![]() |
![]() |
#13 | ||
Member
Join Date: Sep 2021
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 285
|
![]() Quote:
It's a lovely sword. What more reason do we need aside from "I like the look"? I've applied the same thinking to all my smallswords, and of the two that I have managed to identify as actual patterns (which, if you think about it, should be the minority of smallswords), it was only after I had them in hand and luck. Without the benefit of having your sword in hand, I would certainly classify it as a smallsword. And to be honest, we need to take a step back from being a "battlefield weapon rather than a civilian one". The distinction is just too nuanced to make. Officers weren't meant to fight hand to hand, so their sword was more a symbol of status and a backup weapon. In the late 18th Century, an officer of the line would have carried a spontoon as his "weapon" and badge of rank and used primarily for directing his troops in battle. As a gentleman, his sidearm would have been a smallsword or a hunting sword-style hanger if permitted by the regiment. And unless there were a regimental pattern, the smallsword carried would have been a private purchase to the officers' specifications. This changed throughout the American Revolution, where spontoons were unofficially discarded in favour of smallswords, spadroons and hangers. For example, George Washington was known to carry a smallsword on campaign (in addition to other swords). Even into the late Victorian era, we have photos of officers in the field with their 1831 Pattern General officers swords (most of which are more dress than practical). Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
|
|