[David Black Mastro]

Smallsword--the "perfect sword", and proven in military use.


Yes or No?

[Chad Arnow]

David,
I've moved your post here as it has to do with historical weaponry.

If you're looking to start a debate or get opinions on this subject, you may want to consider offering your own opinions or asking people to consider more points than just your one question. Trying to start a thread this way (with a short question and nothing else) is not always ideal.

[David Black Mastro]

[Chad Arnow]

David,
Thanks. That's a much better start to a thread. I'm looking forward to seeing responses and seeing how this thread develops.

Cheers!

[David Black Mastro]

[Patrick Kelly]

Well, I disagree utterly and completely to the very core of my corporeal being.

The whole idea that sword design and evolution is a linear development from point A to point B is false logic. This is exactly why arguments concerning the "best" sword never reach any kind of conclusion, there is no logic to the theory only supposition. Usually when a person has taken the position that an object is the "best" it is because they have an affinity for that object, ie. it's a personal and emotional issue of "my choice is the best".

As with any other type the smallsword was a specific design intended for a specific set of circumstances. It may have been one of the final forms the sword took before it was relegated to curio status but that is no indication of superiority. If we stopped making automobiles tomorrow would the Ford Focus be considered the ultimate automobile?

[Bill Grandy]

[J. Padgett]

I heartily agree with Patrick. Swords did not go through linear evolution, and the fact rapiers and smallswords came into vogue has much to do with the reduction in the use of plate armor due to firearms.

If the small sword was used in a time period in which full plate armor was prevelant it would have been nearly useless in a pitched battle. It can't be the ultimate sword if this is the case.

The smallsword may be a very formidable weapon in an unarmored duel, but didn't George Silver say, "There can be no perfect fight without both cut, and thrust?"

Regarding any sword design as the pinacle of it's function is folly.

As for using the smallsword extensively on the battlefield... I thought the saber was the premier sidearm of the officer in the post gunpowder age. Also if the rapier was found to be to delicate for the battlefield, and thus heavier cavalier versions were developed wouldn't the same be true of the smallsword?

[Daniel Parry]

Got to agree with Patrick above there.

Smallswords and the related development of duel combat versus military combat swords et al is a topic I may be tempted to write reams on. But in the end what Patrick says is completely true - a specific arm for a specific set of circumstances. We may get into an apples and pears circular argument here. Yes, the lighter smallswords are devilishly quick - put a short thrust under your opponent's arm in the blink of an eye - but defence ? against a slightly heavier blade - rely on your forte - absence of blade - very good footwork ? Almost all answers i think will end in the 'What if....' scenario.

Having said that I am very happy to sit back and enjoy all the responses that i feel will emerge from this topic. David, you may have opened Pandora's box with this thread!

Daniel

[Jason Hall]

...

[David Black Mastro]

Thanks for the input, guys.

It should go without saying that I agree with you. J. Padgett mentioned George Silver's maxim (which I also mentioned on the SFI thread), and I agree with that wholeheartedly. In my own experience in saber fencing, Filipino stick/sword work, and experiments with English singlestick, I have found that statement ("no fight perfect without both blow and thrust") to be all too true. And yet, John Oliver dismissed that notion--he seems to have something against cut-and-thrust swords (how strange that is, since his SFI profile mentions training in Iaido).

Mr. Oliver in particular made all kinds of ludicrous claims, like the one where he stresses that there are smallswords capable of parrying any other sword--this sounds dubious, to put it mildly. When he was championing the '08 saber, I quoted from Capo Ferro, where the great rapier master actually said that cuts are preferred on horseback. Oliver dismissed this as well, without offering any really thoughtful commentary on it.

It got to the point on that thread where the two men (Mr. Oliver and Mr. Donoho) started sounding like internet trolls--ie., just making ridiculous statements to fire other posters up.



I'm curious to hear more thoughts on all of this.

[Kirk Lee Spencer]

Seems like it was Oakeshott that wrote that the smallsword was the "perfection" (or some such) of the sword. In terms of history it might be the last important form before the demise of the functional sword when it diverged along functional lines into the beyonette (rifle as polearm) and the symbolic line as cerimonial military sabers. I agree that it was in the context of dueling that the smallsword was the last in a long line. But this would not be my on personal perfect sword because it was not made for the battlefield.

It is true that sword designs have changed to meet the changing ideas of perfection for specific functions related to battle tactics and armour development. So to even speak of the perfect sword we would have to narrow it down to specific periods of time and circumstances. That being said, I do believe that there is at least one trend in sword hilt design that does span most of the history of the sword. That is the desire to add more protection for the hand. In very simple terms it begins with the development of separate lower guards, then to long quillons, then the addition of rings to the guards and finally the bending of these rings with the quillons into baskethilts that were in essence gauntlets built into the hilt. So in the context of this trend (to protect the hand during combat) the Scottish baskethilt could be argued to be the perfect sword. But I may be giving in to my geneological bias on my mother's side.

ks

[Edward Hitchens]

I'm with Patrick and everyone else with the position that swords didn't "evolve." The common belief is that if something evolves, that means it improves. I don't think swords evolved in this sense. Firearms evolved. How? Because they got better (more accurate, more powerful, more lethal, more practical, even 'safer'). Swords changed with the times; they changed because military offensive and defensive tactics changed as did society. Would a Viking sword be inferior to a rapier because the latter was created eight centuries later? No, not really. They're different weapons which means that form, function, style, and usage will differ -- but not be better per se.

I hope I'm not too off-track of the original topic (school started today ). In this sense, the smallsword was around when society's norms during that time made it acceptable, even mandatory, in an unarmored duel between two civilians.

[J. Padgett]

Something I forgot to say in my previous post, but nearly always bring up when a discussion of one sword being superior to another comes up:

Weapon are basically tools, and tools are always designed with a specific job in mind. So saying a smallsword is superior to any other sword is like saying a hammer is superior to a screwdriver.

[Gordon Frye]

Interesting note about the Pattern 1908 Sword and the M1913 "Patton Sabre" style of sword: In George Patton's own words (which are on line somewhere, and I failed to find my link to in the few minutes I took before writing these lines) the use of the point in the sabre charge is quite specific and absolute, and it's really more like a lance than any sort of sword. He felt that the melee with the sword or sabre was a waste of time and of men, but that charging at full speed into the mass of the enemy with sabres at "Tierce Point" was the sole object for the Cavalry to consider. They should, as he claimed, charge, hit, continue on (since the chances of being hit in return by a parry-reposte are small while at speed) and then reform on the other side, to reprise their engagement.

His claim that the point is difficult to parry is probably valid, but the chances of a charge into a solid rank of enemy cavalry being able to push through at speed is a tad optimistic. At "As Foragers!" on both sides, perhaps, but not when either side is in proper Cavalry order for a charge, i.e. boot-top to boot-top.

Needless to say, this is an American Lieutenant talking through his hat here, but since the design of the M1913 is in many ways so close to that of the P-08, I think that the comparison is fairly valid, and may shed some light on its intended use.

(Personally I think George was nuts, that if you want a lance use a lance, if you want a sword or sabre for the melee, use one, but in the 20th Century, if you're going to do a charge, use auto-loading pistols! That's just my opinion. But in 1913 George didn't have any more combat experience than I do, so what the heck. In 1916 Pershing ordered the sabres put into storage, and the only charges made against Mexican forces were with pistols.)

Anyway, I thought I would throw some light on the "P08" controversy, just for amusement. Now, back to Small Swords...

Cheers!

Gordon

[Sam Barris]

Remember that thing I said in that other thread about how I thought that weapons, armor and tactics come into being and flourish at a specific point in historical space-time due to the alignment of countless historical, cultural and technological factors and variables that do not occur elsewhere, thereby making a particular sword or technique “perfect” only at that time, in that place and for those reasons? Let’s pretend that I said the same thing again, and that it was a brilliant observation.

[Jonathon Janusz]

[David Black Mastro]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Hmm. I remember American calavrymen being very impressed by Mexican lancers in the Mexican-American War. Afterwards they at least thought about making units of American lancers, though I can't remember whether or not they actually went through with the plan.

As for the idea of Smallsword being the perfect sword, that's just silly.

[Felix Wang]

"Evolution" works to fit an organism (or weapon) into a particular niche / set of conditions. This may make the organism more complex, it may make it simpler. The organism may become more specialized (usually) or possibly more versatile. None of these is necessarily "superior".

Evolution into a more complex form is well known. Evolution into a simpler form happens as well - parasites typically lose many of the organs that their ancestors had, because they don't need them any longer. The tapeworm is not "superior" because it has lost its own digestive organs, and relies on the digestive organs of its host. The human appendix is an atrohpic remnant that serves primarily to kill people - once it is gone, the person doesn't notice any difference (except a scar). In some other mammals, it does seem to aid digestion.

Specialization has obvious value; but under unstable and wildly variable conditions, a less specialized design may be preferable, as it is more versatile. The number of animal species in a tropical rain forest is huge, and the creatures are profoundly specialized; the environment is also relatively stable in terms of temperature, humidity, amount of sunlight, and so forth. The steppe environment experience severe changes in all of those factors - the number of species is relatively small, but they can cope with far more changes in temperature, humidity, etc. than any rain forest denizen.

The same applies to weapons. The obvious and huge change in the combative environment the diappearance of armour, in large part due to the development of the gun. Removing armour meant hand-to-hand weapons didn't have to cope with it. A light, fast thrusting weapon is fine against an unarmoured target, but far less effective against a moderately armoured one. In Renaissance Italy, armourers were quite capable of making fine, light shirts of mail which a man could comfortably wear under his street clothes - and would turn aside the thrust of a dagger or rapier (or smallsword). This gear didn't become commonplace - quite likely because of the pistol and other firearms which would penetrate such armour. It is interesting that the very first form of long bronze sword was indeed a "rapier", which was supplanted by various cut + thrust designs in the later Bronze Age (when, not coincidently, metal armour proliferated). One could make a reasonable argument that the small sword and the Patton saber are the most degenerate form of sword, weapons which could exist only when other weapons were far, far more important on the battlefield, and armour was long gone.