It didn't do particularly well. You could say it "won" this fight but Nick is a more experienced fencer than Tom. Even so, you can see how much it gets knocked about by the heavier broadsword blade.
Spadroon vs rapier. They both seem to be similar in purpose, to be lightweight blade with strong thrusting and light slashing capabilities. From models I've seen the spadroon seems to a bit shorter, but considerably lighter.
+Paradigm Storytime In essence yes the spadroon is a small rapier. However, the differences make it vastly different. The lack of ability to wrap the finger of the quillion does not allow such good point work and angles of attack. The lack of hand protection severely impedes it's ability in many ways also. Plus the blade length is vastly different. Spadroons are typically around 32", when rapiers commonly over 40". Every two inches in blade length has a significant effect on the fight. As for the spadroon having a strong thrust, go and check out the video I did on the swords of British military swordsmanship. It is frightening how awful the British spadroon blade is, it flexes more than many safe training blades we use today. It is in essence a compromised weapon in every way.
+Paradigm Storytime A rapier's not lightweight. It's thinner than an arming sword or a broadsword or w/e but the same weight because of its length. A spadroon yes is lightweight and generally rubbish.
Nick, in your opinion, which of the engaging guards confers the greatest advantage? I know it's very situational, but which do you use most for sabre? I find that I always feel slightly "unsafe" entering in inside. Personally I prefer outside hanging, but what are your thoughts on the matter?
+Tom Rundell Inside is comparatively weak compared to outside guards because it can expose the lead arm and encourages the use of inside hanging guard, which is also weak compared to outside hanging guard. The two most common guards I use for stance and engagement in sabre would be outside guard and outside half hanger. Both are very strong. I do not use outside hanging guard in stance that often because it discourages the opponent from cutting and thrusting to my head, which are often to be encouraged to get a good engagement. Inside guard generally is weaker and has far less margin for error. The upside is that if a safe parry or engagement can be made in inside, there are a great many more options for the riposte.
Academy of Historical Fencing And how can one safely encourage a strike to the outside (parried with outside guard). I very much like that guard and find the ripostes to be strong, quick, and accurate, but I have trouble encouraging a strike to that position. Is my only option to bait with engaging in inside? Or does that create more problems than solve? Being weak and whatnot.
+Tom Rundell going into inside or middle guard is the best way to encourage it, but why specifically would you want them to cut so you can parry in outside guard? The options are much more limited. Outside guard is a great guard for wide measure, but it's options after a parry are more limited and typically weak. Personally I always prefer to encourage an attack to my inside, or my leg, easiest to parry and counter with strong ripostes from hanging guards. As for inside guard as en engagement or parry. Try using it more aggressively rather than parry riposte. Engage inside, drive forward to feint a thrust to their inside, if they pressure against it then cut around with cut two to their arm or head, if they cut around to your outside, lift to inside hanging guard and parry and do the same as before.
Academy of Historical Fencing Ah I can see how a parry in outside limits riposte options; I liked parrying and riposting with a cut one to head (as it comes off quick), but that would be rather predictable. But yes I fully agree in the strengths of hanging guards. It's my go-to engaging, but mid-fight I have yet to condition myself into reverting to a hanging in the middle of an exchange. Any advice on how to do so safely?
+Tom Rundell the issue I have with cut one from the outside guard is that it just isn't that quick. I do like to bait people into try it though, as it can be countered with outside hanging guard and a much quicker and more powerful cut 1. To get yourself into the pattern of using hanging guards more at closer measure, try fighting exclusively from outside half hanger. It is a great guard posture. It cannot be easily engaged, and it encourages attacks to both inside and outside giving you great options. Fence a few sessions like that and you will just become so accustomed to hanging guards. The only time you need to come out of a hanging posture when doing this is when your lead arm is threatened on the outside, and you must cut into a low outside guard to parry. This is a nice snapping action which can reaily beat your opponents blade well without taking you offline. That is an occasion when parrying outside guard is something I like. Because the beat creates more of an opening.
Seeing spadroons in museum and reading about them, I'd always inferred that the British army gave them to officers they didn't want hurting themselves with a real weapon (anyone who's served, you know the type).
+Robert Weston Haha, you might think so based on how they are as a fighting weapon yes. Really it was developed as a sword that could easily be handled by officers trained in the smallsword, as so many were in that era. Also fashion clearly played a significant part. Almost every officer who was ever likely to see combat soon replaced it with a sabre. Officers had to purchase all their own kit anyway, so you see an immense amount of variety in swords carried. All officers who were involved in skirmish types of warfare (rather than line regiments/companies) soon started using light cavalry sabres, and the army responded by making an official pattern for them with effectively the same blade as the light cavalry. These included light companies, rifle companies, fusiliers. I think you will find that there would have been quite a divide between those officers in line companies and higher ranks who were not likely to see hand-to-hand combat, carrying spadroons, and those combat officers who were out at the front getting their hands dirty, carrying sabres.
Would it be fair to say that a spadroon was more of a dueling weapon, akin to a rapier, rather than a battlefield weapon? Or was it just seen as inferior to the saber _in general_?
+Zedek It was intended as a battlefield weapon for officers, a militarised version of the smallsword effectively. Check out this video as I go through the differences and evolution - ua-cam.com/video/FGJSMfXUxfE/v-deo.html
+Tom Rundell A lot. The history books are filled with them across all different weapons and cultures. And the practice of trying to reduce them ever present today as it was then. A very much sportive approach since swords went out of use martially has in many ways made it worse. 'Fencing to the point'. Such as in Kendo where doubles are ignored, and in sport fencing where they can be scored in one or boths favour depending on the weapon.
+Tom Rundell In terms of practice and tournament there is little information as to how it was dealt with. I have seen a few obscure methods of scoring used for some tournaments, but again, so little information remains on such topics of discussion. But reading reports of duels, brawls, coroners reports and doctors reports from battlefields, it seems that double hits were very common. It is sometimes worse today because we train only for fun and not for self defence. But that is a mindset, one that needs to be constantly worked on, but some students just have a hard time thinking beyond a sportive point system no matter what.
Nick, how hard would you say learning from a manual/ book is? For example, I just recently acquired Hutton's Cold Steel, can I learn something from it?
+mechupanlamonda I will be making a video about this fairly soon, but I will answer you as best I can here in the meantime. The simple answer is it will be tough. You really need an instructor if at all possible. However, seeing as that is not always possible, you can still move forward and succeed. I would recommend you find a HEMA instructor if you can. If not, take up another martial art or sport whilst you pursue your own HEMA study, as the distance and timing you can learn from it will be valuable. Sport fencing can teach you a lot about those fundamentals and sport fencers often transition well into HEMA. There is plenty you can learn from Cold Steel. Also get 'The Art of Defence on foot with broadsword and sabre", which is what we teach from. It is available free on google books. It is an earlier system than Hutton, but still plenty in common. Plus, keep watching our instructional videos, they will help a lot, and where you have questions or thoughts, post them and we will do our best to help.
+Academy of Historical Fencing Thanks a lot. I'll watch your instructional videos. I'm currently practicing Krav maga. I hope it helps. I have to say that I find Marozzo's plates interesting. I think some of the techniques shown in the plates are similar to some techniques I have been taught for defending oneself againts a knife. Do you think some of the techniques from old manuals can be applied in today's society for the purpose of self defense ?I also have the book self-defense for the gentlemen and ladies, the treatise of Monstery. But I have read very Little of it. Just the biography of Monstery at the beginning.Last question, where can I buy a replica sabre or a practice sabre, or even an Antique sabre online that ships to the new world?Thanks for your reply.
+Duksing Chau Not especially. Though you should know that everything we teach it Renaissance onwards, but much of that isn't much, if at all in many places, any different to medieval systems. Most documented systems for pole arms are Renaissance sources too, so it isn't always easy to say when considering earlier times. However, if you look to manuals such as Joachim Meyer, you will see the same footwork being taught across a range of weapons from longsword, to polearms.
+mechupanlamonda Marozzo is interesting, but it's also comparatively hard to get into compared to many other treatise. Can techniques from old manuals be applied today? Yes definitely, and you will find plenty of similarity between historically documented knife fighting/self defence as is taught today. However, as far as self defence goes, I would rely more on your Krav Maga classes. An excellent martial art, and one that that I have a lot of respect for. We do sometimes teach knife combat and knife self defence in class according to original treatise. Some of it is relevant to today, some isn't, but it is rarely practiced enough or with enough real world application and consideration to be a serious practice of self defence. Ultimately, knife fighting is for fools and should be avoided at all cost. But yes, keep up the Krav Maga for that element! There are very few sabres that are any good. The only steel training ones that are good enough are made by Peter Regenyei in Hungary. Search for his website, he will ship to you. Also for synthetic training swords, Black Fencer in Spain. They also have distributors in the US that might be easier.
It was a throw together of parts. An Armourclass 17th century hanger, with a shortened AC rapier blade. I'm still looking for good options for them in steel. Though the BF synthetic spadroon is excellent.
Impressive reaction time! Thanks. I've already looking at the synthetic one... If I don't found one in steel, maybe I will try the synthetic. Have you found other swords in steel for HEMA from the 17th/18th ? As an hanger or short sword ?
Armourclass do make a variety of swords of that type, and have recently been making some HEMA type blades for them. As for sabres of the late 18th century I have been trying to get good examples for years. Finally one I got recently that is great is from Balefire Blades. I am working with other smiths to get more examples made though. Armour Class is very good for short swords o that period though. Even their re-enactment blades can work at that length, but they will make HEMA specific types as I said.
The main advantages of the spadroon are also its main disadvantages. While having a compact and lightweight sidearm seems like a sensible decision for somebody already trained with the small sword, as was typical of junior officers of the period, and who shouldn't be expected to often engage directly in a melee, the spadroon is far from ideal for those same reasons as a sidearm if a soldier should be expected to engage in skirmishes fairly often. The sabre evolved to meet that requirement, and it far better suited to it than the spadroon. However, it's better to have a spadroon than have no sidearm at all. The spadroon itself is not a terrible idea. From a certain point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized sidearm for auxiliary or rear echelon officers and enlisted that can be comfortably worn without getting in the way. But the spadroon is not designed to win fights the way a sabre is; rather, it's designed to disengage from fights. It's an almost purely defensive sword, as befitting a sidearm. it lacks the weight or length of either the broadsword or the sabre, but it's still valuable as a defensive sword.
The idea that the spadroon is a militarised smallsword is not accurate, and very much a modern collectors belief. The spadroon developed as a mixed cut and thrust sword simply as the thrust became so highly regarded. But, not designed to win fights the sabre is? Far from it. The spadroon was designed to be quick on parry riposte and to deliver very fast point attacks, when it was well understood how lethal the thrust was over the cut, whilst also being fast at edge work. To understand this you only have to look at the evolution of the sabre. By the 1820s, infantry sabres were near identical to spadroons, with only the slightest of curve. They were of the same length, roughly the same handling characteristics and weight too. Essentially the sabre and spadroon of the late 18th and very early 19th century merged in to one another. The spadroon is a perfectly good idea that was highly successful. It's just not a radical concept. A medium length, medium protection, agile cut and thrust sword. A concept that was very popular for many hundreds of years, not just the 200+ years of the spadroon.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing I suppose I'm more familiar with later period Indian cavalry sabres then, which returned to a greater curve and still saw service alongside the spadroon and sword bayonet well into the 20th century. My experience is mostly with cavalry sabres and late 19th to early 20th century spadroons & sword bayonets. If I recall correctly, didn't the spadroon itself eventually lay the foundation for the modern dress sword? But I stand by my statement that the spadroon was developed as a mostly defensive weapon when issued to auxiliaries as a means of protection against the _cavalry_ sabre. I'm not hugely familiar with the types of infantry sabre however, so I won't speak on that. In an infantry skirmish, I'll take your word on it.
Indeed, its not fair to compare the spadroon to cavalry sabres as an equivalent, as the spadroon was purely for infantry. Though there were cavalry equivalents to the spadroon, often looking just the same in hilt, but with much longer and heavier blades. Even in the Napoleonic era, British cavalry officers had spadroons to wear for dismounted service, as their cavalry swords were a cumbersome thing to wear and use on foot. The spadroon did eventually become a dress sword for some nations, and new versions of it evolve for dress wear yes. But not really in the UK, where later sabres fulfilled that role.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Australia and India both have a strange mix with our ceremonial swords. Our cavalry still use the swept cavalry sabre, but the sword bayonet is more common as an infantry dress sword. The sword bayonet is an interesting thing in its own right. Arguably it's a modern spadroon since it was intended to be used as a sidearm in a similar fashion. However, trench warfare was revolutionary rather than evolutionary and dismissed the idea of the sword altogether. Hence we saw a small resurgence in popularity of the cavalry sabre among the Commonwealth's cavalry. Actually, that's a good point about dismounted cavalry swapping to the spadroon. From horseback, the traditional Indian swept sabre is a huge advantage, but I can see how it would be difficult to use on foot. So as a general purpose sidearm, the spadroon surely shows its worth.
+Roderik Vikström Really not great. It is light and therefore parries need to be more precise, less margin for error or you get cast aside. It doesn't have the reach you would associate with a more thrust based sword, as you see me use a rapier against cutting swords for example. Also, because it does not have a grip that you can wrap the index over the quillion like a rapier, the point control is no bette than the other swords of the era. It has a modest advantage in point control, and some cuts like to the leg can be a little quicker, but it sacrifices a lot in terms of cutting power, parry ability etc. Certainly I would never want to have to take one to war, which is what it is intended for. I also do not have faith in the durability even for a short amount of time. The blade used here was a high quality one, but last only ten minutes of sparring before being cut in two.
+Roderik Vikström Not commonly. The wearing of swords went out of fashion between 1750-1780, just before these military pattern spadroons came into use. As for before then, with pre-pattern versions of the same type of sword, the smallsword was preferred for civilian wear. No doubt there must have been some circumstances of them being used in a civilian context, but not common at all.
The two longsword people in the background are doing some good art.
I'm surprised that the spadroon did well against the broadsword despite some of the lashing it gets.
It didn't do particularly well. You could say it "won" this fight but Nick is a more experienced fencer than Tom. Even so, you can see how much it gets knocked about by the heavier broadsword blade.
I mean it's just a slightly shorter version of effectively the same thing
The honor of Rob Roy MacGregor is at stake
Spadroon vs rapier. They both seem to be similar in purpose, to be lightweight blade with strong thrusting and light slashing capabilities. From models I've seen the spadroon seems to a bit shorter, but considerably lighter.
+Paradigm Storytime In essence yes the spadroon is a small rapier. However, the differences make it vastly different. The lack of ability to wrap the finger of the quillion does not allow such good point work and angles of attack. The lack of hand protection severely impedes it's ability in many ways also. Plus the blade length is vastly different. Spadroons are typically around 32", when rapiers commonly over 40". Every two inches in blade length has a significant effect on the fight.
As for the spadroon having a strong thrust, go and check out the video I did on the swords of British military swordsmanship. It is frightening how awful the British spadroon blade is, it flexes more than many safe training blades we use today. It is in essence a compromised weapon in every way.
+Paradigm Storytime A rapier's not lightweight. It's thinner than an arming sword or a broadsword or w/e but the same weight because of its length. A spadroon yes is lightweight and generally rubbish.
Nick, in your opinion, which of the engaging guards confers the greatest advantage? I know it's very situational, but which do you use most for sabre? I find that I always feel slightly "unsafe" entering in inside. Personally I prefer outside hanging, but what are your thoughts on the matter?
+Tom Rundell Inside is comparatively weak compared to outside guards because it can expose the lead arm and encourages the use of inside hanging guard, which is also weak compared to outside hanging guard. The two most common guards I use for stance and engagement in sabre would be outside guard and outside half hanger. Both are very strong. I do not use outside hanging guard in stance that often because it discourages the opponent from cutting and thrusting to my head, which are often to be encouraged to get a good engagement.
Inside guard generally is weaker and has far less margin for error. The upside is that if a safe parry or engagement can be made in inside, there are a great many more options for the riposte.
Academy of Historical Fencing And how can one safely encourage a strike to the outside (parried with outside guard). I very much like that guard and find the ripostes to be strong, quick, and accurate, but I have trouble encouraging a strike to that position. Is my only option to bait with engaging in inside? Or does that create more problems than solve? Being weak and whatnot.
+Tom Rundell going into inside or middle guard is the best way to encourage it, but why specifically would you want them to cut so you can parry in outside guard? The options are much more limited. Outside guard is a great guard for wide measure, but it's options after a parry are more limited and typically weak. Personally I always prefer to encourage an attack to my inside, or my leg, easiest to parry and counter with strong ripostes from hanging guards.
As for inside guard as en engagement or parry. Try using it more aggressively rather than parry riposte. Engage inside, drive forward to feint a thrust to their inside, if they pressure against it then cut around with cut two to their arm or head, if they cut around to your outside, lift to inside hanging guard and parry and do the same as before.
Academy of Historical Fencing Ah I can see how a parry in outside limits riposte options; I liked parrying and riposting with a cut one to head (as it comes off quick), but that would be rather predictable.
But yes I fully agree in the strengths of hanging guards. It's my go-to engaging, but mid-fight I have yet to condition myself into reverting to a hanging in the middle of an exchange. Any advice on how to do so safely?
+Tom Rundell the issue I have with cut one from the outside guard is that it just isn't that quick. I do like to bait people into try it though, as it can be countered with outside hanging guard and a much quicker and more powerful cut 1.
To get yourself into the pattern of using hanging guards more at closer measure, try fighting exclusively from outside half hanger. It is a great guard posture. It cannot be easily engaged, and it encourages attacks to both inside and outside giving you great options. Fence a few sessions like that and you will just become so accustomed to hanging guards. The only time you need to come out of a hanging posture when doing this is when your lead arm is threatened on the outside, and you must cut into a low outside guard to parry.
This is a nice snapping action which can reaily beat your opponents blade well without taking you offline. That is an occasion when parrying outside guard is something I like. Because the beat creates more of an opening.
Seeing spadroons in museum and reading about them, I'd always inferred that the British army gave them to officers they didn't want hurting themselves with a real weapon (anyone who's served, you know the type).
+Robert Weston Haha, you might think so based on how they are as a fighting weapon yes. Really it was developed as a sword that could easily be handled by officers trained in the smallsword, as so many were in that era. Also fashion clearly played a significant part.
Almost every officer who was ever likely to see combat soon replaced it with a sabre. Officers had to purchase all their own kit anyway, so you see an immense amount of variety in swords carried. All officers who were involved in skirmish types of warfare (rather than line regiments/companies) soon started using light cavalry sabres, and the army responded by making an official pattern for them with effectively the same blade as the light cavalry. These included light companies, rifle companies, fusiliers.
I think you will find that there would have been quite a divide between those officers in line companies and higher ranks who were not likely to see hand-to-hand combat, carrying spadroons, and those combat officers who were out at the front getting their hands dirty, carrying sabres.
what mask is the gent on the right wearing?
Would it be fair to say that a spadroon was more of a dueling weapon, akin to a rapier, rather than a battlefield weapon? Or was it just seen as inferior to the saber _in general_?
+Zedek It was intended as a battlefield weapon for officers, a militarised version of the smallsword effectively. Check out this video as I go through the differences and evolution - ua-cam.com/video/FGJSMfXUxfE/v-deo.html
Historically, how often did double-hits happen?
+Tom Rundell A lot. The history books are filled with them across all different weapons and cultures. And the practice of trying to reduce them ever present today as it was then. A very much sportive approach since swords went out of use martially has in many ways made it worse. 'Fencing to the point'. Such as in Kendo where doubles are ignored, and in sport fencing where they can be scored in one or boths favour depending on the weapon.
Academy of Historical Fencing Yeah, it seems exceedingly pervasive and I was very curious on how it was dealt with in the past.
+Tom Rundell In terms of practice and tournament there is little information as to how it was dealt with. I have seen a few obscure methods of scoring used for some tournaments, but again, so little information remains on such topics of discussion.
But reading reports of duels, brawls, coroners reports and doctors reports from battlefields, it seems that double hits were very common. It is sometimes worse today because we train only for fun and not for self defence. But that is a mindset, one that needs to be constantly worked on, but some students just have a hard time thinking beyond a sportive point system no matter what.
I suppose it is inherent to the practice. Well, thanks as always for the prompt and informative response!
Nick, how hard would you say learning from a manual/ book is? For example, I just recently acquired Hutton's Cold Steel, can I learn something from it?
+mechupanlamonda I will be making a video about this fairly soon, but I will answer you as best I can here in the meantime.
The simple answer is it will be tough. You really need an instructor if at all possible. However, seeing as that is not always possible, you can still move forward and succeed. I would recommend you find a HEMA instructor if you can. If not, take up another martial art or sport whilst you pursue your own HEMA study, as the distance and timing you can learn from it will be valuable. Sport fencing can teach you a lot about those fundamentals and sport fencers often transition well into HEMA.
There is plenty you can learn from Cold Steel. Also get 'The Art of Defence on foot with broadsword and sabre", which is what we teach from. It is available free on google books. It is an earlier system than Hutton, but still plenty in common.
Plus, keep watching our instructional videos, they will help a lot, and where you have questions or thoughts, post them and we will do our best to help.
+Academy of Historical Fencing does footwork between different pole arms and swords differ a lot in medieval Europe?
+Academy of Historical Fencing Thanks a lot. I'll watch your instructional videos. I'm currently practicing Krav maga. I hope it helps. I have to say that I find Marozzo's plates interesting. I think some of the techniques shown in the plates are similar to some techniques I have been taught for defending oneself againts a knife. Do you think some of the techniques from old manuals can be applied in today's society for the purpose of self defense ?I also have the book self-defense for the gentlemen and ladies, the treatise of Monstery. But I have read very Little of it. Just the biography of Monstery at the beginning.Last question, where can I buy a replica sabre or a practice sabre, or even an Antique sabre online that ships to the new world?Thanks for your reply.
+Duksing Chau Not especially. Though you should know that everything we teach it Renaissance onwards, but much of that isn't much, if at all in many places, any different to medieval systems. Most documented systems for pole arms are Renaissance sources too, so it isn't always easy to say when considering earlier times. However, if you look to manuals such as Joachim Meyer, you will see the same footwork being taught across a range of weapons from longsword, to polearms.
+mechupanlamonda Marozzo is interesting, but it's also comparatively hard to get into compared to many other treatise. Can techniques from old manuals be applied today? Yes definitely, and you will find plenty of similarity between historically documented knife fighting/self defence as is taught today. However, as far as self defence goes, I would rely more on your Krav Maga classes. An excellent martial art, and one that that I have a lot of respect for.
We do sometimes teach knife combat and knife self defence in class according to original treatise. Some of it is relevant to today, some isn't, but it is rarely practiced enough or with enough real world application and consideration to be a serious practice of self defence. Ultimately, knife fighting is for fools and should be avoided at all cost. But yes, keep up the Krav Maga for that element!
There are very few sabres that are any good. The only steel training ones that are good enough are made by Peter Regenyei in Hungary. Search for his website, he will ship to you. Also for synthetic training swords, Black Fencer in Spain. They also have distributors in the US that might be easier.
Thanks for this very cool video. Where did you found the spadroon for HEMA pls? Thanks in advance.
It was a throw together of parts. An Armourclass 17th century hanger, with a shortened AC rapier blade. I'm still looking for good options for them in steel. Though the BF synthetic spadroon is excellent.
Impressive reaction time! Thanks. I've already looking at the synthetic one... If I don't found one in steel, maybe I will try the synthetic.
Have you found other swords in steel for HEMA from the 17th/18th ? As an hanger or short sword ?
Armourclass do make a variety of swords of that type, and have recently been making some HEMA type blades for them. As for sabres of the late 18th century I have been trying to get good examples for years. Finally one I got recently that is great is from Balefire Blades. I am working with other smiths to get more examples made though. Armour Class is very good for short swords o that period though. Even their re-enactment blades can work at that length, but they will make HEMA specific types as I said.
The infanteer saber of Balefire Blades is really a magnificient piece. Thanks for pointing me to amourclass and balefireblades !
Yep that was the sabre I had custom made. Based on a range of original sabres.
The main advantages of the spadroon are also its main disadvantages. While having a compact and lightweight sidearm seems like a sensible decision for somebody already trained with the small sword, as was typical of junior officers of the period, and who shouldn't be expected to often engage directly in a melee, the spadroon is far from ideal for those same reasons as a sidearm if a soldier should be expected to engage in skirmishes fairly often. The sabre evolved to meet that requirement, and it far better suited to it than the spadroon. However, it's better to have a spadroon than have no sidearm at all.
The spadroon itself is not a terrible idea. From a certain point of view, it makes sense to have a standardized sidearm for auxiliary or rear echelon officers and enlisted that can be comfortably worn without getting in the way. But the spadroon is not designed to win fights the way a sabre is; rather, it's designed to disengage from fights. It's an almost purely defensive sword, as befitting a sidearm. it lacks the weight or length of either the broadsword or the sabre, but it's still valuable as a defensive sword.
The idea that the spadroon is a militarised smallsword is not accurate, and very much a modern collectors belief. The spadroon developed as a mixed cut and thrust sword simply as the thrust became so highly regarded.
But, not designed to win fights the sabre is? Far from it. The spadroon was designed to be quick on parry riposte and to deliver very fast point attacks, when it was well understood how lethal the thrust was over the cut, whilst also being fast at edge work. To understand this you only have to look at the evolution of the sabre. By the 1820s, infantry sabres were near identical to spadroons, with only the slightest of curve. They were of the same length, roughly the same handling characteristics and weight too. Essentially the sabre and spadroon of the late 18th and very early 19th century merged in to one another.
The spadroon is a perfectly good idea that was highly successful. It's just not a radical concept. A medium length, medium protection, agile cut and thrust sword. A concept that was very popular for many hundreds of years, not just the 200+ years of the spadroon.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing
I suppose I'm more familiar with later period Indian cavalry sabres then, which returned to a greater curve and still saw service alongside the spadroon and sword bayonet well into the 20th century.
My experience is mostly with cavalry sabres and late 19th to early 20th century spadroons & sword bayonets.
If I recall correctly, didn't the spadroon itself eventually lay the foundation for the modern dress sword?
But I stand by my statement that the spadroon was developed as a mostly defensive weapon when issued to auxiliaries as a means of protection against the _cavalry_ sabre. I'm not hugely familiar with the types of infantry sabre however, so I won't speak on that. In an infantry skirmish, I'll take your word on it.
Indeed, its not fair to compare the spadroon to cavalry sabres as an equivalent, as the spadroon was purely for infantry. Though there were cavalry equivalents to the spadroon, often looking just the same in hilt, but with much longer and heavier blades. Even in the Napoleonic era, British cavalry officers had spadroons to wear for dismounted service, as their cavalry swords were a cumbersome thing to wear and use on foot.
The spadroon did eventually become a dress sword for some nations, and new versions of it evolve for dress wear yes. But not really in the UK, where later sabres fulfilled that role.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing
Australia and India both have a strange mix with our ceremonial swords. Our cavalry still use the swept cavalry sabre, but the sword bayonet is more common as an infantry dress sword.
The sword bayonet is an interesting thing in its own right. Arguably it's a modern spadroon since it was intended to be used as a sidearm in a similar fashion. However, trench warfare was revolutionary rather than evolutionary and dismissed the idea of the sword altogether. Hence we saw a small resurgence in popularity of the cavalry sabre among the Commonwealth's cavalry.
Actually, that's a good point about dismounted cavalry swapping to the spadroon. From horseback, the traditional Indian swept sabre is a huge advantage, but I can see how it would be difficult to use on foot. So as a general purpose sidearm, the spadroon surely shows its worth.
Matt Easton should see this video spadroon..xD Nice job btw guys you were pretty skilled with the Spadroon but yeah Broadsword has more advanteges.
Nice. How does it feel using the Spadroon compared to other swords?
+Roderik Vikström Really not great. It is light and therefore parries need to be more precise, less margin for error or you get cast aside. It doesn't have the reach you would associate with a more thrust based sword, as you see me use a rapier against cutting swords for example.
Also, because it does not have a grip that you can wrap the index over the quillion like a rapier, the point control is no bette than the other swords of the era. It has a modest advantage in point control, and some cuts like to the leg can be a little quicker, but it sacrifices a lot in terms of cutting power, parry ability etc.
Certainly I would never want to have to take one to war, which is what it is intended for. I also do not have faith in the durability even for a short amount of time. The blade used here was a high quality one, but last only ten minutes of sparring before being cut in two.
Yeah. The Spadroon is quite infamous. I thought it was used in a civilian context aswell? Damn it broke easily.
+Roderik Vikström Not commonly. The wearing of swords went out of fashion between 1750-1780, just before these military pattern spadroons came into use. As for before then, with pre-pattern versions of the same type of sword, the smallsword was preferred for civilian wear. No doubt there must have been some circumstances of them being used in a civilian context, but not common at all.
+Academy of Historical Fencing Who made that one? I couldn't get a good look at it.
+Roderik Vikström I hear Matt Easton really likes them ;)
Best sword