Matt talks about spadroons. Me: He can't keep getting away with this!

To my mind, the shape of the handle also implies who ever ordered the sword expected to use it in combat, not just on parade.

I think a few things need to be added about both the 1786 comparison and also the 1796 shells - Asking the question, is the 1796 better than what came before it is a lot more complex, because of the lack of hilt pattern you mentioned. So whilst I agree with the direct comparisons of the examples you're holding, we know that there were 1786 regulation spadroons with the double shell guard. We also know that double shell guards were the norm on spadroons for most of their history, well before stirrup types became popular. The issue of the 1786 and some non-regulation similar spadroons is the hilt was left to the individual or more commonly the unit they belonged to. Stirrup or d-guard spadroons only had a very short period of popularity, with shells being the norm either side of them. Really I think this was likely a fashion trend, following the hussar fashion, and/or ease of wear and convenience of carry. So not an evolutionary step, but a small fashion blip in the history. So the 1796 didn't improve on the 1786, it just standardised with the best versions of the guard in use at the time, a return to a sensible guard for a sword using lots of thrusts. I also don't like the claim that the 1796 adopted a smallsword guard, which mostly comes from that assumption that double shell spadroon hilts were a new thing in 1796. Spadroons/sheering swords were using double shells from their earliest days in the 17thc, and appear to have drawn them from the walloon/mortuary and similar military swords of that period, and so evolved in parallel with the smallsword. The double shells simply being a simple and effective method adopted by many swords of the period, such as spadroons, small swords, hangers, cutlass. As for the grip. I quite agree that the 1796 often does have a poorly shaped grip for its intended job. But once again it's hard to say quite how it compares to the 1786, as they varied immensely. They can be square, round, oval, they can have back straps etc. But overall I would say the 1786 did typically have better grips.

We need a weekly "SpadrooNews" video to keep us updated on the rapid advances in spadroon research.

I was under the impression that the problem with spadrooms was that they were too light for a sword of that length. So they feel good in your hand but the blades are too light to cut with any authority and too thin and flexible to stab well.

Yay, Star Wars finally combines with Game of Thrones. It's a light Sabre, but its designed to stick 'em with the pointy end.

The earlier style hilt is more attractive for certain. Wasn't it also used on some hangers?

"There's been a lot of negative things said about this model of sword. in fact to be fair there were a lot of negative things said in period, but we have added to those in modern times and said negative things about them as well." Lol

Matt, your description of how you'd have made the 1796 Inf Ofc Sword / Spadroon better is a pretty good description of the Spanish 1728 and 1796 cavalry swords / Bilbos.

odd question for you, Matt-- did people ever counterfeit swords by etching a reputable maker's name on a shoddy piece of craftsmanship?

Aah the natural progression Youth: Sabres Adulthood: Tulwars Old Age: Spadroons

I'm just going to try to work "spadroon " into my daily vocabulary . As for the 1786, I wonder if a family heirloom sword of American Independence War service had its blade replaced in Napoleonic war?

Met Euston putting out another quality video!

Love the random(or not so random?) zooms Matt, always surprising and fun

Retaining the earlier 'knucklebow only' type of design makes a lot of sense for naval officers. Having only a thumb ring makes the sword hang much flatter, too. There are a lot of spaces, nooks and crannies, and ropes where you could get yourself hooked on a ship with a double Shell guard...

I can’t wait for Matt’s new all spadroon channel. It’s the best sword so why cover anything else?

Confirmed. Spadroons are Lightsabers.

Spuds, bah! Give me that calvary Sabre you showed a few weeks ago. Now that's a sword!

Matt, I have an idea for a video that I think you might be interested in. How about a video on when g why brass becomes common for hilts? I have an old rapier, cir 1994, from Windlass I think. It's actually a fairly decent blade, but has a brass hilt. I've seen steel & gold gilt hilts on historic rapiers, but seen no brass in my looking. There certainly are brass hilts on many later sabers.... But when & why did brass become common? We all know it's softer & weaker than steel or bronze, but it is more resistant to corrosion than steel. But certainly ounce for ounce it is not as protective as steel, so why use it? In naval use it makes some sense due to corrosion resistance, but what was the reason for land based military?

i appreciate your effort in being objective despite the fact that you obviously have your own predispositions.Love your stuff. you keep my military history flame alive in a world where i have often tried to suppress it as a distraction/non lucrative pursuit. Regardless thank you for reminding me my nerd interests can coexist with normal day to day life without being a weird partisan or being generally unpleasant to anyone unfortunate enough to be within ears reach. Stupid late night comment but is what it is cheers from Canada. I do have to say though in my opinion the spadroon is somewhat overthought in a historical aspect, and was meant to be a gentlemanly dueling sword with the capability to" hack" at unarmoured foes in the nightmare that an actual pitched melee would have been, and i feel its likely as simple as that. As youve said it coexsisted with the smallsword, which many would say is the epitome of the western/central European dueling sword, and the fact that they lived side by side for a time.and the spadroon is not particularily great at anything makes me think the spadroon is an answer to everything wrong with trying to train the average person in the art of the smallsword and its predecessors/scions especially the level of training required to use a smallsword effectively (not to mention how inefficient gentlemanly dueling skills would be in the reality of a melee) is realistically just not reasonable for your line officers, especially as the british empire began to allow lowborns into the officers ranks. Either way i think the spadroon is just the untrained swordsans gentlemanly blade in appearance with exceptions allowed for the nasty stuff. I know you kinda covered some of this in the vid i was just suprised some of this wasnt your go to, feel free to dismantle anything stated prior if you even read this, no hard feelings.

If only he had a spadroon, Hannibal could have taken Rome.

I feel the spadroon would be a more effective sword if it had a sidesword- style blade, which in some ways was the original spadroon.

I’ve always really appreciated the 1780. Partially maybe because of starpower since Horacio Hormblower wore a similar one, but also because I enjoy its minimalist elegant design. The rear quillon and straight sweep of the hand gaurd, as well as the rest of its aesthetic qualities. One functional thing of its design though is that I would think that it would be more comfortable to wear in the scabberd. Especially for navel officers. The one flat side and the gently curved other side would prevent snagging on ropes and rigging and such.

From watching your videos, I get the impression that the spardoon is a direct result of the decline of the sword's relevance in battle in the age of gunpowder - it's a bit of a sucky sword in general because swords mattered much less, and the notion of having a lighter, less cumbersome, quicker and more nimble sword made more sense for that reason.

No way that could be a "T" rather than "I" on the mark? I think Thomas Gill was active in the 1780's.

To me this "resurgence" seems to boil down to this: Spadroons were okay, compared to many other swords types of the time, which were also pretty bad. Just because they shared certain bad ideas (overly light design, fragile hilts) with many other sword types of the time doesn't excuse any of it - it just means that effective combat swords probably weren't considered important to many. Regarding the whole "thrusting sword" thing, I thought you said in a previous video that they often lacked the stiffness to be effective with the point?

Could the “1786” sword be an older hilt with a replacement blade made later? I assume the maker’s name is only on the blade, and not the hilt?

Thanks............. now i cant get " Spadroon" out of my head..............

Matt, the focus of the composition rarely dead center. You're aiming your camera like a gun.

Fascinating video

France has a thicker triangular Smallsword blade on a Sabre hilt. Think it was named Preval Fantasie. Apparently not that common.

"Neither flesh nor foul nor good red herring."

Spadroons, the original "light" saber.

I'd rather just have a basket-hilted broad/backsword or a jian or even a katana over spadroons. Imagine that, a 18th or 19th century officer with a regulation looking katana. Glorious! I think American Civil War swords are an improvement over our Revolutionary War ones. Unless I was cav in WW1, I'd never use an estoc either. I do think by the late 19th century they'd perfected sabers.

This is a spadroon channel now

How does that sabre-hilted broadsword you showed off a little while back handle compared to a spadroon and sabre?

Did Runkel ever make the 1796 heavy cavalry dress sword using the single edged blade from the 1796 Infantry spadroon? I have seen many examples with a double edged blade, but have recently seen a Runkel 1796 Heavy Cavalry Dress sword with the single edged blade and wondering if it is a frankenword or real.

I now it's unlikely, but I hope someone tries that design of hilt out for you. I'd like to see how it works. Also: 900 g= 32 oz., 400 g= 14 oz., 600 g= 21 oz. and 700 g= 25 oz.

Matt, did the Germans use that style of sword, or very similar before or during the American revolution? I have one with a plain hilt, brass cast wire grip, and a backsword blade. It does have some surviving gilt on the hilt, but no adornment, and one 1/4 inch fuller 3/4 down the back of the blade against the back flat edge.

You have regularly noted the uneven quality of some of the swords that were manufactured. But what of government purchased versions for sergeants for instance. Or did they not use them?

If brass is heavier and weaker than steel, why did they used it so much in sword's guards? It is much more cheaper or malleable to work with? I don't know much about metallurgy, if someone know this one I will be grateful for an answer.

What's a better dexterity build, duel-wielded spadroons or a spontoon?

I have a serious but noob question: Why can't he apply some polish or something to make the sword look shiny and new again? Or can he but doesn't want to because he likes the old look?

Does it specifically say "Gill's Warranted" or does it say something like J. Gill? If Just Gill's Warranted then it would seem to me to be more likely by Thomas Gill, at various addresses from 1772-1801. John Gill was active 1803-17, so if the sword was made by him, I would think it would fall on the early end of that time frame and naval use would seem more likely. If it truly is a later example of this hilt style as you suggest, then perhaps it was for a militia officer (not sure if they had to follow the regs) or even the American market (less likely, IMO) since they continued to use these older styles further into the 19th century than did the British.

Would one need a better grip for indexing if its only or mostly meant for thrusting?

I think this spadroon bashing in comments need to stop! They are perfectly good swords, I mean they are clearly not made for cutting and their thrusting capacity has much to be desired for but otherwise, they are great! Some examples anyways.

what about the ''Wallon sword'' used by cavalry ? Was it a great design ?

On the subject of "anomalies" like your 1786 pattern that was seemingly made in the late Napoleonic, how much leeway did officers have to carry older models of sword? I"m sure plenty of officers preferred certain patterns, and if you were a flag officer in the Napoleonic Wars and loved your old 1786 pattern that you carried as a young lieutenant, no one was going to tell you no. So when the old sword finally was worn down from use or broke somehow, why get a new pattern blade that you are not familiar with when instead you can just have a brand new 1786 pattern blade mounted on your old hilt?

Kind of creepy zoom in on you head when you say "headlines".

Had I been around at the time, I would have fitted the 1796 blade on a sabre hilt. I had black fencer build me a custom pair of spadroons with sabre hilts and they handle like I feel the best infantry sabres handle.

For someone who appeared to dismiss the spadroon, you can't seem to get enough of them lately. ;>) Do you have relatively large hands? Is that why you seem to be able to get more of your hand to sit properly on the older sword which seems to have a slightly longer grip? I do and have noted that some older swords just seem too small because of that but then I don't know how physically large their original owners were. I am assuming that making a bespoke sword would include taking measurements of the prospective owner to insure that. True?

Matt, just design a perfected spadroon with a pierced steel half bowl guard, sabre style grip, and an effective cut and thrust single edged blade and market it. It is what they should have done in the first place. Hard to believe how much the design was influenced by aesthetics at a time when officers lived and died by the sword. Didn't George Silver propose just that kind of sword?

Hey Matt, can you recommend anybody who does a good reproduction of swords from this era?

Non regulation cavalry swords please

The blade of the fop

Some are good, some are bad, I have an 1796 that sags under its own weight & a 1796 that is quite rigid. Both are British.

The 1786, reminds me of a five ball naval sword. I’d like to buy your 1786, if you every want to sell. I have no idea as to what it would cost me but I’m into Naval Swords.

If you change the design to your liking, it becomes similar to a walloon hilted sword, doesn't it?

Matt, does the edge alingment really interfers or is that important for a trustcentric sword like the spadroon or the smallsword??

Eh, despite the best efforts of Mett Euston personally I still think the 1796 spadroon was a pretty shoddy attempt at military sword. Matt mentioned in the video how fragile the antiques are and if you compare them to the "épée du soldat" used by the army of Louis XIV or the swords carried in the Great Northern War by the army of Karl XII you will notice that the continental swords tend to have hilts cast out of one piece of brass with a thicker guard and either finger or thumb rings. Also, I have always thought that it was rather telling that the 1796 spadroon was only an official regulation sword for 7 years as opposed to the 1796 light cavalry saber which was in service for 25 years in Britain and about 106 years in Prussia/Germany. The short service life seems even less coincidental when you consider that from 1796-1803 the British Army did pretty much nothing, Napoleon was always in either Italy or Egypt and the war with America wouldn't flare up again until 1812, where as from 1803-1805 when the new infantry saber came in Britain was convinced that Napoleon was about to launch full scale invasion.

so 3 knucklebows and you have a basket hilt spadroon

How did it happen that very protective guards of cup- and shell-hilted rapiers of the 17-th century basically devolved into a guard as rudimentary as of the pattern 1786 spadroon? :^)

ok, so maybe the junkier swords were just cheaper, and not well thought out,, because anyone who's particularly interested in a nice sword is going to go and buy their personal favorite, which we can assume was available. So, mostly, the only people with the less than desirable swords were people who weren't planning to actually fight with them for life. ,,,, But, having said that,,, perhaps the leadership also would have preferred that people who were not good swordsmen didn't HAVE great fighting swords, for a few reasons. First, you don't want someone who is a terrible swordsman to go and get themselves into a swordfight where they will die, because now you lost a troop or officer over the excitement of holding a capable tool,,, and second, you don't want to make very good weapons, and then hand them to the enemy (when your terrible swordsman is excited about how good is their sword, so they go and confidently enter a swordfight instead of backing up to go get a pistol, and is killed where the enemy can take their very good weapon,,,,) because if the enemy has better swords (or guns or any weapon), they will kill your guys even if they aren't very good..... So basically, the militaries would have wanted to or been willing to sacrifice some amount of individual effectiveness because they were relying on greater organization and strategy of overwhelming force, and would have wanted to make sure that pirates, criminals, or other militants who got ahold of a sword would be able to be stopped by a recruit who's training focused more on following orders than close-combat prowess. ,,,,, however,,, when fighting with grander strategies of overwhelming force, the sword would still be essential, it's just that you don't duel with it, it's a tool,.. there's plenty of time for a relatively poor swordsman to make the sword work if the strategy is going to work out,,, and when it doesn't work, it wasn't the sword that cost the battle.

Now I know the real secret. You just like to say the word SPADROON!

So did the British army go back to spadroons with the adoption of the 1895/1897 infantry officer's sword?

Perfect

Aesthetics is a funny thing. I much prefer the latter model.

Who are you and what have you done to Matt? The Spadroon army has taken Matt, REVOLT, WHIP YOUR SABERS OUT AND WE SHALL FREE MATT

1796 is the better looking one, imo - but a spadroon is not one of my favoured styles of sword.

I dont get what the idea is with hating spadroons ,just asking

So why did rapiers go out of fashion when they were better swords than both spadroons and small swords?

530 views, 53 thumbs up, 0 thumbs down.

You have now written and spoken more against and in favour of the spadroon than the weaponsmiths themselves.

Noice

I made a comment some time back of the possibility of someone thrusting through the massive "holes" in the siderings of your greatsword and was told by several commenters that this could never happen, and that I was obviously a nube and foo;ish. I guess this is because your 8 lb or so great sword is so nimble in the hand. I guess those 1796er's were as foolish as I. The dummies.

Spadroons, the new rapier...All about Penetration and context... 😂😂😂

No, please rehash everything that has gone before!!! There is no such thing as too much when it comes to Spadroons!!

Yikes! Spadroons! Run away! (just kidding)

1st

Love your videos, but the spud still sucks.