Why you are wrong about Spadroons
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 06. 2024
- Spadroons are a badly misunderstood weapon. It's popular to hate on them today, but why? Most criticism centres around five keys topics that people believe are weaknsses of the spadroon. Here we'll take a look at those five reasons.
- Sport
Ive watched so many scholagladitoria videos all i kept hearing was "context" when he was disscusing time periods and "edge geometry" when he was discussing cutting and thrusting.
Everybody's favourite "c" word
@@Matt_PunchEnthusiast_Morris and then the matter of penetration always comes up.
@Nick Aschenbecker I can't help but smile every time I read penetration 😂
makin a lot of assumptions for someone within spadrooning distance there bucko
TFW you get spadrooned by your own spadroon
This is a quality video. I am a rapier guy, but you made me respect spadroons more!
Great to hear. I was a rapier guy long before I ever got in to spadroons. I still regularly teach Capo Ferro and love the style and weapons.
I like the rapier but its too long to carry practically I feel also too flexable. Enter the small sword. But, I feel to week to guard against heaver swords. The saber and cutlass are excellent attack and defense weapons but lacks thrusting abilty. Enter the spadroon.
These videos have made me a fan of the spadroon, though my heart still belongs to the swept Hilt Rapier, being able to finger the guard just feels right for some reason
Excellent! I have long been a rapier instructor also, long before I was ever interested in spadroons, and so I am a big fan of the finger wrapped over the quillon too, but it is my experience that with shorter blades and less overall weight, they aren't needed. spadroons can weigh half as much as rapiers in many cases.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing i get it, however when I'm able to finger the guard on any sword my thrusts feel more precise and Powerful, even with a parrying dagger ive noted the effect. It also feels like I'm less likely to sprain my wrist if I come up against sudden solid resistance.
There's a good chance it's just my personal magic feather when it comes to thrust dominant fighting styles and perhaps I just need more time practicing with grips that do not have the quillian's. Or my technique is shite which is quite possible given lack of formal instruction.
Yeh I get ya, it is a very strong grip, but I'd experiment more with spadroon type weapons and their grips. With a handshake grip they can be really comfortable and precise.
Bravo good sir, bravo.. I've learned more about the Spadroon design and how it evolved from the shearing to the back-sword designs into my great grandfathers model of 1840 US N.C.O. sword than I could have ever hoped for. I find the weight and feel of his sword to be very agile and nibble in the tip movement and yet still feels as if it would be a good cutter by flicking the wrist.
THE RETURN OF SADROON MAN
Good video! Queen Elizabeth famously banned any swords longer than a yard from court. People were literally tripping over them. Calling these "too short" is whig history at its finest. "Too short" is an artillery/fascine sword or briquet saber with a blade of 2 feet or less. Brass alloy is also equal in tensile strength to mild steel. It's mathematical fact and I've seen the ASTM data. As for cutting, any military issue sword improperly sharpened and/or kept in an unlined iron scabbard is going to have edge issues.
I'm a sucker for the walloon, and the spadroon is so similar to it, so I can't help but love the spadroon as well! Thank you for making this!
MY antique spadroon weighs just over 900 g at a length of 33 inches (842 mm) ,
I think it is a Victorian age repro , but only has a shallow fuller and a steel guard.
edit : it is also double edged
Post some photos and info to the Spadrooners FB page and we will take a look.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Thanks I shall do.
I love a good underdog story. Something weird going on with your mic though... Still enjoyed the video, thanks!
i for one, dont dislike spadroons.
never handled one or used a replica in hema,
but they just look so cool.
and its a gentlemans weapon. was in military context for 50+ years. so of course as a gentleman myself i love the spadroon.
The spadroons military service extends from the late 17th in to the early 19th century, so it is quite some service. Longer in some parts. Of course they were famously used by gentlemen, but they were also issued to NCO's, and for many years to all ranks early on. They certainly have a fascinating history.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing i should have watched the video til end before posting.
Spadroons are love, Spadroons are live.
life
I am learning British sabre now but definitely interested in spadroon, what are the best sources to start with in your opinion?
People shouldn't necessarily judge by cutting power alone. Something nimble and precise like a rapier spadoon or small sword does micro cuts and eventually you can win the battle by having them bleed to death or just sustain enough damage that they can't go on by cutting tendons and such. You can pull this off with a sword or a knife. As opposed to one giant massive sweeping blow from a Falchion. It's more of a cleaving ability versus weight ratio.
Great video!
I appreciate all the points in this video but in general I don't like the argument "it was used for a long time so it must be good". I think it would be more accurate to say "it was used for a long time so it must've been good _enough for its purpose_ that no one bothered to change it" and how often something's used determines what "good enough" means. So you'd have a hard time arguing that the Lee-Enfield wasn't fit for purpose but it *is* plausible that a pattern of infantry officer's sword could be rubbish given how little difference they really make to the overall effectiveness of the army.
That is far from the only argument. Put a long service live does say a lot about a weapon. It doesn't mean it is wonderful, but when so many people would today claim it is dreadful, it is one in severla peices of evidence that points to the contrary. Often 'good enough' means a weapon is good. Doesn't neccessarily mean it is amazing.
But there were many aspects to this video. A large part is that spadroons blades are not especially unique. They are comparative to a range of backswords and sabres that people automatically think are wonderful.
Another apsect of this video is the evidence of masters and experienced swordsmen who used spadroons in anger, McBane in particular. And William Hope who was a widely respected master.
The long life of the spadroon is only one single element to this video, there are many more.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Of course. I agree with the overall point of the video; this is just a particular type of argument I don't like or at least I feel is misapplied sometimes.
It is evidence in support of an argument rather than an absolute statement. I wouldn't say long service means a weapon was certainly excellent. But it is evidence in support of its usefulness and success. When combined with other aspects and arguments it is valuable. Like the fact noted swordsmen Donald Mcbane loved them and used them to defend his life for example. The spadroon today is mostly judged negatively today because of short sightedness. Looking at a few opinions in a narrow time period. The long service argument is one among a many that prove that to be an unfair and inaccurate assesment.
Ma Deuce is still in regular service with the US military, while the Garand and M14 aren't
You don't see any serious nation gearing themselves up with MP40s and STG44s any more, but you do see them using napalm and white phosphorous because they're excellent weapons, if illegal to use
Same thing with the Spadroon, it's good enough to use on horseback and on foot if necessary, can and did hold up to its contemporaries, and was used in wars all over the globe for over 200 years
It was good enough, cheap enough and easy enough to make, and generally worked as an all-round decent blade
If it was crap, then top tier militaries would have abandoned it very quickly
Like I said in my own comment, I love the Sharpe rifle, it's a beautiful firearm, but it's simply outclassed by better weapons, there's a reason it's not being used in Ukraine or Ethiopia, and that's because AK and M4 variants are simply better, cheaper, and more common, and have been in service and improved upon for decades now while the Sharpe may have been good in its day, but ultimately wasn't able to hold up against more modern weapons like the spadroon was in its time
What’s a good modern production spadroon?
*for cutting
There isn't one sadly. No companies make anything close to what the originals are like. The closest would be the CS five ball spadroon. Its better than others out there, but still not good. I use originals for cutting, they're cheaper than good repros and far better.
Academy of Historical Fencing any dealer you can recommend? Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Auctions and militaria fairs are where you will get the best prices. If you want to go to a dealer though, try Easton Antiques, or Great Scott Antiques. Or check out Antiques Atlas where individuals post items.
As for the American M1840 NCO sword, I recall some comments about it handling like a bar instead of a sword, but did it cut & thrust well?
It does handle a little oddly compared to most spadroons or sabres in fact. Because it has little profile or distal taper, and so yes feels a little cumbersome. BUT, still mcuh more agile than almost all other swords of its day. It thrusts just fine, fiairly rigid. As for its cut, well because its quite a thick yet narrow in profile blade, the edge geometry isn't great for cutting. It is of course light in the tip as spadroons generally are. So it won't cut especially hard.
Have you ever got to handle the US Civil War M1840 NCO sword? Thanks for thye share!!
Yay! Finally a video about antique weapons.
Also, pls fix audio: the sound is a bit crackly and distorted.
Thank you sir
Unrelated question: I'm looking to buy Superior Fencing Kit. What Kit would you recommend? The core difference is the jacket obviously.
My favourites are all the lighter jackets they sell. The Angelo, Thermovent and Colonel.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing ty bro
This is nothing but spadroon propaganda......where do I sign up?
Join us at Spadrooners on FB.
You have certainly converted me to the spadroon along with Heiko from the Highland Broadsword academy.
Have you tested windlass 1840 nco or universal swords 1796? How do they stack up as replicas, are there better ones on the budget market?
Windlass 1840 no, Universal 1796 yes. The Universal is awful. It looks pretty good but the blade is atrocious, way overweight and signicvantly it carries so much weight in the tip, because they used the wrong blade profile and lack enough distal taper. It can't be called a spadroon due to its handling. Although I haven't handled the Windlass m1840 nco, I have heard from reviews that it is pretty good. It's an easier one to get right because the originals don't have a lot of distal taper and achieve their low weight merely through a narrow profile, which is far easier to get right. I haven't seen anyone make a good replica 1796 ios yet.
Off topic question : Why did not armies of the day use more protective hilts for all branches ( such as the scroll hilt) despite their undisputed and obvious advantage ?
They are harder to wear. Most of a swords life would be spent sheathed.
Cost, weight, inconvience in wear, storage and transport. Harder/slower to draw. Largely the obsession with lots of hand protection is a very modern phenomenon. Generally it would have been considered unnecessary for most. The spadroon hilt actually provides loads of hand protection. Heavy cavalry had more developed hilts because they were expecting to brawl/ Light cavalry not so much as they're expected to hit and run.
Why are cavalry sabers different from infantry Spadroons? My theory is because an infantry officer needs to be lighter on his foot so he can maneuver. Where as a many wanted a cavalry saber that was a heavier cutter. What is your explanation?
Agility is far more important for a weapon on foot. If you pitch an infantry vs a cavalry weapon on foot the infantry sword generally runs circles around it. A cavalryman also needs more reach for strking at targets on foot from high, with that extra reach comes weight. A cavalry sabre is also worn on horseback and so its extra length does not get in the way, when it will on foot.
In fact cavalry swords and spadroons were near identical at times. If you look at the mid 18th century, light dragoon swords were just like a spadroon in form, just about 2-3" longer and slightly heavier.
8:26 That basket-hilt sword appears to be more of a hassle than an aide. I mean, imagine, while grabbing it, instead of wrapping your fingers around the actual handle, your fingers go through the basket-mesh! xD
Very good video, but, i feel a problem.
I think you take the very best spadroon against the average sabres and broadsword, to be fair you have to compare top end to top end and average to average.
Thanks. In terms of the comparison, some things in the video like weights, sizes, guard types, those are comparing like for like. In terms of taking the best spadroon, far from it. The 1796 is often considered to be rubbish, and I took good (but not the best) examples of that regulation and showed how they can actually be good fighting weapons. The object isn't to prove that spadroons are better than other swords, but to disprove the now commonly held idea that they were rubbish.
So was carrying a heavy cavalry sword on foot regiments unheard off like the Richard Sharpe series?
Completely unheard of indeed. There are various accounts of infantry officers using light cavalry sabres, captured sabres and foreign examples too. I've never come across an account of the heavy cavalry undress sword used by an infantry officer. It's highly unlikely as it would be so far from regulation. Also a pain to wear. Sharpe also used the trooper version, and there is no way an officer would use that.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing I was just examining a antique 1796 heavy Cavalry troopers sword and was very surprised at how flexible the blade was
32 inches. That's approximately 2 feet 8 inches. Hard to believe people thought of that as short. Any longer, and the scabbard would drag along the ground, unless they're on horseback.
32" wasn't considered short in it's day, it is considered short by people today because they#re accustomed to longer blades from other periods and/or sport. I was merely pointing out that it wasn't considered short in its day.
In terms of wearing swords, you can wear much longer than 32" and not have it drag, it depends on how you hang the sword. hung at an angle you can wear vastly longer. It was common for rapiers with blades of 42-45" to be worn on the side for example. Spadroons were used with both vertical and angled belts.
Another thing to note is that fashion among weapons does exist, hell, the US army kept using the M14 long after it was found to be a shit gun, but got phased out within only a few decades while ol' Ma Deuce is still in regular service
For a sword to be in continuous use by multiple different nations in many many wars all around the world against a great vareity of enemies for around 200 years, it's clearly an excellent weapon
A weapon may be the fashion of the time, but if it's useless, it'll end up merely decorative after a short time while standard infantry and cavalry weapons improve on or abandon the weapon entirely
I'd love an M1 Garand don't get me wrong, I'd love a Sharpe rifle too, but under NO circumstances would I want to fight the Russian army in Ukraine with such a gun
Perhaps it is Scholagladiatoria bias? :)
I didn't even know about that thing. I just saw it a moment ago. Now I'm wrong. 😟
Good vid. If Matt Easton were dead ( presumably killed by a spadroon cut) he would be, well and truly, rolling over in his grave.
All this time I thought my sword was saber but now I know it’s spadroon
Soooo what you're saying is the Spadroon is the best sword ever made?
Nope, just one based on good principals, that has a range of good and bad examples.
No the best sword ever made is an early sidesword/rapier
@@brokenblackbird It's a joke about how the historical community has a tendency to overcorrect misconceptions
@@happiman9484 😅 I understand. It's all about context as Matt Easton would say. In the absence of context some people would say a katana is best. Jokes aside, an early cut & thrust rapier is pretty good. It can handle just about anything sword wise and to a certain extent other arms like spears and some lighter pole arms from the later 1500s. Of course it might not be as fast as a later smallsword but overall it seems ok. Possibly it may even hold up relatively well against a katana, but of course context is everything.
I have no opinion on spadroons so how can I be wrong?
i blame those fancy infantry officers who dose want fancy curved sabre so they spread the myth of Spadroons being bad swords
Hi Nick, in your old video: czcams.com/video/FGJSMfXUxfE/video.html you call the Spadroon appalling and rip it apart. What led to your change of heart?
Handling more and more antiques and seeing a broader spectrum of what they can be like, as well as getting more realistic training versions of those better examples where we could get a real feel for what they are like. My negative impression of them was entirely based on the worst examples of the 1796 infantry sword, which does indeed have some issues. I find about half of them are rubbish swords, but a great many are really good and overtime I have acquired some of the really good examples.
Where did you get that particular Spadroon?
All the swords in this video are antiques. The one in the thumbnail for example I got at a Bristol auction house.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing thank you for responding. I’m asking because I would love to have one.
Cap and ball revolvers?
Early revolvers before cased ammunition. You can call them percussion revolvers too. Meaning each of the revolvers chambers needs to be loaded seperately like a musket would be, and then have a percussion camp put on for each chamber. Slow to load and more prone to misfires than the metallic cartridges which followed.
Oh.
Well I've been bamboozled, believing fake news.
Which is good because I've always liked how spadroons look, so it's good that I now know not to get them from tailors. :^)
There is one thing I cannot understand and tailor's swords. You told the reasons why officers bought as a part of the set and these are valid reasons but. But the quality of your sword is a question of life and death negligence is unacceptable. So why these officers were careless in such an important question?
Often for the same reasons people make bad decisions today, even when safety or survival is so important. Why do people by cheap chinese made fencing masks which can cave in easily? Why do people buy cars with terrible crash safety scores (style, cost, or a lack of care or knowldge among others)? Why do people go hiking in dangerous remote areas with high quality and correct gear? There are so many factors here, and we see it in the purchasing of modern made swords today, whether sharps or training versions. For a start you need to know enough to know you might not be making the right decision. For example, if you don't know much about swords and swordsmanship and you went to a cutler/tailor who said they had the finest products and were a one stop shop, many men might be inclined to believe them. Look at the number of people today who go to a website and buy a sword that says "battle ready" without really understanding what that means (and it can vary), or whether they should trust the seller at all. These days it is easier than ever before to do some research on these things, and still people do not, or even realise they need to.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing thanks. I just remembered Petya Rostov from War and Peace. He came to the army, was on battle and only before his second and the last battle he asked a Cossack to sharpen his never before sharpened saber.
It is easy to forget that most swords were bought to be worn, carried, or brandished, but were seldom or never used in actual combat. At Waterloo, roughly 25,000 French soldiers were "killed or wounded" out of 72,000. That's about 35%. The winning side had a combined force of roughly 118,000, so each man on the winning side killed or wounded (on average) 0.21 Frenchmen. As most of the French casualties were caused by artillery and musket fire, the actual numbers killed or wounded by swords was very small. Given that an officer's job was to order his men forwards, or order them to hold the line, the officers did less of the actual fighting than his men. So, long story short, if you don't expect to have to use it in anger, why not buy one that meets the regs and looks good, but is fairly cheap?
@@mikefule330 I understand this logic but I consider this irresponsible behaviour. Like the logic of people who don't buckle their seat belts.
@@egm01egm I can't disagree with that in modern terms. However, in the Napoleonic period, the officer class was made of fashionable members of the landed classes. They probably went off to war full of ideas of looking good and coming back heroes, and never thought about the raw terror of hand to hand combat. Naive, stupid, misguided? I suspect it was a form of groupthink: "If Biffy, Alfie, and Archie all got their swords from a particular tailor, it must be alright for me." The fact that the first three had no experience of war seemed irrelevant, because they were gentlemen and knew a good tailor. A status thing rather than a practical one.
Not a fan of most of the later. Weapons because for any kind of thrust Centric weapon I need to be able to finger the guard
With a short enough blade that ability to finger the guard isn't neccessary. I find that boundary to be around the 35" mark, blade wise. But that is only roughly. Below that length you have the control without needing the rings. The smallsword after all, rarely had useable rings.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing I may not need the additional control, but I prefer the additional control especially with thrust Centric weapons. There is an argument to be made in slashing weapons, however if I'm playing the poking game I want that additional layer of control.
From a personal perspective thats fair. People have their tastes. Though clearly from a historical perspextive that isn't the way the vast majority of swordsmen felt. Once the blades started to get shorter,t he rings vanished in almost all cases. I'd suggest trying shorter/lighter blades. I regularly use very long rapiers, smallswords and spadroons, and the rings just aren't a factor.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing true, though I think in my case it's just a matter of my soul belonging to the swept Hilt Rapier. Most of my experience cuts off in the 1600s
The blade should rlly just be thicker. Or maybe pipe backed
Why? Remember that every single change you make to a sword compromises it in some way. They are intended to be agile swords that get to their target quicker than the opposition, just as many backswords do. And again, plenty of them are thick enough. It is a modern obbsession to always have to want a bigger blade and be obsessed with size. Historical swordsmen generally were not. They are thick as many sabres.
As for pipeback - they tried that. As I discussed in the video, it was a pipeback that replaced the spadroon, and it was despised, Bit to say that pipebacks can't work, but they aren't good for such a narrow blade.
Academy of Historical Fencing modern people want heavier blades because they don’t have to carry them around
Pipebacks often suffer that problem yes. They don't have to, depends how they are designed, but it is a common problem. And yes having to wear them is a factor. But its also just a macho thing. Same reason it took a long time for rapiers to get credit in tbe HEMA community. So many disregarded them as a childs toy, and didn't give them the respect of being brutal murderers that those who lived with them knew they were. But also swordsmen with heavier blades can often get taken apart by those with more agile ones.
I dont get how matt dislikes spadroons so much yet the 1788 heavy cav he raves about is a big spadroon...
he doesn't. He just dislikes bad spadroons (tailor's swords)
Clickbaity title. I’m never wrong.
Sorry to say you are this time.
Clickbait is - "a form of false advertisement which uses hyperlink text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and entice users to follow that link and read, view, or listen to the linked piece of online content, with a defining characteristic of being deceptive, typically sensationalized or misleading."
This title and content is factually correct and not misleading. The very opposite in fact, addressing widespread misconceptions and misformation.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing Why is the title accurate?
It is an aaccurate statement, with the answers/explanation contained within.
Academy of Historical Fencing me being wrong about the spadroon is accurate?
i dont actuially think this guy knows how these things work...
Based on what exactly? Considering I have spend many years collecting originals, studying and teaching the manuals in their use, and researching the history of their service. If you are going to give a driveby comment, at least have the courtesy to make a valid argument.
@@AcademyofHistoricalFencing hi, thank you for your reply, yes.. i dont want to be rude to you.. although my comment does sound very rude now that i look at it..... you spent time making your video giving your opinions.... but.. as a person who has years on a produced swords, arms, cutting tools ect is where im commenting from. (yes this youtube profile i use is just to spew filth, make malicious or racist comments, trolling and memes .. but i do genuinely have years of experience in this area.. just got to remember which profile im using when im watching more serious content....).. you have these years of experience in collecting, reenactment ect im sure .
even at the time these arms were made many of those making and buying them were not understanding the basic function of a sword. even during the nepolionic wars many french troops went to russia with dull blades having nobody to sharpen them while locally made russian swords were cutting frenchmen halfway through... the american civil war was the same .. troops in combat with blunt swords.. i have a blunt american sabre with heady use showing but its never sharpened MADNESS... this tells you that knowledge of swords function was not "commonly known" by this time in western europe.. production focusing on serviceability.. blade temper quality and product consistency. people were more play fencing by this point.. you could literally grasp a spadroon or sabre by the blade with your hand ad take it. in comparison i have less decorative european hunting hangers from the same period that are still razor sharp.. these were still used to kill the wounded beast or as a machete for cutting brush shooting hides.. the owner understood it must still work (hunting swords from 1900s are blunt nearly always)
it would be very hard to kill man with a spadroon. the weight is not the issue.. you could grasp it in two hands by the blade like a spear and force it in the victim may times maybe.......
the issue is due to the very design being defective.. it lacks correct blade and edge geometry.. handle to tip alignment.. grip shape.. incorrect blade taper stricture...to flexible.. blade flexing on impact. the blade to narrow.. the narrow blade also narrowing in taper.. the fuller weakening the tip...
these swords are truly horrid and totally a fashion item. if this stirs your curiosity..
take a spadroon.. put an edge on it.. buy a sheep or a young heifer and cut its head off (good times for a feast in the village) or a gutted goat or sheep through its body.. if your squeamish for live ones... the cutting should be smooth and effortless .. like cutting clay.. same with green wood cutting.. take fresh green 1 inch branches an test cut them at different angles...
i can cut a cows head clean off with a shashka.... i have seen tulwars cut a buffalo head smoothly... a spadroon with to cut a lambs leg..
with stabbing the spadroon fairs just as poorly.. take your spadroon and try single handed to thrust it through the back rest of an older chair.. or take a solid moulded plastic school chair and try to stab one handed through a the back .. people are soft but the wear clothing, webbing, packs, belts.. ... a chair is a good target to practice with .. a good stabber like a medieval sword will thrust deeply even into a plastic chair even with a dull edge.. with a razor honed blade even better.. the spadroon will knock it over or stick in shallowly .. the parent swords of spadroons have a different blade geometry.. they originate from functional swords... but they are nothing but decorations.. as were most swords by that time..
Okay so you know about making blades, that's fine and good, but you clearly show a lack of understanding as to why the spadroon is the way it is and why it is still so successful. This is exhibited clearly by your comparison to blades with massive cutting power. A sword does not need to cut limbs off to wound and kill. The spadroon emphasizes speed and dexterity above all else. It compromises some cutting power to do this. All sword designs compromise to achieve their goals. So no, not all cuts with a spadroon would kill, and against some thick garments you would have to choose the cuts more carefully, but this is inherently part of the design. The spadroon works on the principal of getting to the target first and fastest, not with the most power, with thrusts likely being used to deliver killing blows. To say spadroons are too flexible shows you have not handled many examples. There are some bad examples that are overay flexible, and yet a great many which are just as stiff as heavy sabres. I own examples at both ends of this spectrum, which is why I make it quite clear in the video that you should not be judging an entire family of swords by certain bad examples of them.
You talk about my experience in collecting and re-enactment, well again you haven't done your research. I am not a re-enactor. I am a historical fencer who has devoted decades to the research of these arts as martial arts. We do also regularly do test cutting with all sorts of swords, including spadroons. We pour research into the knowledge of their use and practice.
What you say about blunt swords further falls down with a lack of understanding as to how military swords were treated during the 18th and 19th century. They were not blunted until going to war or service. This was to make them safer as uniform items and parade, reduce maintenance and contiuous wear, as well as the militaristic culture of sharpeneing a sword to go to war and all that it meant to the soldiers. This is why a great many antiques today are blunt, not because they went to war blunt, but because they never went to war at all. There are a small number of accounts from the US civil war of blunt sword use, but this was not the norm in Europe. Additionally, people are always quick to assume the edge damage on an antique sword was from war. Yet there is no way to tell, and it is very likely that a great deal of edge damage on antiques was done was after their use, with people messing about with them in civilian life, this is well documented as to have happened.
The concept of sword use was just "play fencing" at this time is also nonsense. The practice of swordsmanship as a serious military discipline was widespread and highly developed. If you read manuals on swordsmanship of the 18th and 19th century you will see this, and accounts of practice at the time showed how popular it wa,s even among civilians. Gladitorial combat was also popular in Britain at this time, with such fine swordsman created as one killed over twenty French cavalrymen at Waterloo for example. His sword was neither blunt, nor his skill wanting. Skilled swordsmen who served and fought through the 18th century recommended the spadroon and used it successfully, to ignore that primary source information would be foolish. If you read "Swordsmen of the British Empire" you will find hundreds of first ahnd accounts that show the swords were neither blunt nor the swordsmen unskilled in most circumstances.
The spadroon is maligned todau because people do not understand what it was intended to be used for, how it was to achieve victory, and because there is a macho cult around massive cutting power, when at the time speed of a strike and the thrust were just as highly regarded. Lastly, about swords being "nothing but decorations," this is not at all true. Even into the 1860s, the sword was frequently prefered by British officers for its reliability in combat over the revolver, until cased ammunition arrived. Largely people think this way because many military swords gained a decorative features, and they cannot understand how a sword can be highly decorative and entirely functional at the same time. I discuss this topic in detail in my recent video "Can Swords be Fancy & Functional?".
@@manchagojohnsonmanchago6367 criticising a spadroon for not bisecting a carcass is like criticising a claw hammer for not being able to demolish a brick wall. Well duh, it's not what the tool is made for.
Swordsmen of the British Empire has become a cliché but I do recommend reading it to get a a wide range of first hand accounts of swords actually being used in combat during this period.
So much knowledge of swords during this period is coloured by our modern preconceptions of how swords should be used when almost none of us have ever used them in their intended context. Always defer to the first hand accounts. And a wide selection of accounts, not just a cherry picked few.