The WORST battlefield sword is the SMALLSWORD?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 лис 2021
- Is the smallsword really the worst battlefield sword of its time? I don't think so, but it does have one major flaw as a military sword.
Patreon & Extra Videos: / scholagladiatoria
Support & extra content on Subscribestar: www.subscribestar.com/matt-ea...
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
Matt Easton's website and services:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/ - Розваги
"You are the worst sword I've ever heard of."
"But you have heard of me."
😂great joke
Ah yes, swords from the "I want to carry a sword but don't want to be inconvenienced by it" period of history
Same as modern firearms really. Yes we train with big guns for battle but in normal clothes what do I find on me? A laughably tiny little thing that allows me to drive and walk around with comfort while not offending anyone.
@@aggroalex5470 gotta upgrade man. Smith and Wesson .500 as my edc with another snub nose version in my boot for a New York Reload. Perfect self defense edc XD
Musketless bayonet. For tighter quarters than boarding pikes and spontoons. Maritime and alleyway alike. Natures' smallsword is the Stingray(RIP Steve Irwin).
@@aggroalex5470 I believe the saying is a pistol is just something you use until you can get to a rifle
@@joesimpson5288 blunderbuss
It's getting to a point where I practiced with a pell until midnight. And I look every morning for a new video. I am becoming obsessed. So much schola, so much gladitoria. Thanks for the awesome content, Matt.
Hot take before watching a video: The officer who carries a small sword knows his actual weapon is the men under his command and that wasting time fantasising about getting into a sword fight with a broadsword is just dereliction of duty.
This is like a modern drone operator worrying if his bayonet is sharp enough.
Unlike the modern day drone operator, the officer carrying a sword is still at reasonable risk of being bayonet charged.
For me, the worst sword on the field of battle is the one that gets stuck in your gut.
Hmm... What if the sword gets stuck but it prevents you from dying to blood loss? Would it still be considered the worst? More importantly, if the sword doesn't get stuck but you still die, would that sword be better than the worst?
What about the one that hits you in the rear?
@@robertvecchiarello4863 Could be the worst, definitely the most embarassing.
Oooh, is that a Hatori Hanzo blade......( dies gurgling blood).
I dunno, the one that's too much of a PITA to carry with you might be the worst.
For a general officer who might have to ride 50 miles a day to inspect troops and their positions, and is unlikely to actually engage in hand to hand combat, a lightweight smallsword makes some sense. It's more a symbol than a weapon in that case.
But a general officer wouldn't be wearing one of these. He would be wearing a mameluke sword.
And any combat would actually be the officer defending himself for a second or two before his men get to him.
He needs something to defend with not to kill with, that's what the men are for.
Maybe I'm totally off base, but I would think mass would be more of an issue than robustness. In that since that smallswords aren't meant to cut they often are built with very robust cross sections, but that the overall lower weight would mean they are more easily pushed out of the way when defending.
This is something I wondered about daggers as well. With a sword, the upper half is pretty much useless for parrying. The entire length of a dagger doesn't even come close to the lower half. Can you parry a bit further up with a dagger due to better leverage, or is the mass just too low and you're essentially stuck with a length for parrying of maybe 4-6 In?
@@edi9892 It depends on the dagger in question, and on what the dagger is facing. It also comes down to the physics of "strongs" and "weaks." Essentially, the entire dagger has the advantage of the "strong" of the sword: It's a shorter lever, and all of it is close to the fulcrum (the hand). The reason that the strong of the sword is strong is that it's closer to the hand, not that it's larger or weightier, necessarily (consider the smallswords in this video. Their strongs aren't very weighty at all). The point of the sword, being further out on the lever from the fulcrum (the hand), is able to produce greater rotational force in cutting, but can also have greater rotational force applied to it against the wrist, making it easier to manipulate by an opponent. The lever works both ways. The reason daggers are difficult for use in parrying is because they're short, so there isn't very much parrying surface, and it's difficult to offend while parrying. With a sword, you can defend and present point from relatively far away. To do the same with a dagger requires you to be within grappling distance. If your enemy has a longer weapon than your dagger, and at all knows what he is doing, he'll do his absolute best to keep you out of that distance, and his weapon is better suited to it.
Mass does matter, but footwork can account for that somewhat: You don't have to move your opponent's weapon. All you have to do is stop him from manipulating the end of his lever at you, and move into a better position. In the smallsword example, the end of that bayonetted musket is actually rather heavy and difficult to move. The smallsword can fairly easily stop it from being dangerous to the officer, and allow him to step to the side and into his enemy's range, grab the weapon, and in the words of a great man, "shank him to death." It's worth noting here that the man wielding the musket is thrusting, not swinging, the musket. This helps the officer, who only has to redirect the thrust, rather than trying to stop the mass of the musket being swung, which would certainly blow through a guard made with the smallsword simply because of mass disparity.
I think mass is simply one of the aspects that Matt includes in his "robustness" analysis, along with materials and construction. He didn't quite emphasize it but it's evident he was thinking of it while explaining, especially when talking about parrying against a heavier weapon.
@@MoeMoeKyun206 I think this is why daggers (especially parrying daggers or main gauche) were often paired with rapiers. The longer, thinner blades of rapiers were probably easier to push out of the way due to the better leverage.
One thing often overlooked was that infantry officer never specifically looked for enemy counterpart to duel them one on one.
Person: "Them not being able to cut is a problem."
Matt: *Pulls out musket* "You were saying?"
Musket balls are excellent at being able to stab really, really fast so I thought he was going in another direction
I think I'd still rather be the guy with more options for attack than less.
The best weapon in any fight will be the one you are most skilled/experienced with. If, as an officer, you have spent some hours in a fencing school learning to use a small sword you are likely to be more effective with it than with another sword.
Also, it is your side arm. You can carry it without it hindering your other duties. As an officer your main weapon is your men.
In german language Degen means smallsword, rapier, sport and duelling epee. In Swiss Army in 1911 (!) a smallsword was introduced as ,Feldpredigerdegen'/ field priests smallsword. It was not intended as weapon, only to show the ordinary soldiers, that the field priest must be regarded as officer, who can give orders.
I was going to mention that generally speaking, in any era if you have to use your sidearm things have already gone sideways. Yes, an officer on a battlefield should use his men as his primary weapon, and needing to use his sidearm means the other bastards have gotten too close for that.
The controversy about the smallsword comes down to whether cutting or stabbing is better in that situation, and I personally think that as Matt said, whatever you trained with is the better solution.
Your best weapon is your mind
@@robertvecchiarello4863
Very sharp .
Immediately Miyamoto Musashi comes to mind.
It is said he defeated a katana wielding Samurai with a wooden sword.
He carved it out from a paddle of a rowing boat .
Imagination, intelligence, creativity, visualization etc. Yes, the mind.
But also a body/physique that is capable of doing what the mind wants it to do..
@@Ve-suvius He split Sasaki Kojiro's head with wooden "stick" made from paddle :)
Great video. I love that you had other weapons on hand to compare it to as far as the three points considered.
It would really be great to see a video of all the different types of medieval swords if you haven't done that yet.
As for this video? AWESOME job! Thank you for this educating and enlightening experience.
Your videos are always entertaining, always well thought out and always educate. Thank you, Matt.
Bayonets, pikes and spears have something in common: they are much longer than a smallsword.
You always have people who argue that "If the swordsman gets past the spearman's point the spearman is dead." Apparently they aren't fans of classic Spartan laconicism as they missed the key word of that statement. If.
The Prussian 1871 Bayonet is long enough to be a smaller sword in hand. I have a Chromed one that was made for the police. About gladius length. Very handy.
A Smallsword user has a free hand to grab the rifle or spear and then thrust into them. Where the bayonet user has his hands full. Better hope he isn't loaded.
You also have a much heavier object to wield with that bayonet. 8-9lbs of wood and steel.
I feel like there are now thousands of folks that would like to duel Matt: affixed bayonet vs. smallsword.
With sparring safe trainers of course...
Great video. As in most cases specialized swords tend to underperform when not used in the CONTEXT in which they were specialized for. Mr Easton, would you happen to have an example of a sword you would consider the worst for battlefield use? Since your conclusion didn't include an example of such.
I’d like a video on this topic as well!
IDK if triangular "blades" can be differentially hardened or tempered, but if so, it would seem to make a pretty awesome long rondell basically.
You probably can, I just can't think of a reason you would want to
to an extent, you'd get it automatically:
if you quench a thick piece of metal, the outer side cools first; this becomes hardest.
The inner will be softer, and less brittle.
Now, if you want to emphasize a soft 'spine' on a triangular blade, you can use clay (or perhaps a modern equivalent.. :s )
If, for whatever reason... you'd want the reverse; soft outside, hard spine, that would be... difficult to achieve.
@@auzor5900 If you want the inside hard and the outside soft, you'd have to first heat the blade long enough to get it to the right temperature all across, then quench it to get the entire piece to cool quickly. Then reheat the blade just long enough to get only the outside hot and let it cool slowly. In theory, that should work but it would probably be tricky to pull off properly. Also, it would make for a really lousy blade...
A great Video Matt. Nice to hear you talking about Smallswords and Spadroons again.
The weight of long firearms is definitly underestimated when talking about hand to hand combat.
Always thank u for sharing your cool videos. Recently, I found cool a Spanish sword called 'bilbo' or 'bilbao' which looks like a cuphilt rapier but has a broad blade. However, I couldn't find more information about the sword. Could you cover the Spanish sword in your next video?
If this channel has taught me anything, it's taught me there is ALWAYS an exception to every rule.
Even that one?
@@lancerd4934 exactly
I think the lack of mass means it could not deffend as well against bayonets, which, as mentioned, would be their primary opponent. That is one of the biggest factors to me.
And not the fact that, you know, bayonets + musket are way longer then short swords?
@@steyn1775 I mean yes, also longer than sabres though. But yeah, that notably shorter length does not help situation.
As a Filipino, this video was very interesting because while it addresses small swords used in Western medieval times, these are also the three major issues that are STILL considered in producing the traditional combat weapons found in the Philippines.
For example:
While short, traditional blades like the ginunting and bolo are designed to be thicker and have a forward-angled blades to boost their cutting power and be more durable under rough conditions. And some Filipino weapons now include a hand guard when it is known they will be used for combat, such as the ones produced by Top Prado Blades.
Overall, good work and analysis as always scholagladiatoria! It’s really fascinating to see a video that can be used to address important characteristics between similarly used weapons found in another culture.
Yeah, it is nice how even weapons of very different cultures can be used to understand eachother.
One issue with your comment, the smallswords were used in early modern period not the medieval period.
@@bretalvarez3097 Thanks for point that out, Bret. That actually makes my interpretation of the video feel more valid, as the characteristics of the traditional Filipino weapons I described also changed in response the the introduction of guns and other aspects of early modern warfare tactics brought to us by the colonizing Spanish.
Very interesting. I looked up the maker you mentioned, his work is very beautiful.
You are my absolute favorite when it comes to hema and weaponry. Thank you so much for the amazing content.
My hat is off to you sir.
It seems like during this era Shields were never used. It feels like they would have still been pretty efficient at blocking thrusting weapons. Do you know if there are any examples of shields being used after the invention of the musket for exemple?
Edit: You actually already made a video about this "Should 18th-19th century OFFICERS have had SHIELDS?" you're very fast at answering questions haha
The Scotts where using targes which is a type of buckler well into the 1740s.
Persians, Indians, and Ameroindians used shields into the late 1800s.
It would be bad for moral if officers had shield and common soldiers not.
7:15 on the smallsword not being able to cut and the importance of that as another commenter quoted you when you said that cutting is more important on the battlefield, i remember that video too, it was made like three months ago
Matt, during the period when sword fights could be fought "in anger", and even to the death, do you think that that influenced fencing practice in a way that made it vastly different from the way we practice fencing today? For example: Back in the day, the face was a common target of attack (both cuts and thrusts), so would aiming at the face in fencing practice have been less taboo than it is today (danger notwithstanding)? By the way, I'm open to the idea that my assumptions about modern fencing could simply be incorrect. Also, I'm mostly just talking about HEMA fencing, but I suppose the question could apply to Olympic fencing as well. Just curious. Thank you!
Hey Andrew. Just adding some elements of reflections.
Your question made me remember a few things I learned. I don't know if they are true but they make sense to me.
First, in the origin of the "foil" is famously as a "practice weapon" in Olympic fencing. Originally, the foil was considered a practice weapon and you can only score if you hit at the chest of the opponent. This system was probably set like that because protection wasn't that great (today's fencing mask are exceptional compared to what was available in 1900).
Second, in HEMA, some systems of longsword started to use less thrusts and more big slashes, probably also for protection reasons (then more around 1600).
Therefore, I would say that, during practice, it's way less dangerous to hit someone face today than it was in the past, assuming fencers wear appropriate protective gear. So I would assume that, from a security perspective, it should be less taboo today.
However, I would expect that if you learn fencing for military purposes ("in anger"), you would be teached to hit the head because that's one of the most efficient target. Probably even more than in modern fencing (e.g. in Epée the head is a 'secondary' target in case you missed the arm).
Also, I must say that in HEMA or olympic fencing, I never faced much taboo about hitting the head (while wearing a fencing mask).
@@helgos78 , You know, I hadn't thought about it from that angle. That's why I made the disclaimer that I could just be completely wrong on some of my assumptions about modern fencing! I'm merely a collector of swords, and not a practitioner of swordplay.😁
But yeah, your point makes sense. Perhaps my perception is corrupted by Hollywood, where it seems quite rare to see face/head attacks in swordplay. I guess I hope that computerized special effects may one day be able to remedy that!😃😂
@@andreweden9405 We're all here to learn :D We might as well exchange a few bits of knowledge.
If I may add something: in theatrical/stage fencing, a choreographer should definitely avoid hits to the head. Sword fights in movie are not meant to be realistic. Hits are often off-distance, swords go through heavy armour like butter, combats are way longer than a "real" fencing bout, strikes are telegraphed, etc. It's really about show and visually pleasing the audience.
Also, my personal 2 cents, I think that some (fake) constructs are so implemented in the audience's mind that if you went ahead and corrected them on screen, people would just perceive it as irrealistic. Like two handed swords are slow, people in armour struggle in their movements, a thrust to the chest insta kills you, ...
Excellent topic. Thank you!
Love this video because your information is right on the money everything you send is true . I like to see more videos like this or similar Chow
An additional problem with smallswords that I would add to the mix is the overall lack of versatility - this weapon is really good at one thing only. If you mess up your distance management and your opponent closes to grapple or binds your weapon and grabs your blade, you are screwed. With an edged sword, you still have a good chance of doing damage with the blade at close range, but trying to turn your weapon around to bring the point online would be really awkward and relatively ineffective with a smallsword. Also, unlike in an organised duel, you can face multiple opponents on a battlefield. With an edged weapon, you can control the space around you much better than with a smallsword - you can actually keep a circle of opponents away from you, depending on the situation (would be difficult against bayonets or spears, mind you). Smallswords are basically kind of useless for dominating circular/lateral space, however. In the chaos of battle, too many variables are in play to make a smallsword seem like a sensible weapon - when you are exhausted and can potentially be flanked, swords suited to gross motor skills and versatility of use would always be my first choice.
In honour of the new version of the movie _Dune,"_ I'd like to lift a quote from the novel, in which Paul is recalling the words of Gurney Halleck (he's just about to fight Jamis to the death):
_"The good knife fighter thinks on point and blade and shearing-guard simultaneously. The point can also cut; the blade can also stab; the shearing-guard can also trap your opponent's blade."_
That quote seems relevant when discussing a sword that reportedly cannot cut. With a sharp enough point and against an unarmoured opponent, it seems likely that a person could use a smallsword to cut with the tip.
More so than durability, my biggest problem with something like a small sword would be the lack of mass. Which would make parrying significantly more difficult than it would otherwise need to be. I'm not sure I'd be confident in Parrying a thrust from a Bayonette with a sword that only weights 600g. obviously, it's possible, But I wouldn't want to bet my life on it.
Another intelligent video, I think your reasoning is excellent. It would be nice to have sources where officers in period explained why they chose the swords that they did. Ichithix makes an excellent additional point about the small swords' lack of mass.
I would love to hear your take on Swedish Carolean swords, specifically the cavalry swords, circa 1700.
To my eyes, they look quite a lot like a spadroon/cutting smallsword, and are usually described as capable of both cut and thrust. They were also definitely intended to give point in the charge, as that was the main tactic of the Carolean cavalry.
I thought cutting capacity was important because in the thick of a fight it naturally comes down to chopping. (As you stated yourself once, Matt.) Of course officers should have been well trained, so they could stick to what they've trained. But i guess nothing really can prepare for an actual fight to the death.
@@cosc_HEMA but all of those other thrusting weapons are just better (ik context context context), a spear can thrust from further away and so can a bayonet. oh and the bayonets on something that can shoot you
@@cosc_HEMA i know and i totally agree with you. I just think that it might be another reason why they later went for spadroons and then the infantry officers swords that are both thrusting blades that can cut to an extend.
If one grew up with foil fencing it's best to stay with that form of weapons training such as smallsword as one reverts to one's larger training regiment under pressure. You wouldn't make wild chops under pressure if you grew up thrusting. You may if handed a cutting weapon revert to thrusts or sloppy chops while under pressure if all you had was thrust based training.
-From my experience with weapons of all types both as a profession and hobby.
@@aggroalex5470 yes Matt made that point about foil fencing in a video about spadroons. And i've never fought in an actual battle so i don't know what people do. Maybe something to do a bit of research on. Also i can hardly think of any type of sword before plate armour was developed that wasn't a cutting one.
Actually it was a common complaint that officers were not well trained in using individual weapons, and they tended to resent it when they were given training.
Any chance you'll do a dedicated video on the Walloon sword Matt?
Its a bad battlefield sword because it’s light lacks reach and can’t cut, even if stabs are more deadly in the long run you can disable people pretty well with a cut and you don’t have to overcommit to a single opponent. The bayonet is a spear on the end of a gun and therefore for is a whole difference beast. I feel that the small sword is the try hard choice on the battlefield.
One key point to remember is that the officer's main weapon is the 30-130 men they command. An officer with a sword of any kind, is likely to be backed by multiple troops armed with muskets/rifles with bayonets. The job of the officer in that circumstance is to poke at targets of opportunity, and support the men with their firearms. An officer standing against a bayonet armed enemy alone, is an officer out of place. Likely a Jr. officer crying for their Sgt/WO to come save them.
30-130 men are not that much, especially using line tactics. There were serious possibilities for a junior officer to have to personally face an enemy, and even for higher rank officers to have to face enemy cavalry. IE it happened two times to Garibaldi to have to defend himself with the sabre against an enemy chivalrymen, at Velletri in 1849 and at Milazzo in 1860.
I hope to learn more about this Waloon hilted sword 🤩
A smallsword and an M4 rifle would be a pretty good pairing!
Ok. a Webley Fosbery then.
Another great video. Not every sword is meant to slash. And some that weren't can! I believe you mentioned once Matt that spears can be cutters if you index them. Which I did to one of my Scandinavian Spears. It's a cutter now
First Shad casts shad-e on longbows, now you diss smallswords... I'm waiting for Skallagrim to deny the superiority of falchions.
10:59 Quickly send him that Cold Steel spadroon cutting video!
Interesting question which leads to the study of mixed weapon bouts. I've done a bit of mix weapon freeplay this way, with a 3 cornered blade I ground down myself. Are smallsword fragile? Overall, comparatively yes, especially at the foible, but if made authentically are also reasonably strong in the forte where parries should be made - originals averaging 9mm thick and just over 2cm wide at the base. Reconstructions I have seen tend to be either too tip heavy or if light enough overall have a weak forte. (I've been guilty of the former and have had to rethink my blade designs - after I found small-sword students couldn't do the traditional techniques such as circular parries and 'tac' parries from the wrist/fingers with the requisite ease). Conversely, picking up an original small-sword = instant respect. In bouting, the key is not to be scared of your opponents bigger weapon but use the quickness to constantly threaten and confuse the opponent. If you get scared and become too defensive with the smallsword you are setting yourself up for failure. Are they at a disadvantage against other single handed swords? In my somewhat limited experience I'd suggest not, or at least not as much as some people claim. One relatively new sparing partner told me he had a harder time dealing with my smallsword than my broad (he was armed with a broad *and* targe , and I with just my small was able to get even results. I did a little worse with just the broad vs his broad and targe.). But you have tried small-sword vs this and that too, haven't you Matt? What did you think?
Fascinating, as always.
You'll probably never use your sword, anyway, so it could be the best sword by not weighing you down. You can still thrust some guy engaged with someone else or just run away relatively unencumbered.
I suspect this is a major part of why European swords tended to get shorter & lighter after the 16th century.
I have only held one smallsword, and besides my big paws not fitting the hilt (which is a problem with sabers as well i just have big hands) it felt like it would break if it hit bone
Had to rewatch Spadroon vs Gun because of this.
Great video. Regardless of whether or not it was a good battlefield weapon, it might have been the best option for very young officers (and midshipmen), many of who would not have the strength and endurance of a mature and experienced adult soldier, but possibly be more nimble.
2:22 "parry this, you filthy casual"
It might make a superior dagger?
@scholagladiatoria could you do a discussion of sideswords?
Can we see more about that walloon sword? Its awesome
Good stuff .Since serviceable pistols were commonplace in the era I'm guessing the small sword carriers assumed it was a last ditch weapon and they'd use a pistol before that. That or they were weight conscious. Even today, well pre polymer frame a anyway some people find carrying say a larger pistol uncomfortable and when given a choice will choose smaller ones.
One issue with the smallsword is that unlike the rifle / bayonet combo, it doesn't tend to launch musketballs at you.
True, but you can easily attach a pommel to it.
As a weapon for an Infantry officer it seems to be a good sword. Strong enough to parry a thrust and counter attack.
Small enough to be used inside the reach of a rifle with Bayonet.
And probably fairly cheap so you can outfit your infantry officers with them.
It would be interesting to see how likely they were to be needed on a battlefield.
I've as always looked at the Smallsword like we look at the modern pistol for self defense. A smalll package weapon that can still dish out the damage on any would-be bandits/muggers. While Flintlock pistols did exist back then, they were quite large, heavy, only had one shot and could fail to fire if you've been walking around outside and the priming powder got a little wet somehow. Of course, there is also the multi-shot pepperbox style pistol but still heavy, prone to powder wetting and was a 2 handed affair. Meanwhile, a Smallsword (And Spadroon) was minimally invasive to your daily activities and usually "outgunned" the usual suspects of banditry armed with big knives.
Could you please make a video about how sabers were gripped?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that earlier sabers are more for cutting and slashing and thus had shorter hilts and more often thumb rings. Later sabers had no such rings, but grips where you could put your thumb on the back. I tried it with some other blades, but it feels super awkward to me, though it may be better for thrusting... Anyway, it seems that it's more suited for giving point and for using cuts from your wrist rather than the entire forearm...
Also, I've seen with some swords and daggers that people would give point with their thumb on the side of the grip or blade (thus turning the blade horizontal). This feels more intuitive to me and can still be used for some wrist cuts.
Obviously, side swords, rapiers, and epees often allowed fingering the guard and some sabers had cramped hilts forcing you to slash with the entire arm.
For what it's worth, there is a (reasonably well-known, I think) French WW1 film clip showing a French fencing master sparring with several French soldiers suing a rifle with bayonet. The fencing master won handily, due to speed.
But, context. I speculate that a smallsword (alone) would have a very tough time against an opponent equipped with a Medieval-Dark Ages-Roman Legionary-Scottish Highlander shield. Ditto for an opponent wearing full armor plate; I think the opponent's eyes would have to be the principal target, even as armor decreased to the point of only a breastplate being worn.
But post-Crimean War, the smallsword looks like a useful backup weapon to a couple of revolvers and a saber.
I wanna see a video comparing rapier to sparrow because they are kinda similar being a thrust oriented cut and thrust swords but from different periods also the small sword came out of the rapier and the spadroon came out of the small sword
What did every example of stabby boys that Matt mentioned have that the smallsword doesn't have? Reach. So yes, the fact it stinks at cutting and can only thrust is a disadvantage when you don't either have the reach. Spears are stabby with a good reach. A bayonet on a rifle is a gun-spear essentially. And a man with a bayonet without a gun is most likely screwed XD
The reach issue is mitigated by the cutting fencer's need to prepare the cut. In smallsword world that is an eternity to play with. But agreed in advance, not much good if a thrust is made only for cut to land back.
The National Maritime Museum has a number of very slender swords (18C or Napoleonic), including at least one with nicks implying actual use which have always intrigued me, especially given they would have mainly faced cutlass and pike. It would be interesting to know more about how such swords would fare in the rather different circumstances of naval rather than land combat given the focus in this video on the land gun/bayonet.
I'd say that, in the fight between the smallsword wielding officer and the bayonet wielding soldier, the officer has another great advantage. He's ridden in on a horse while the other has probably marched with a bunch of gear for miles.
Imagine trying to fight a guy that's fresh after you have just done grueling exercise.
Nah small swords weren’t a cavalry combat sword though. They used sabres, lances and broadswords.
Never mind how a small sword has much less length than a bayoneted musket and it’s not also a gun.
And soldiers in most battles were never that exhausted, that they couldn’t fight cavalry just look at Waterloo. The bigger issue was making sure the infantry got into a dense enough formation to resist cavalry not how tired they were.
@@johnhenry4844 :The smallsword was not only a weapon. From late 17th to very early 19th century the smallsword was a sign, that the owner is a nobleman, a member of (Great Brittain) ,Gentry' or in continetal europe a , Patrizier' ( noblemanlike man in especially italian or german town republics). Also upperclass towns men , on occation also perhaps upper middleclass or academic men. Also , when in service, also higher officials carried a smallsword as a sign of authority. So the smallsword also was in smallsword era a sign of rank and importance.
Is there a reason for the shell guard shape as opposed to a large circle or bowl guard?
My issue with the hand protection point that people bring up, is mostly up to the discretion of the craftsman and the user of the weapon. As you pointed out there are sabers with more elaborate guards dating to the Napoleonic era, so i think it becomes a question of how much weight you are willing to add to your personal sidesword to ensure you are comfortable with its level of hand protection.
Edit: and to the third point, it's the only one I give any real credence because the dynamic between smallswords, spadroons, and backswords existed prior to these weapons' existence as seen in the dynamic between schiavona and rapier in Italy.
Interesting! Can we see a video demonstration where bayonet rifleman is fighting a officer with a sword?
Watching Forged in Fire, I knew they got it wrong when I seen how big they made their "small swords"
It is kinda like taking a pen and fighting youre neighbour that has a shotgun.
Hi Matt. Do you have many single combat reports of sword and shield v bayonet? Must have been common in 17/18th century Scotland and in 18/19th century India as well as elsewhere. Was one generally considered superior or would it come down to the individual skill of the practitioner?
@8:36 IRON AND WOOD!
I would love to see how a roman legion would fare, having their gladius swapped for a smallsword, all other things staying the same.
For a moment I forgot Matt was British and thought he was literally going to pull out a rifle. "Can it cut? No. *agressively racks slide* Your point?"
I think the best word to describe the smallsword as a military weapon in its era is "sidearm". It isn't a weapon for the cavalry or infantry captains, they get issued sabers after all, it's something small and light and theoretically deadly for a general to wear on his hip so he can say he has a sword ,and since he's probably a landed sixty something man who spends the entirety of battle on horseback, surrounded by staff and bodyguards and preferably with at least one combat unit between him and the enemy, only very rarely, perhaps even never in his career, will he have cause to wish he carried a proper sword instead.
Would anyone have experience fencing with a smallsword against heavier weapons who could answer a simple question? Ignoring if it it's lighter weight makes it more prone to damage does it's lesser mass make it harder to effectively parry or, conversely, beat through another person's guard?
I've done some sparring with smallsword vs spadroon and smallsword vs sabre. I felt that the smallsword was much less capable against a spadroon or sabre. This assumes there is not a significant skill gap between the sparring partners and the sabre/spadroon holder was familiar with how to fight with a smallsword. The spadroon/sabre holder simply needs to not allow the smallsword holder to take the initiative. The spadroon/sabre blade weight can push the smallsword blade aside enough to make a hand/forearm cut. The smallsword holder has a difficult time riposting when the spadroon/sabre holder is making a series of fast cuts because their blade is getting pushed more during a parry.
Some texts e.g. Angelo specifically advise on smallsword technique v. heavier weapons. Basically, in short, back off, threaten with smallsword's quickness in the riposte ready to step in (off hand protected). Not too dissimilar to some of Hope's advice. It's doable. But not necessarily elegant.
...and parries with the smallsword forte are doable but, well, yeh.. would I really want to rely on that a lot v a heavy cutting weapon? Probably not.
Parry? Not so much a problem. I've even managed to parry longswords, so heavier sabres are not so problematic, as long as you absolutely follow a forte to foible doctrine and learn to cede-parry, which in both HEMA smallsword and modern fencing are low percentage defences, but become vastly more important against heavier weapons.
Beat through another guard? Way more difficult, particularly if the weapon is heavier or two handed. You are better off doing compound attacks and opening lines through feints and guile than trying to muscle through a line. It really depends on however on the implement. Against a sabre or a longsword blade was sometimes possible to displace their point sometimes, sneak in a thrust to the arm and cover the eventual afterblow. Against a rapier? little to no chance.
But the important thing about smallsword is READ THE MANUALS. Too many people skim the manuals and use Carte/Tierce/Seconde guards because those are the ones mostly described against smallswords. But if you read closely there are other guards needed such has hanging/prime, retracted seconde, quarte cuppy/polish guard against heavier weapons, which absolutely do work but need experimentation, which you are not going to get if you just have smallsword vs smallsword fights.
depending on the bayonet sure they couldn't cut but it's a piece of kit mounted onto your rifle which was your primary weapon with the reach of a spear those are some big differences also all the other all thrust weapons for the field were longer than the small sword by a good margin
So if it is not worse; what weapon was worse than the smallsword?
So what would you consider the WORST battlefield sword?
One thing I've wondered for some time - why did armor disappear from the battlefield? The usual argument is that it could not stop bullets, but swords and bayonets were a common battlefield weapon all the way through to the early 20th century. The English soldiers in the battle of Culloden would have fared better with helmets and armor, as would have any group of soldiers on the receiving end of a bayonet charge.
You know, this is a great topic.
I think it's a combination of not having armor that can deal well with the main weapons at hand (guns), and cost.
I think there might have been one point in history where a military realized they could get more troops and more guns on the battlefield if they ditched expensive armor that was just useful in a melee.
And up until the invention of kevlar, give or take, that mindset stayed.
I'd have to look into it, and would love to hear Matt Easton's opinion.
Was there a mass-used thrust-only battlefield weapon as short as the smallsword? Most of the examples cited were considerably longer. Although I believe there may have been some very short spears used by some cultures, though I don’t recall any details.
Great Video, but I still can't think of any type of sword that would be worse in a battle then the smallswrord. 🤔
George Washington has been portrayed in countless paintings and prints as elegantly attired and armed with an ornate smallsword. His actual battle-sword is classified as a hanger, though it looks more like a very plain sabre to me (despite having a simple knife-type guard); fullered, slightly curved blade that is stiff and pointed enough for easy use in thrusting, and heavy enough to be a very effective cutting weapon. I'm sure he wore the elegant smallsword during his formal visits to the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, but in the field practicality trumped elegance and the pretty little dueling-sword went back into storage.
is it normal for these to be a little bent? i bought one from Rouge Steel and it arrived with about 4-5 degrees of bend . i imagine it’s because of the cross-section, but it’s killin me
The Inability to cut more of problem in swords then in byoneted muskets which are a pollarm for all intents and purposes. With a small sword you have very little reach so any function you are lacking is more impactful in such close quarters.
What about it's length? The other thrust-centric weapons you mentioned are all significantly longer. I feel like a thrust-centric short blade is sorta shooting itself in the foot.
The context here is on what battlefield. The period of warfare where such a sword was common was Pike and Shot. Not a lot of armor, you're basically stabbing through heavy wool uniforms. Not even Gambeson. I think whoever said this is "The worst sword for the battlefield" was imagining a completely different battlefield. Knights in armor kinda thing. Just for comparison, the period Cavalry sword at the time was a saber, which doesn't thrust at all.
if an officer has to use his (small)sword fully in battle then the plan has gone very wrong indeed
Not sure if you will see my question and answer it but here goes: what's the type of sword that was used in the final duel in Rob Roy by the bad guy?
War breaks things and it can be hard to get it replaced. I buy that.
I think another thing to note is convenience. you don’t have a large guard flopping about.
I'd think a Broken Sword is the worst battlefield sword you could find. lol
Well, Isildur got Sauron with one of those...
Would the weight/mass also be an issue? How much harder is it to parry bayonets and sabres with a smallsword than with a heavier sword?
A question from a pure theoretic person. The smallsword blade was narrow and rather pointy, so when well sharpened and used in a powerfull thrust, the blade must have good penetration? In smallsword era, with exeption of heavy cavallry ( cuirassiers) no armor was used, but there had been some details of uniforms,.which should give some low protection.
The artillery gladious styled sword was not practical either, except to clear brush. At a time when armies stood in lines and took volley fire, if you survived that, there were plenty of weapons on the ground to chose from.
the things is most people in combat do not get to chose their weapon , they must use what there government tells them to use ! In many cases, the people deciding what you must use in combat are not going to themselves be in combat with you. Officers had a bit more leeway and if I was an 18th century officer and had to get a sword of a given pattern and it was a small sword I would probably chose the widest single edged blade I could under the regulations and have steel guards that were plated to look like brass or silver with whatever engraving my branch demanded and then dip the blade in potassium cyanide before combat .
Given that officers are generally not mixing it up with the enemy unless things have gone seriously awry, I would want a little more parrying mass than the usual smallsword.
I tend to think that there were probably people in the days of the smallsword that were killed by a man with one in his hand. In point of fact. In fact, I would venture to guess that probably many more than one person was probably killed by a person wielding a smallsword. Probably many more than that were wounded in the same manner, by a person wielding such a weapon. I would also venture to say that those who were killed or wounded by such a weapon, if they could be dug up and asked, would more than likely say that the smallsword was definitely an effective weapon.
So how does George S. Patton's sword design compare? I think you've talked briefly about similar swords like the 1908 British cavalry sword, but how do these 20th century designs compare to other military or even civilian swords?
7:15 actually, I think it is important. Especially for officiers.
While it's true stabs are more lethal, cuts are more likely to incapacitate the enemy. Killing enemies is not officers' duty, it's to stay alive and lead. As weapon of self-defence smallsword seriously lacks in department of stopping power.
Even if the offensive capabilities of the small sword art the best in a battlefield situation it certainly is decent at defending.
And given it was likely officers who'd carry them if they could defend themselves then they can partly rely on their troops to dispatch the opponents.
Sure that's a less-than-ideal situation, but certainly not impossible.
The worst sword is the one you have to use two hands to draw out of a scabbard. Or one that is stuck in the scabbard because the scabbard is swollen shut with moisture. Or the one you left in your tent since you never thought you would actually need it until some guy comes running at close range with a bayonet on a musket.
My teacher indulged me in a bout of smallsword vs broadsword. It wasn't an easy victory for either weapon, but the smallsword was just too fragile to properly oppose the other. It was very nimble and by no means at a reach advantage. But much, much weaker. (That's a Feather smallsword and an Armour Class broadsword.)