do with the bend. I believe it’s just pure ergonomics. The tip then aligns better with where the forearm and fingers I think. Although I’m not 100% sure.
As a respected smallholder, I shall enjoy this discussion of the small-sword whilst wearing my small-clothes, sipping my small-beer, playing my small-pipes and avoiding the small-pox.
Small-clothes: large comfort
It's a small world after all.
I have two theories.
First. Why are the french grips longer? Probably to compensate for stripping the knuckle bow of the real prototype. They had to compensate for weight and balance redistribution. Besides they had to make the grip more comfortable to use with a fencing glove on, which I imagine they already used for practice.
Second theory is about curvature of the hilt. Since practice blades are supposed to flex rather than penetrate when thrusting, having your hand slightly off center from the spine of the blade may help with that.
Back in my foil fencing days I preferred the french grip to a pistol grip as it felt more historically authentic.
I like your second hypothesis. I also think the curvature would encourage you to let the blade deflect rather than drive it through your target
Agreed I always preferred French to pistol grip. I think both theories are quite good ones.
Agreed that the canted grip helps the blade flex. Once it starts flexing, it’ll flex plenty. But if there’s nothing to encourage it flexing one way more than the other, it can maintain rigidity longer than is ideal.
About the smallsword-rapier confusion in older sources: In Swedish, smallswords, rapiers, and spadroons are *all* referred to by the same term: "värja", which also is an old verb which means "to protect" and is related to the English verb "to ward (off?)" and the German word "wehr"
I could imagine, that has a similar reason as to why there are finger holes, that aren't used: The technique evolved, but the weapon kept its form, its expected (gentleman) look.
That first one is nice looking smallsword. I like how simple, but elegant it is
Could it be because the foil blade is intended to bend rather than penetrate one's opponent, that the handle is canted so as to help one always bend the blade in the same direction, limiting stress and reverse elbows?
I think that is exactly the reason for it. A foil is supposed to bend upwards when hitting a target; the ergonomic shape of the French grip forces you to always hold the foil the right way. Why bending upwards? Say you take a hit in the chest and the point of the blade slips away, then the blade will flick upwards causing no damage (your upper body part is well protected), if the point flicks downwards you are very likely to get a rather unpleasant hit on one of your thighs. Believe me, you do not want that, it's not an experience I recommend.
A possibility is that practise was usually done wearing thick gauntlets, an elementary precaution against hand injury. If so, that would explain the lack of a knucklebow on foils and, if stiff cuffs were on the gauntlets, the flexibility of the wrist would be limited, hence the curvature of the grip. In day-to-day life a gentleman might be bare-handed or, at most, wear thin kid gloves.
I'm very into XVII century - but more into first half of it. But not gonna lie, the second half is getting more and more into me - all those smallswords, transitional rapiers, plug bayonets, (original) grenadiers etc. are pretty interesting stuff too!
My hypothesis that the long grip of the foil lets one use a band to bind it to a wrist if the person is weak, without the band resting the pomel against the wrist/arm trains the student on the correct angle and blade orientation by feel, gives room for different hand sizes, and gives room to hold near the pommel to give room for the fingers should the guards clash and help prevent finger jams. Possibly they were designed after salle culture of some elites that preferred the design and the rest followed. Maybe rectangular blades were easier to produce since even children could smith nails back then?
Hi Matt, the Italian smallswords I've seen keep the double edged blade (although it is not intended to cut with, I read it makes a cleaner wound) and a ricasso for two fingers. I've seen some French samples that have canted grips like an epee and they date to the era of Louis the XV and Louis the XVI, incidentally that's my favorite type. My guess is that the foils' grips were shaped like they were because they were meant to be used a lot, as a matter of fact, I use a french grip when I teach, because it is more comfortable, the smallswords retain a straight line I think for esthetic, you don't need one to be straight to fight with it.
I didn't know that about General Washington. That's cool.
Fun fact: the Hollow Sword Blade Company was formed in England in 1691 to provide a domestic supply of small swords with triangular ('hollow") blades. Prior to 1689 most small swords in England were imported from the Continent, especially Germany. The new works were in Shotley Bridge in Durham. The promoter, goldsmith-banker Sir Stephen Evance, went to special effort to hire skilled metal workers and smiths, both French Huguenot and Germans ("Herman Mohll and Adam Ohlig with 17 other swordmakers and their families came to Shotley Bridge from Solingen in Prussia"). But the sword manufacturing business never took off before the peace of 1697. Not long after that it was sold in London and was converted into a financial holding company, and even had some involvement in the 1720s financial bubble. (See Wikipedia for more details).
It would be interesting to know if any swords from the 1690s Hollow Sword Blade Company have been sold on the open market, or if they are in any museum collections.
Great video as always. I would love to see more small sword content.
Using protective gloves would be one reason for the larger grips. As well as being a one size fits all situation. Along with that the grip shape may be to deprioritize face hits for safety in training. If the point is always forced down, stabs to the face are less likely.
You don't need very big gloves with the foil or a smallsword simulator. And the small curvature is not the kind that you would aim lower, it just makes the blade more wieldable and helps you aim, as you don't need to bend your wrist as much as with a straight grip to thrust.
It may be down to the fact that the foil 'practice' weapon became it's own 'thing', and thus had it's own design development which diverged from that of the smallsword. And became so popular in it's own right it no longer had to refer back to the sword that it was originally the practice weapon for. Especially as the foil is (I believe) a 'sports' sword. And sports use has it's own demands which it puts into the deign of it's 'weapons'. Just guessing, but it seems likely to me.
Maybe practice swords had different grips so that people could easily feel which one they were using. Modern non-lethal guns try to look and feel different from lethal firearms to minimize the chance of confusing the two.
The black hilted rapier in the backgraund looks interesting.
Love these blades
"Italian" grip foils, from the early 20th century, look almost exactly like small sword grips AND are straight.. I still have one from my fencing in college in the mid 1960's, but you're right, most people in non electric matches of which there still were some when I started, used French or "Belgian" variant grips.
Regarding your questions at the end, It would be interesting to get some experimental data from your fencing group. Get hold of a straight-handled foil vs one with an angled grip. How different do they feel in use? Then compare them both to a true smallsword grip. Does the difference in angle somehow simulate the weight and balance of a smallsword grip?
I have no practical experience with either foil or smallsword, so I have no idea, though.
First noticed smallswords in the movies Scaramouche and The Duellists.
Per the training foil hilt, perhaps it's shaped that way to ensure the is always conscious of holding it the correct way, which will ingrain that habit and transfer it to any sword used in the future? Making it an automatic/subconscious part of presenting the blade under stressful circumstances?
Ha, was just having conversation about smallswords, excellent timing
You spoke about RPGs - I literally changed rapiers into smallswords and made rapiers an "improvement" over the smallsword one can acquire with a game option in my campaign, after (due to older video of yours) I came to know the difference!
Sorry for the nerdy note :P
I tried it the way that you're saying but I still personally like putting my fingers through the rings of a small sword I feel like I have a lot more control. Next time I practice with mine I'll try it the other way again and see how I feel about it.
Question? Did the Smallsword come about when people began to think that Rapiers had become egregiously long and were looking silly?
Or were a pain to carry about when the average user only got into a fight once in 20 years.
I've heard that a major driver of the change was fashion, the heavy rapier ruined the way the new short jackets that were all the rage fitted.
Not really. Hangers, messers, chinquedea were all around at the same sort of time. It was more optimisation for a gentlemans sidearm smaller than a battlefield weapon.
Try wearing a rapier around town while in an elaborately frocked coat with huge cuffs, wearing an extravagantly curly wig and a large tricorn hat covered in long ostrich feathers...
It's quite awkward.
I've tried 😅
@@Theduckwebcomics viking reenactor here , helmet, chainmail,shield, seven foot spear , an axe and a scramaseax.
RE: finger rings, cants. The modern (but almost never seen) Italian style olympic fencing foil has a straight grip and I was taught should be held with a finger slightly through one ring and against the crossguard. I don't know what the Italian treatises on smallsword say, but it would have assumed before this video they generally would have recommended something very similar. And it's harder to picture them training with long, canted grips which seem associated with the French, and nations whose fencing was primarily influenced by the French.
The other interesting thing about the Italian style grip is it's generally used with a wrist strap. My impression is that's an innovation that only goes back to the 19th century, but I can't recall where I might have gathered that, and it might not be true.
This. Was going to post but thought i would check to see if someone already had. Yes.The Italian grip is very like a smallsword hilt without the knucklebow.
I found a video that illustrates the hand position: th-cam.com/video/10Le9FJUnpY/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BaQQ8-hx5sfocE73
My guess on the foil hilt length is that the extra length was needed so that the weighted pommel could bring the center of gravity back closer to the hilt. The foil blades had to be thin all the way down, so they do not get the help of the wider part of the blade of the smallsword. Fencers would appreciate having a lighter-feeling blade while they practice. Seems like a practical solution to the problem.
10:34 It's Count Dooku's smallsaber!
About the foil grip. The grip called the Italian grip had finger rings (which you would actually use as finger rings).
Your videos are always interesting. Just a wild guess, but is the straight hilt on the real small sword for strength or ease of construction, i.e., a straight tang going through it to the pommel is less prone to break? I don't know what the foil was made of, but it looked like wood, which could more easily be bent and it's strength didn't matter? The hilt of the foil is so long it must be touching your forearm when fighting...maybe this is something to help training? It impedes you from doing a wrong move?
I love that French one its beautiful!
The sword Commodore Perry carried when he opened US trade in Japan looked like a small sword. When he fought a duel against a samurai his first cut removed his opponents right hand ending the duel. I wonder if his sword was perhaps a small strait cutless instead?
My colichemarde is sharp on both sides.
Excellent presentation.
Maybe a longer curved hilt is more advantageous for competition where you’re just trying to simply touch your opponent. Where in a real fight you’d want a stronger more steady grip to keep hold of your weapon?
Thank you, Matt! I always love to watch your smallsword videos.
Barry
Great content thanks
Two things, my Lord, must ye know of the small sword. First... it is... a sword! And second... it is...
Maybe the canted grip on the practice sword is to make things slightly awkward so your wrist and fingers get more of a workout?
I can't remember which manual I picked it up from, but I've always found it works best to put the first knuckle through the finger ring. It's not awkward like trying to cram a whole finger through but gives much greater leverage than just placing it alongside the ring.
The canted grip is largely for comfort, and also to allow the extra long pommel to be canted away from the wrist, so that when you do a parry sixth, you have more clearance of the pommel over your wrist. This would not be necessary with a shorter grip, where the pommel is closer to the hand.
I would say as someone who makes things that they did it that way because its easier to make and lends itself to being slightly more versatile for teaching techniques with different weapons.
The foil French hilt also comes in left hand versions. And some, i don't know if all, flex one direction better than the other. I.e. up & down rather than side to side.
That second example calls to me. Now I want one. Be nice in my collection.
My only guess with regard to why the practice sword has a curved handle would be to emphasize thrusting. Possibly, it helped to reinforce the proper grip to thrust with. Even with a straight handle, the wrist and hand will automatically search for proper thrusting leverage. A shot in the dark guess, as I've never handled anything past a crow bar.
So British naval officers wore these throughout the 20th C also, no? I learned fencing on a 'French grip' and I've sort of asked myself this question too. Perhaps... the grip on the real sword maintained its traditional shape while changes to the first guard position (as I was taught - sixte position?) called for the curved grip to pull the pommel down into the wrist?
Another thought might be that the traditional smallsword grip kept the sword much more comfortable for hours-long wear about the belt as I've seen them shown in 18th and 19th C outfits? Despite the schools favouring a more 'ergonomic' grip for actual fighting?
You can do sexte with a normal smallsword.
I think why it became a more popular guard, was because foil became almost entirely a sport after the Napoleonic era, and moving between quarte and sexte is much quicker and doesn't open the writs as much.
Before that tierce (3rd) was mostly used as it is a structurally stronger and can give more control in the bind. Which meant a lot as a smallsword could still reasonably be needed for defense against other objects in civilian and miliary life. Especially before military patterns became the norm.
I'd like to put forward the theory that the training weapons have a hilt unlike the duelling weapon because at least by the 19th century, duelling was often looked down upon, at least by those responsible for the training (if not the young hotbloods themselves, possibly). Maybe the young gentlemen's tutors and parents, and the fencing instructors at the universities, and whoever else trained young men in the smallsword, didn't primarily want to train them in their skill at mortal combat anymore, and maybe more of the young students wanted rather to impress their collegues with their fencing skills on the training ground than face potential death. Being goods with the blade is a required gentleman's skill, but being deadly with it maybe less so, by the 19th century at least. And you can show off your fencing skills on the training grounds way more often then in the duelling grounds (at least after dueling became illegal), so that is an advantage, too.
Since modern fencing foil grips are more like the training swords then the actual small swords (bent and without fingerrings), the formers grip seems to be superior for sports fencing. In a duel, you want to make a hard connection with your thrust to wound, in fencing, a touch is enough, so there are reasons for a divergence. Also, a less stiff blade may change the requirements of the hilt.
Modern air rifles at shooting yards and fairs do not look like modern assault rifles, even though they easily could, and maybe would even give the young a feeling for what a combat rifle feels like. But we do not want to give them paramilitary training nowadays, we want them to do shooting as a sport, so the link between combat rifle and sports rifle is not so obvious. Perhaps it was the same with smallswords and training swords.
Do we have surviving training swords from the 17th century? Are they so different in the grip, too?
Matt, I read that part of the reason fro the curve of a scimitar was to help it find its way through gaps in armor. Can you comment on convex shapes in the role of gapping through armor?
9:51 I hypothecize that the original foil's extended grip length had to do with hand protection that was being worn while training. I don’t have evidence toward it, but the situation occurs in modern HEMA, where more "historically shaped" swords include longer grips and wider baskets or knucklebows to accommodate bulky protective gloves. Any thoughts?
It is all about the motion of the ocean they said. Now I am dead socially.
As far as I know Italian foils and epees for that matter, are legal in competition, even with the wrist strap, I actually used an Italian epee with the wrist strap in an international meeting once, no problems. They are much closer to smallswords than anything else. Cheers
For some reason, to me, these are the most deadly looking swords.
It's a three foot stiletto. A bicycle spoke designed for making holes in people. I've felt the same for years.
Lethal is the word that comes to mind.
It certainly wins on economy of material : lethality ratio.
They look like they would move really quickly, and they usually do.
@@hendrikvanleeuwen9110 Yeah. I'm not a big fan of the smallsword, but there's no question it gives you a lot for how light it is. The smallsword has at least a decent chance against (& may be favored against) many larger, heavier swords in unarmored single combat.
My ideas: the guard/hilts are simpler on foils to keep cost lower? The grips are cantered on foils because one anticipates training for longer periods of time than one would actually use a sword and therefore and more ergonomic grip allows one to train longer without hand fatigue?
It seems that having at least the last few inches sharp would open up a lot of opportunities. Armor wasn't popular during that period, and super quick wrist cuts to the wrist, face, and especially the throat would make your opponent defend differently. And if they didn't consider the cut......that could change the fight!
I hope you will be able to answer this question Matt: The small sword evolved in part because the rapier was just too big/cumbersome for civilian wear. But is it "better" - is someone armed with a small sword at a big advantage in a fight vs a rapier wielder? The reach advantage... good video!
I own four antique sabres of different weights, lengths and curvatures, two antique smallswords, an antique spadroon, and reproduction rapier, longsword and katana. And after having extensively handled all of them. I can confidently say that the smallsword is at no disadvantage whatsoever! They are lightning fast...and that speed nullifies the supposed advantages of the other types of swords. All cutting swords require lateral space and time to affect a cut. The moment you take the blade offline you are immediately susceptible to a thrust. The rapier is probably the most formidable foe of the smallsword...primarily because of its length and thrust centricity. But even a rapier is easily parried and countered by the speed of the smallsword! And once inside the optimum rapier distance...the smallsword has the distinct advantage. As then the rapier's length and weight become cumbersome!
I was taught that the long foil grip was to support the tendons on the back of the wrist, which tend to be weaker the other side, which also used for gripping, and so tend to be much stronger. I think this us also the reason for palm up hold of the small sword, so the stronger muscles are fighting gravity, when your opponent really leans into it. Why would you want to baby those weaker tendons? I think for newbs, use during recovery from injury, and to reduce chance of injury during training.
According to my mentor, Maitre Jean-Jacques Gillet, the shape of the French handle was intended to minimize or delay hand fatigue during extended practice sessions involving the countless repetitions necessary to acquire precise technique and sentiment de fer.
Whether his explanation was accurate, I cannot say, though it seems plausible to me.
How well the French grip accomplishes that intended purpose is up for debate. Personally, I never much cared for it. I prefer a short straight grip more closely approximating the smallsword.
Love your channel, by the way.
You have a good channel going on.
Potentially the ergonomic concerns are more important on a practice blade than on the actual smallsword. In use smallswords could see use for a shorter duration while the practice blades could see hours and hours of use continuously at which point fatigue could be more critical. Potentially the angled grips were thought to enforce good form that was useful later. Perhaps the inline handles on actual smallswords were seen as aesthetically superior and more visually balanced- the visual elements of such blades were certainly important when being carried. Maybe slightly more important than some aspects of ergonomics/function.
I know little of sword fighting or fencing and have done neither, but it strikes me that perhaps the reason foils have curved hilts is because they are lighter towards the point than the sword equivalent? If using a more front heavy sword when thrusting there would be a natural tendency to dip the blade down more, but when using a foil you might tend to thrust too high due to the lighter weight towards the point. Maybe the curved hilt is a means to cause you to dip the blade more like you would if there was more weight on the end to avoid inadvertently thrusting too high.
Colichemardes very pretty blade
I suppose a modern hitech version would be an incredibly light carbon fibre spike
Interesting to see the difference in grip angles. If one practices with a grip that drops off, when he uses the straight grip “in action “, does it cause him to hold the tip higher? And is that desirable for some reason?
Get an Italian foil, to this day theyare available and they are closer to a small rapier, Cheers
I was thinking about this. But as I recall, you did put two fingers into the finger rings _and_ you strapped it around the wrist - which I was taught led to its banning due to some deaths in competition.
Hey Matt! Thanks for making this video and giving the smallsword some love!
I suspect that the grip of the foil was longer and different from the smallsword grip for two reasons 1. to accommodate a larger padded glove for practice and 2. for ease of production/maintenance.
I also wanted to add that for Italian and Spanish examples of smallswords (and other locations where the rapier had more staying power) many of the blades are longer (sometimes to 35' to even 40') and the finger rings remained larger and sometimes functional like their rapier predecessor.
I have to argue that a straight tang and grip would e easier to produce and maintain as far as I can see. The Italian foil grip that was banned in the mid-20th C according to the lore I was taught, was very straight - and had finger rings - much like the actual sword.
Perhaps they made the grips on the practice foils different so you would never confuse them with the real small sword? At a glance, and from feel, you could tell the practice sword from the real sword.
It could be that the straight grip is less likely to break. (Just going on what I've seen on Forged in Fire).
I'm wondering if edged smallswords were intended to discourage the opponent from seizing the blade. Wasn't that the reason the Fairbairn was designed as a thrusting dagger with edges?
Regarding the grip I first had to think about vanity. For the huge majority of the time you will only see the grip of the sword in its sheath. So as long as it is functional enough you don't want to be that one weirdo with a crooked hilt showing all the time.
Is it easier to learn the most ergonomic body mechanics with the weird foil grip than with the "normal" bar like grip?
Im not a swordman, but I have dabled in "combat" and non "combat" sports for almost two decades. Often, in practice, "form" and safety are the key. In a real fight, reliability and function are the key.
My guess is that figure-8 guard is somehow involved in training to stab the opponents hand.
Could be because foils are sporterised versions. As with any sport, the spirit of the fight becomes less important than winning. So the equipment tends to gravitate towards whatever would give the most advantage.
Would the canted hilt make it easier to practice the fine motor control of the thumb and first finger? I must admit I have bad hands so when I fenced many years ago, quite literally in the last century, I used a pistol grip. Are there any examples of historical swords with hilts etc altered for the sake of a disability?
The French called the small sword 'Epee de cour' which translates to 'sword of the court'
I really like small swords, they’re super elegant! That would definitely be my choice of weapon.. if I had to start wearing and using some antique melee weapon. Of course it’s probably the only one I’d have to use anyway lol, apart from daggers or something pathetic like that.
I wanted to say that if a smallsword's blade cuts, we're dealing with a spadroon. And there's some truth to that (like in the French case and similar). But the weight distribution would feel off compared to a classic spadroon (but I guess that's subjective). So I'm not sure if I could use it with a spadroon fencing system. I have a court sword type smallsword. Lovely fittings, chiseled silver hilt, triangular blade. But at 350g weight, it feels so light that, if the blade could cut, it would still have no power behind, and unless you would swing it in a really fast motion I don't think it would do a lot of damage (but maybe you don't need to deter a potential attacker; and in the case of duellings, they were not to the death anyway). Honesty, I bought mine for the artistry, and it feels to me like a piece of jewellery more than a weapon. And yea, the thrust would be quick and would deal damage, but still, it's hard for me to take it seriously as a weapon. I kinda look down on the era of its adoption as a side piece. From a martial perspective, it feels like going backwards (e.g. Washington you bum, get a sabre and join the fight 😤, or at least row your own boat over the Delaware 😇).
I own four antique sabres of different weights, lengths and curvatures, two antique smallswords, an antique spadroon, and reproduction rapier, longsword and katana. And after having extensively handled all of them. I can confidently say that the smallsword is at no disadvantage whatsoever! They are lightning fast...and that speed nullifies the supposed advantages of the other types of swords. All cutting swords require lateral space and time to affect a cut. The moment you take the blade offline you are immediately susceptible to a thrust. The rapier is probably the most formidable foe of the smallsword...primarily because of its length and thrust centricity. But even a rapier is easily parried and countered by the speed of the smallsword! And once inside the optimum rapier distance...the smallsword has the distinct advantage. As then the rapier's length and weight become cumbersome! I honestly can't believe you own one...yet don't take it seriously as a weapon!!!
@@Master...deBater So I agree with what you wrote, but I want to address this: "I honestly can't believe you own one...yet don't take it seriously as a weapon!" I think my case shows why so many people look down on the smallsword. There's a phycological bias if nothing else. Yes, it's light and fast, very, very fast. And that triangular blade would leave such a nasty wound after a successful thrust. But the more you add decorations, airy chiseled fittings, silver and all that, the more it will feel like jewelry than a weapon. That and the low weight combine to give this idea. So maybe I should elaborate that this is how I feel rather than that I think I'm being right. Especially when you consider the time and circumstances it was used.
And as a counterexample to how I see things: I gave to a burly man, a retired sergeant in the British forces, a proper blue-collar worker's man, a Napoleonic era sabre to hold, and then I gave him the smallsword. He was more impressed moving the smallsword around than the sabre. Just saying...😇
i could imagine that the grip from the foil differs from the actual smallsword because as a practise weapon its much easier to hold the sword in one hand for a longer period of practise time cause of the longer grip with the pomel as counter weight to the blade. I Could imagine that even Children had to start practise fencing early on. Their Wrist is not so strong to hold the small sword for a long practise session.
Very elegant design, and deadly.
It was always my impression that the small sword was little more than a badge of rank or honor that military officers, ambassadors, courtiers and the like were expected to wear when they were being presented to a monarch, attending a ball, or some other ceremonial event. i suspect few people who wore small swords in the 17th, 18th and increasingly in the 19th century ever expected to have to use their small swords in ernest. In fact, I would be willing to bet that few people required to wear a small sword had much idea of how to properly use any sword even to save their lives, except perhaps to wildly thrust or hack. I doubt even George Washington ever needed to use his sword in battle except to wave his troops forward to the attack. I would like to know if there are historial accounts of people using small swords to defend themselves in a street brawl, in battle or in a formal duel.
It is completely speculating here, but foils are sporting equipment, not self-defense tools (duh), but the desire to make a better sporting object that doesn't need to fit in a scabbard, be drawn, or worn is too attractive. We have the ergo grips now that also are not seen on actual smallswords which is just the next logical step to further sport optimize. Maybe?
I've been wanting to add a modern spring-steel smallsword replica to my collection, but most of the ones I have seen seem to be substantially heavier than historical weights suggest was accurate.
Do you have any recommendations or thoughts about smallsword weight?
I just love the fact that smallswords fencing has treaties that utilize numerical thrusts and guards and parries just like the military sabres. I don’t like ancient sources that over to throw in some wacky analogies and philosophies into the practical menu. But I do understand that this is just a personal preference, and swordsmanship is not something that is super practical for modern society, so there is nothing wrong with being mystic and elaborate.
My knowledge of historical swords is pretty sparse (Love learning stuff on your channel!), but I'll take a guess about the foil grip based on my experience with modern fencing. My first instructor in college was a traditionalist who loved to connect what we were learning with the historical development of the weapons and techniques that preceded it. Naturally, we all learned on "French" grip, "dry" (i.e., non-electrical) foils. What the maestro taught us about this particular grip design is that its purpose was NOT to be as easy to grip as possible; its purpose was to train you to grip your weapon with an appropriate balance of stability and maneuverability. You want to hold it like you're holding a small bird in your hand: firmly enough that it can't escape, but gently enough that you don't injure it. Obviously, this changes dynamically moment to moment as you use the weapon, but the point is, even if you momentarily squeeze the grip firmly when, say, executing a quick parry, you are training your hand to always return to a relaxed, highly maneuverable state...similar to how you approach footwork -- stay loose and relaxed so that you can move quickly in any direction at any time. If you later switch to an orthopedic ("pistol") grip and an electric weapon for competition, having trained your weapon arm to stay loose and ready at all times will still serve you well, even as the pistol grip gives you greater control at higher movement speeds.
I would hazard a guess that there are at least three reasons small swords have the hilts and grips they do:
1. The small sword was an item of apparel. It’s appearance in some cases being more important than its function. Its use by high ranking officers reflects the expectation that it would not see actual combat. This is not to disparage the small swords effectiveness as a weapon. The more ergonomic “French” grip is quite ugly, and looks bent.
2. As a weapon the more traditional grip provides a stronger purchase on the weapon, it forces the fingers to wrap around the grip and makes a disarm less likely. The fencing grip is weaker in that the fingers are extended allowing the point to be more readily presented but compromising the strength of the hold. This is reflect by the fact disarms are quite common in foil fencing but do not count against the contestant.
3. The traditional grip is ambidextrous and would allow the use of a firearm in the strong hand. I know men practiced shooting pistols in both hands and I expect some weak side sword practice was also undertaken in case the strong hand was injured in a fight. The fencing grip would be far more awkward in the left hand ( I can vouch for this personally).
As for why the practice foils weren’t hilted like small swords:
1. The fencing grip is superior to the traditional in every way having anything to do with scoring points.
2. It was and is considered unsportsmanlike and rude to use a foil aggressively in practice. The more extended finger position prevents as strong a thrust with a foil.
3. The foil grip makes even weak cuts difficult and forces point only practice.
Just my thoughts on your question, thanks for the interesting video.
I’d love a video about saber hilted smallswords. They why behind them.
The hand guard is a weapon in its own right and not to be used in sport or practice rules.
Why were there no small swords made with more complex rapier hilts (i.e., cup hilt, swept hilt, etc.)?
Matt: “I don’t know why curved grips are called French”
Also Matt: “heres a curved grip small sword that is from France”
maybe foils canted grip has something to do with the missing finger ring?
You show relatively modern weapons all the time. This is perfectly understandable, because you are trading it. I would like you to tell us more about bronze weapons, more ancient ones, do you sell them, how much does it cost?
I'd like a 'Needle' or a big main-gauche. Using a very pointy gladius lefthanded atm, but thinking a quicker point might be more useful than defensive slashing. What do you guys think?I'm finding that it's during grappling-close fighting that my lefthand blade really makes a difference. Most of my opponents are trained fencers and often they'll lock down my main weapon fairly effectively most of the time, but somehow always leave themselves open to my other weapon. I've often wondered if their training was at fault and not the man. I don't know, is that true? It's like that mace with the fencing basket-hilt, made for a fencer who doesn't know how to adapt to mace fighting.
Vestigial fingerings could also describe certain other parts of someone's life.
I think Silver described a short rapier and long rapier or maybe it was Hale. I know Hale mentioned the Foyle-weapon by name.
I have read in a couple places that by the 1730's the sword was on the way out with it becoming unpopular in public and flintlock handguns being the choice for dueling and self-defense. The smallsword was the lightest and fairly easy to carry with a folding shell guard and was quite deadly. It was "the last sword." And after its several decades of existence the smallsword was gone and the handgun came to be the rule and still is. The sword was never important on the battlefield with one exception: the Roman gladius and even then, as Matt points out often, it was not just the sword but a 2-part system with the large shield. I have always been enamored with the sword and buckler for some reason. But it has never been popularized in movies or media.
"Never important on the battlefield" is a *serious* overcorrection.
Any pre-industrial soldiers who *could* afford swords carried them as sidearms. Among those who didn't, we still have ample record of axes, clubs and knives being used on that role. We have ample record of infantry ending up in close enough quarters that they ended up switching to their sidearms. It wasn't an ideal situation, but it still happened, and happened frequently enough to be a regular occurrence in historic record.
Yes, pole weapons and bows were the *primary* battlefield weapons, but that doesn't mean they were the *only* important weapons. The idea that they were the be-all-end-all and everything else didn't matter is nonsense peddled by contrarians on the internet.
@@NDOhioan Actually, considering how few were killed even with bayonets....it is you being the contrarian.
The idea that cavalry swords/sabers weren't important in the Napoleonic Wars certainly is a novel take. Incorrect, to be sure, but definitely novel.
@@garychurch9237 Your original comment was that swords were "never" important on the battlefield. That's the point I was responding to with my initial comment.
If you're bringing up bayonets as some point about history *in general,* then that's asinine. Bayonets only started entering use in the 17th century, and regular soldiers still carried hangers (or other cutting implements) as sidearms up until the Napoleonic Wars. The same Napoleonic Wars that saw huge, sweeping changes in firearm technology and military operation. And also the same Napoleonic Wars where, like the other commenter mentioned, swords *still* played a very important role as cavalry weapons.
Or are you trying to take the classic contrarian route and lie with statistics? Because there's more to the importance of a weapon than the number of kills it's gotten on paper.
@@eightclicks Napoleon correctly said, "it is with artillery that war is made." Cavalry very rarely ever won a battle.
I think it's useful to look at small swords and perhaps spadroons as personal defense weapons. In military/police firearms, there are classes of troops who aren't expected to be involved in combat, but need something to defend themselves if attacked. You aren't going to have the radio person carrying a battle rifle, which would only be in the way and wind up not being close at hand.
The M1 carbine in WWII is an example. Just as you aren't going to walk down the street with a rifle or shotgun slung over your shoulder (well, in those countries where you can carry firearms and frankly, here in the US in some states you just might see some numbskull doing that)) you're going to choose a pistol for its carrying convenience. You wouldn't want to be prancing around with a honking great long rapier indoors, or at court, but as a gentlemen you have the right to defend yourself, so a smallsword works just fine. It's the 'snub-nose pistol' of bladed weapons, sort of. Okay, so's the Bowie knife...and the Kukri...and daggers...
Wait a moment... Matt Easton is warming up to Spadroons!?
What about "Italian " grips that are straight, with vestigial finger rings?
that's one fancy toothpick...