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).
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?
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.
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.
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.
@@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..
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 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.
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...
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
As an armchair warrior, I think my main concern about the smallsword would be its lack of reach. Suppose you get close enough to run your opponent through, he may well be fatally wounded (from internal bleeding, infection, etc). but he is unlikely to drop dead on the spot, and you will probably be within grappling range while your sword is still stuck in his body. You might well end up dead before he does. I think I'd rather have a weapon that could do serious damage from a distance (e.g. a sabre or tulwar) even if it isn't fatal.
I would rather take a rapier (sturdier, more mass, longer range, and some cutting capacity), but I'm more into slashing, so sabers are more a thing for me.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
It's always funny when "HAND PROTECTION" is brought up like if the vast majority of swords didn't have minimal (by many people's standards) protection.
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.
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.
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
Technically a small sword is a triangular longer version of an older bayonet. It's most danger lies in puncturing. I think what gave rifles the advantage with a bayonet is their reach, since most small swords were typically around 32-34 inches.
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.
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.
I'd imagine that a foil would be worse than a smallsword on a battlefield. Somebody somewhere had to have carried one into battle just for shits and giggles. There is always that guy somewhere.
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.
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.
The bayonet equipped fusilier/line infantry should not have to worry about "dueling" a small sword equipped officer if his sharpshooter has done his job, and killed the officer before the lines began their engagement.
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.
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.
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.
Sort of thinking the worse sword in just using a sword for something it wasn't designed for like.. swapping a saber, broadsword, smallsword or backsword for a gladius on a 18th century battlefield.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
The battlefield isn't just about fighting. The battlefield is also about manoeuvre. A smallsword is a lot lighter and slightly shorter than a sabre. So it would be easier to run with. A smallsword would be an excellent sword for chasing after people and killing them as they try to run away. It is also less of an encumbrance if you are the one who is trying to run away...
If I remember correctly, bayonet wounds vere quite rare, which means hand to hand combat between infantry units was rare too. Of course, there were surprise cavalry attacks from time to time, but not too common either.
I think the major problem of a smallsword in a battlefield is sttoping power. It's lethal, no question, but it doesnt have much stopping power. That's not so important in a duel, because of the ability to use footwork as a means of defense. However, footwork is heavily restricted when on a battlefield, by your teammates, by the opponent, by the dead bodies, by terrain irregularities, etc. Specially if you were to be in a formation, by accidente or by design. Spears offer range as defense, rondels offer grapling as defense. Smallswords defense relies on footwork. Which will be heavily restricted. So, I think the smallsword lacks either more stopping power, or some stronger means of defense, in order to be a good pick for a battlefield. Not a bad weapon by any means, but very suboptimal for a battlefield, in my eyes.
If poor durability is a serious consideration I'd like to nominate the Mycenaean rapier. Long bronze stabbing swords with brittle blades, no tang and crap hand protection. In an era of very large shields where bronze or bone/horn armour isn't completely out of the question....
the bayonet is honestly somewhat of a 'weapon of desperation' in comparison. basically once your fire your only shot you need the ability to fend off attackers. and because the shape of the rifle made it unusable like a proper spear or polearm, it is tringular and only for stabbing cause your won't be able to use it for much else.
When people wore a sword as part of their dress. Gentleman: It shouldn't be too long. That could into intimidate the ladies. who have no experience with manly swords. Later, lady ignores him. He asks "why?" Lady: Oh, you only have a small sword.
if you're using a sabre like it's a sabre and not a longsword or rapier, you don't need hand protection. a small sword seems like it wants more hand protection because there's a lot of giving point, meaning your hand is more of a stationary target than proper sabre (polish).
Keep in mind, that some officers were carrying a spontoon as primary weapon. If I would have been one of those officers, I could imagine decide to carry a light and nimble small sword in addition to the more robust spontoon.
Bayonet on the end of a rifle is more versatile as a combat tool than a smallsword by a longshot. Smallsword: No edge to cut. Too light to block and parry heavy weapons. Too light to break bones with percussive force. Limited to one-handed use. Almost useless had protection. The list goes on and on.
As a battlefield weapon it has to defend against bayonets. The smallsword lacks the mass to parry heavy muskets and bayonets effectively and its lack of cutting ability makes attacking the hands a lot harder. Even the spadroon is too weak a weapon to be practical against an infantryman, precisely why sabres and basket hilts took over.
"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
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.
I agree. The officer who carried that probably just used it for pointing where people should be firing their muskets and cannon at
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.
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.
One thing often overlooked was that infantry officer never specifically looked for enemy counterpart to duel them one on one.
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 :)
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 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.
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...
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...
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.
That can't possibly be a Halleck quote! There's no chordal accompaniment!
Please note that millions of Duncans died to deliver this message.
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.
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!
First Shad casts shad-e on longbows, now you diss smallswords... I'm waiting for Skallagrim to deny the superiority of falchions.
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.
As an armchair warrior, I think my main concern about the smallsword would be its lack of reach. Suppose you get close enough to run your opponent through, he may well be fatally wounded (from internal bleeding, infection, etc). but he is unlikely to drop dead on the spot, and you will probably be within grappling range while your sword is still stuck in his body. You might well end up dead before he does. I think I'd rather have a weapon that could do serious damage from a distance (e.g. a sabre or tulwar) even if it isn't fatal.
I would rather take a rapier (sturdier, more mass, longer range, and some cutting capacity), but I'm more into slashing, so sabers are more a thing for me.
The real reach will give great sword or spear. Sabre, smallsword are almost same reach. Even bayonet on rifle is longer.
@@Garbid 0.8 or 1m makes already quite a difference. Though, it's not even close to a musket... it's just about practicality...
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.
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?
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.
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.
A smallsword and an M4 rifle would be a pretty good pairing!
Ok. a Webley Fosbery then.
Great video. I love that you had other weapons on hand to compare it to as far as the three points considered.
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.
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 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.
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 like "M'Lord" even better than ""Noble one" but I suppose it isn't worth immigrating and studying law.
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.
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.
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
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.
Excellent topic. Thank you!
I would love to see how a roman legion would fare, having their gladius swapped for a smallsword, all other things staying the same.
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 hope to learn more about this Waloon hilted sword 🤩
10:59 Quickly send him that Cold Steel spadroon cutting video!
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?"
It's always funny when "HAND PROTECTION" is brought up like if the vast majority of swords didn't have minimal (by many people's standards) protection.
Your videos are always entertaining, always well thought out and always educate. Thank you, Matt.
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.
Interesting! Can we see a video demonstration where bayonet rifleman is fighting a officer with a sword?
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.
It is kinda like taking a pen and fighting youre neighbour that has a shotgun.
Watching Forged in Fire, I knew they got it wrong when I seen how big they made their "small swords"
It might make a superior dagger?
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
Technically a small sword is a triangular longer version of an older bayonet. It's most danger lies in puncturing. I think what gave rifles the advantage with a bayonet is their reach, since most small swords were typically around 32-34 inches.
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.
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.
I'd imagine that a foil would be worse than a smallsword on a battlefield. Somebody somewhere had to have carried one into battle just for shits and giggles. There is always that guy somewhere.
2:22 "parry this, you filthy casual"
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.
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.
The bayonet equipped fusilier/line infantry should not have to worry about "dueling" a small sword equipped officer if his sharpshooter has done his job, and killed the officer before the lines began their engagement.
What are the odds of surviving a cavalry charge with a smallsword?
Had to rewatch Spadroon vs Gun because of this.
A cane sword may be slightly worse due to near total lack of hand protection, as well as the reduction in reach.
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.
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.
Swords are back-up weapons and are probably backed up with a knife hatchet or hammer that doubles as a tool until the blade snaps.
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.
Sort of thinking the worse sword in just using a sword for something it wasn't designed for like.. swapping a saber, broadsword, smallsword or backsword for a gladius on a 18th century battlefield.
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.
Any chance you'll do a dedicated video on the Walloon sword Matt?
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.
There is the infamous fruit knife, that was used as a battlefield sword by the honourable E. Blackadders father.
A worse sword on the battlefield than the small sword is no sword.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
Fascinating, as always.
So if it is not worse; what weapon was worse than the smallsword?
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
Great Video, but I still can't think of any type of sword that would be worse in a battle then the smallswrord. 🤔
For the bayonet, not even being able to connect with the enemy was necessary for it to be effective.
I think the worst battlefield sword would probably be one that's so garbage that it just breaks apart after you swing it once.
Can we see more about that walloon sword? Its awesome
So, if it's not the worst battlefield sword, which is? What's worse than a smallsword?
The battlefield isn't just about fighting.
The battlefield is also about manoeuvre.
A smallsword is a lot lighter and slightly shorter than a sabre. So it would be easier to run with.
A smallsword would be an excellent sword for chasing after people and killing them as they try to run away.
It is also less of an encumbrance if you are the one who is trying to run away...
If I remember correctly, bayonet wounds vere quite rare, which means hand to hand combat between infantry units was rare too. Of course, there were surprise cavalry attacks from time to time, but not too common either.
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?
I think the major problem of a smallsword in a battlefield is sttoping power. It's lethal, no question, but it doesnt have much stopping power.
That's not so important in a duel, because of the ability to use footwork as a means of defense. However, footwork is heavily restricted when on a battlefield, by your teammates, by the opponent, by the dead bodies, by terrain irregularities, etc. Specially if you were to be in a formation, by accidente or by design.
Spears offer range as defense, rondels offer grapling as defense. Smallswords defense relies on footwork. Which will be heavily restricted.
So, I think the smallsword lacks either more stopping power, or some stronger means of defense, in order to be a good pick for a battlefield.
Not a bad weapon by any means, but very suboptimal for a battlefield, in my eyes.
The WORST battlefield sword is the SMALLSWORD? NO!
Wrorst battlefield sword: Foam LARP Sword
If poor durability is a serious consideration I'd like to nominate the Mycenaean rapier. Long bronze stabbing swords with brittle blades, no tang and crap hand protection. In an era of very large shields where bronze or bone/horn armour isn't completely out of the question....
I usually look at swords as a sidearm.
the bayonet is honestly somewhat of a 'weapon of desperation' in comparison. basically once your fire your only shot you need the ability to fend off attackers. and because the shape of the rifle made it unusable like a proper spear or polearm, it is tringular and only for stabbing cause your won't be able to use it for much else.
It was held in pretty high regard by military leaders of the time.
So what would you consider the WORST battlefield sword?
When people wore a sword as part of their dress.
Gentleman: It shouldn't be too long. That could into intimidate the ladies. who have no experience with manly swords.
Later, lady ignores him. He asks "why?"
Lady: Oh, you only have a small sword.
if you're using a sabre like it's a sabre and not a longsword or rapier, you don't need hand protection.
a small sword seems like it wants more hand protection because there's a lot of giving point, meaning your hand is more of a stationary target than proper sabre (polish).
The WORST battlefield sword is going to be 1 that is poorly designed and made as quickly as possible.
Keep in mind, that some officers were carrying a spontoon as primary weapon. If I would have been one of those officers, I could imagine decide to carry a light and nimble small sword in addition to the more robust spontoon.
Bayonet on the end of a rifle is more versatile as a combat tool than a smallsword by a longshot.
Smallsword:
No edge to cut.
Too light to block and parry heavy weapons.
Too light to break bones with percussive force.
Limited to one-handed use.
Almost useless had protection.
The list goes on and on.
As a battlefield weapon it has to defend against bayonets. The smallsword lacks the mass to parry heavy muskets and bayonets effectively and its lack of cutting ability makes attacking the hands a lot harder. Even the spadroon is too weak a weapon to be practical against an infantryman, precisely why sabres and basket hilts took over.
In conclusion: the Spadroon rules!