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.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
I think these three photographs clearly show the hilt evolution of the smallsword type throughout the 18thC from a useful Pas-de-Ane to a vestige to none at all. The blade types have changed also from the trefoil to the single edge type. So my question is when is a smallsword not a smallsword? If there is no useful Pas-de-Ane does this then preclude the definition or is the lack of a trefoil blade a more important defining attribute or is it both. I would perhaps define one of these swords as an obvious smallsword, one as a smallsword hilted spadroon type or maybe not as the hilt has no useable Pas-de-Ane, the 1796 N.C.O. sword is to me obviously not a smallsword but has smallsword heritage in its makeup.
Just some thoughts.
Regards,
Norman.

[kronckew]

The 1796 Infantry Officer's sword and the 5 ball hilted swords are 'spadroons' - designed to bot cut and thrust, they are not as good as swords designed specifically for one or the other, but are adequate for both. The infantry one's hilt was emulating the smallswords of the time. It was not universally liked. The leg side portion of the guard plate folded on some to hang better, but the mechanism frequently failed to lock, many were brazed up by their owner's armourer.

The spadroon also comes in 'hanger' size without the 5 balls...The Naval officers liked these for actual combat aboard ship... Warrant Officers usually had black hilts, commissioned officers usually had white.

Upper: UK Infantry 1796 spadroon
Middle: 1803 American 5 ball Spadroon
Lower: UK Spadroon hanger.

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Wayne,
The sword with the silk has a cut and thrust blade but a smallsword type hilt without a working Pas-de Ane. The 1796 N.C.O. sword is a plain version of the officers 1796 albeit with a substantial blade unlike most of the officer versions. One of the swords I show can more easily be defined as a smallsword. and one as a spadroon type, according to the definition that a spadroon has a cut and thrust blade, but the other one has elements of both albeit the useful smallsword part i.e. the Pas-de Ane is not workable therefore does this not negate using a smallsword reference to this type of hilt, maybe maybe not?
My Regards,
Norman.

[kronckew]

True, just thought some illustrations of the more 'standard' swords mentioned would help. The 5-ball UK spadroons would have had a pommel more similar to my hanger at the bottom. The vestigal 'pas' was dropped on the Official UK 1796 Officers sword, tho I'd bet a lot of officers still wanted their own variations for a while. the 'pas' does help align the edge better for a cut, but not strictly needed for a thrust - which is why I assume they eventually morphed out of existance.

[M ELEY]

Thank you both for posting these great contributions to this thread. I particularly like the naval pattern spadroons, of which I haven't yet added to my maritime collection. I've always been drawn to them and I think I'll keep an eye open for one! I have seen a few 'balled hilts' that were naval as well, but I know it was a popular model with infantry.