A simple but interesting smallsword

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Thank you Jim, for confirming my previous notes (#13) in that these swords followed end XVIII century characteristics. It is obvious that they were not developed for combat purposes, as they were not meant for that, but to complement a uniform regulation plan. Certainly if a superior officer had in mind to dismount from his horse in battle and participate in a fight, he would have brought his 'spare' combat sword to the field.
On the other hand, and quoting Norman in that one little poke in the right place with one of these and it's all over, i would add that some of these small swords (espadins, floretes) could do more than just a little poke. They (pattern 1806) had to have per rule a double edged blade 820 mm. long and 26 mm. wide; and considering existing examples with good forging steel (Solingen and Toledo), they wouldn't engage in battles but could well serve for defence purposes, if needed. I have owned two of them and they sure looked fit for the job.
By courtesy of José A. Faria e Silva, specialist in Peninsular War armament, the first page of his (bilingual) article.


.

Very true Fernando. It is often perceived that the highly embellished swords worn in the courts and dress events of those days were inadequate for any sort of defense. However, as you well note, in the hands of even a nominally trained swordsman, these were highly deadly.
As always, the quality of the blade was always a factor, and often examples, which were assembled by cutlers who were more jewellers and artisans n precious metals, the focus was on the decoration. Corners were sometimes cut with cheaper blades, but even in such cases, if it was a matter of simple thrust rather than any sort of combat, the purpose was well met.