A simple but interesting smallsword

Jim McDougall · 19th February 2021, 02:11 AM

These military officers swords were designed 'after' the styling of the civilian smallsword in general at the end of the 18th century,and carrying forth the traditional styling as favored by the gentry and high station men who used them. While the popularity of the small sword which endured through the 18th century had effectively ended, the nature of military conservativism lent to their keeping these designs for dress type swords.

These were clearly not designed for the kind of use employed with the small sword, though the blade was light, the hilt was not structured for any sort of 'fast' sword play. They were certainly not intended for combat, and if I recall the British heavy cavalry officers sword (M1796) of this 'type' was taken to the Peninsula by many officers, who absolutely hated them.

Still for formal occasions, levees and parade, these stylish swords served well.

The observation by Mark on possible influence from French styling is quite possible, if not likely in some degree. French edged weapon styles carried heavy sway toward designs of a number of countries, and while not necessarily 'copied' the influenced elements were often present even if subtly.
The one occasion can think of that was converse was with the British officers spadroon of c. 1780s which had a neoclassic hilt with five ball motiif. This design was indeed copied in degree by French hilt makers, who called the design l'Anglaise (the English).

As for going to sea, there is nothing that would preclude any officer from taking these as their favored weapon on any voyage. Choice of weapons were an officers perogative.

It is great to see these Portuguese examples of these swords, as most resources I have access to include these versions, which I agree with Mark, are outstanding.

fernando · 19th February 2021, 11:40 AM

Thank you Jim, for confirming my previous notes (#13) in that these swords followed end XVIII century characteristics. It is obvious that they were not developed for combat purposes, as they were not meant for that, but to complement a uniform regulation plan. Certainly if a superior officer had in mind to dismount from his horse in battle and participate in a fight, he would have brought his 'spare' combat sword to the field.
On the other hand, and quoting Norman in that one little poke in the right place with one of these and it's all over, i would add that some of these small swords (espadins, floretes) could do more than just a little poke. They (pattern 1806) had to have per rule a double edged blade 820 mm. long and 26 mm. wide; and considering existing examples with good forging steel (Solingen and Toledo), they wouldn't engage in battles but could well serve for defence purposes, if needed. I have owned two of them and they sure looked fit for the job.
By courtesy of José A. Faria e Silva, specialist in Peninsular War armament, the first page of his (bilingual) article.

.

Jim McDougall · 19th February 2021, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Thank you Jim, for confirming my previous notes (#13) in that these swords followed end XVIII century characteristics. It is obvious that they were not developed for combat purposes, as they were not meant for that, but to complement a uniform regulation plan. Certainly if a superior officer had in mind to dismount from his horse in battle and participate in a fight, he would have brought his 'spare' combat sword to the field.
On the other hand, and quoting Norman in that one little poke in the right place with one of these and it's all over, i would add that some of these small swords (espadins, floretes) could do more than just a little poke. They (pattern 1806) had to have per rule a double edged blade 820 mm. long and 26 mm. wide; and considering existing examples with good forging steel (Solingen and Toledo), they wouldn't engage in battles but could well serve for defence purposes, if needed. I have owned two of them and they sure looked fit for the job.
By courtesy of José A. Faria e Silva, specialist in Peninsular War armament, the first page of his (bilingual) article.

.

Very true Fernando. It is often perceived that the highly embellished swords worn in the courts and dress events of those days were inadequate for any sort of defense. However, as you well note, in the hands of even a nominally trained swordsman, these were highly deadly.
As always, the quality of the blade was always a factor, and often examples, which were assembled by cutlers who were more jewellers and artisans n precious metals, the focus was on the decoration. Corners were sometimes cut with cheaper blades, but even in such cases, if it was a matter of simple thrust rather than any sort of combat, the purpose was well met.

Norman McCormick · 20th February 2021, 02:39 PM

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

kronckew · 20th February 2021, 05:18 PM

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

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

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

Norman McCormick · 20th February 2021, 05:42 PM

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

kronckew · 20th February 2021, 06:07 PM

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

19th February 2021, 11:40 AM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Thank you Jim, for confirming my previous notes (#13) in that these swords followed end XVIII century characteristics. It is obvious that they were not developed for combat purposes, as they were not meant for that, but to complement a uniform regulation plan. Certainly if a superior officer had in mind to dismount from his horse in battle and participate in a fight, he would have brought his 'spare' combat sword to the field. On the other hand, and quoting Norman in that one little poke in the right place with one of these and it's all over, i would add that some of these small swords (espadins, floretes) could do more than just a little poke. They (pattern 1806) had to have per rule a double edged blade 820 mm. long and 26 mm. wide; and considering existing examples with good forging steel (Solingen and Toledo), they wouldn't engage in battles but could well serve for defence purposes, if needed. I have owned two of them and they sure looked fit for the job. By courtesy of José A. Faria e Silva, specialist in Peninsular War armament, the first page of his (bilingual) article. . Attached Images

20th February 2021, 02:39 PM	#4
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,618	Hi, I think these three photographs clearly show the hilt evolution of the smallsword type throughout the 18thC from a useful Pas-de-Ane to a vestige to none at all. The blade types have changed also from the trefoil to the single edge type. So my question is when is a smallsword not a smallsword? If there is no useful Pas-de-Ane does this then preclude the definition or is the lack of a trefoil blade a more important defining attribute or is it both. I would perhaps define one of these swords as an obvious smallsword, one as a smallsword hilted spadroon type or maybe not as the hilt has no useable Pas-de-Ane, the 1796 N.C.O. sword is to me obviously not a smallsword but has smallsword heritage in its makeup. Just some thoughts. Regards, Norman. Attached Images

20th February 2021, 05:18 PM	#5
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	The 1796 Infantry Officer's sword and the 5 ball hilted swords are 'spadroons' - designed to bot cut and thrust, they are not as good as swords designed specifically for one or the other, but are adequate for both. The infantry one's hilt was emulating the smallswords of the time. It was not universally liked. The leg side portion of the guard plate folded on some to hang better, but the mechanism frequently failed to lock, many were brazed up by their owner's armourer. The spadroon also comes in 'hanger' size without the 5 balls...The Naval officers liked these for actual combat aboard ship... Warrant Officers usually had black hilts, commissioned officers usually had white. Upper: UK Infantry 1796 spadroon Middle: 1803 American 5 ball Spadroon Lower: UK Spadroon hanger. Attached Images Last edited by kronckew; 20th February 2021 at 05:46 PM.

20th February 2021, 05:42 PM	#6
Norman McCormick Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 1,618	Hi Wayne, The sword with the silk has a cut and thrust blade but a smallsword type hilt without a working Pas-de Ane. The 1796 N.C.O. sword is a plain version of the officers 1796 albeit with a substantial blade unlike most of the officer versions. One of the swords I show can more easily be defined as a smallsword. and one as a spadroon type, according to the definition that a spadroon has a cut and thrust blade, but the other one has elements of both albeit the useful smallsword part i.e. the Pas-de Ane is not workable therefore does this not negate using a smallsword reference to this type of hilt, maybe maybe not? My Regards, Norman. Attached Images

19th February 2021, 02:11 AM	#1
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,284	These military officers swords were designed 'after' the styling of the civilian smallsword in general at the end of the 18th century,and carrying forth the traditional styling as favored by the gentry and high station men who used them. While the popularity of the small sword which endured through the 18th century had effectively ended, the nature of military conservativism lent to their keeping these designs for dress type swords. These were clearly not designed for the kind of use employed with the small sword, though the blade was light, the hilt was not structured for any sort of 'fast' sword play. They were certainly not intended for combat, and if I recall the British heavy cavalry officers sword (M1796) of this 'type' was taken to the Peninsula by many officers, who absolutely hated them. Still for formal occasions, levees and parade, these stylish swords served well. The observation by Mark on possible influence from French styling is quite possible, if not likely in some degree. French edged weapon styles carried heavy sway toward designs of a number of countries, and while not necessarily 'copied' the influenced elements were often present even if subtly. The one occasion can think of that was converse was with the British officers spadroon of c. 1780s which had a neoclassic hilt with five ball motiif. This design was indeed copied in degree by French hilt makers, who called the design l'Anglaise (the English). As for going to sea, there is nothing that would preclude any officer from taking these as their favored weapon on any voyage. Choice of weapons were an officers perogative. It is great to see these Portuguese examples of these swords, as most resources I have access to include these versions, which I agree with Mark, are outstanding.

20th February 2021, 06:07 PM	#7
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,224	True, just thought some illustrations of the more 'standard' swords mentioned would help. The 5-ball UK spadroons would have had a pommel more similar to my hanger at the bottom. The vestigal 'pas' was dropped on the Official UK 1796 Officers sword, tho I'd bet a lot of officers still wanted their own variations for a while. the 'pas' does help align the edge better for a cut, but not strictly needed for a thrust - which is why I assume they eventually morphed out of existance.