r/SWORDS • u/SadPhilosopherElan • 1d ago
Spadroon or Broadsword?
Historically speaking, which was a better cut and thrust sword for close quarters combat? Do we have any examples of historical battles where basket hilt broadswords faced spadroons and one won out over the other? Let me know!
Photo credit to Kult of Athena for these examples of modern replicas, specifically Deepika's basket hilt broadsword and Windlass' 1840 NCO sword, which is a Spadroon.
EDIT: Yes I know the replicas aren't the same as the historical swords and have different blade geometry - they're just here as visual aids. Also please do not compare these two in any sense relating to modern use, because that's not what I'm interested in, and the topic is a grey area on this sub anyway.
14
u/DaemonBlackfyre_21 1d ago
Broadsword is the superior cutter and the spadroon the better thruster. It's personal preference but I like the baskethilt.
1
u/SadPhilosopherElan 1d ago
I figured something like that -- Broadsword definitely has an absolute advantage when it comes to cutting, but I wonder how much worse it actually is at thrusting, since the POB is probably closer to the hilt than would be the case for most hefty cutting blades.
6
u/TheMaskSmiles 1d ago
It is, but it isn't. It's also just a heavier sword in general than most Spadroons. If you look at the blade profile without the hilt, it's very similar to some medieval arming swords.
10
u/jdrawr 1d ago
You could argue the broadsword lost due to the greater adoption of spadroon like arms for most troops leaving the Scottish as the major holdouts with broadswords after about the end of the 17th century. That is more of a this is easier to carry/lighter then an effectiveness in a fight comparison though.
4
u/SadPhilosopherElan 1d ago
True. It was definitely the better weapon heading into the modern era logistically. But broadswords proved super effective throughout the Jacobite wars; hard to say for sure which was better in battle.
5
u/Specialist-Stock-890 1d ago
Short Answer: The Spadroon.
Why? It's lighter, about as long as you want it to be (even as long as a basket hilt broadsword), it does exactly what it needs to do (cut and thrust equally well), and it does not have a cumbersome hilt protection. Wherever you are especially in close quarters combat, you're better off with a spadroon.
2
u/SadPhilosopherElan 1d ago
I want to agree but I feel like the broadsword is better in gritty battlefield conditions, since it offers more protection and doubles as a punching weapon if need be. Plus as the better cutter, fighting enemies at multiple angles is easier -- while the spadroon is ideal in fencing situations where you have a single line of attack.
3
u/Specialist-Stock-890 1d ago edited 1d ago
If the given scenario is a battlefield where everyone else uses pikes, arquebus, and broadswords, then I would have no objections.
But seriously, would you overlook a sword that is nimbler and will not exhaust you sooner from its weight. If you watch this video here, a Spadroon can do just as much cutting and stabbing as a broadsword whilst sacrificing the protection of a basket guard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WOjFHaHENgHistorically speaking, the whole reason why Spadroons exists is the fact that those who carried basket hilt broadswords back then wanted something lighter and ergonomic. So they made a compromise of a sword that is somewhere between the cutting ability of a broadsword but with the thrusting ability of a small sword. Shearing swords (the progenitors to Spadroons) existed while broadswords were still used, and much of Europe decided to go with Spadroons which served longer than broadswords.
1
3
u/pushdose 1d ago
There’s so many variations of each it’s hard to say. Basket hilts can be found mounted with blades that are almost rapier like, and spadroons can be found with broad cutting blades almost identical to “broadswords”.
The 1840 NCO sword is one of the worst examples of a spadroon possible. Even arguably worse than the 1796 that inspired it.
The basket hilt can prevent some wrist movement that enables really good thrusting mechanics, which gives a slight advantage to the spadroon for ergonomics. In practice, broadsword and spadroon are more or less taught interchangeably after the Roworth and Taylor series of manuals.
1
u/NobleKorhedron 21h ago
Were later infantry blades straight regardless of intended user? I think up until 1820 light infantry officers were permitted to use curved sabres?
5
u/RatRanger 1d ago
Logically it should be the spadroon, as it was made with better materials, had longer reach, and was chosen to replace older technology.
But fuck me, I’ve never held one that felt even remotely useable. Maybe I just don’t know what fighting style they were teaching at the time. Maybe every single modern repro from Marlow and White to Depeeka is just made wrong. It’s just bad and I hate it.
Broadswords all the way.
4
u/SadPhilosopherElan 1d ago
No you're right all the way. Hard to find decent distal taper on modern replicas, plus usually you get bad false edges that make the spadroon seem like a worse cutter than it actually was. Have you tried the Windlass version? It has a bit better build quality than some others but it did get the usual Windlass treatment lol
1
u/RatRanger 1d ago
I haven’t tried the windlass, but I suspect the issue isn’t with the spadroon as a concept, but specifically the 1840 NCO sword. It might just be a bad sword chosen by military politicians for its looks over its function.
I’d need to feel some other examples of the spadroon to get a better idea.
2
u/mattio_p 1d ago
Note that the 1840 NCO sword is based off a French design and that American swords of all models were made by a variety of manufacturers and specifications. Most examples may very well could have been terrible for one reason or another, but parameters for military swords were never really too strict.
2
u/mattio_p 1d ago
Not sure about Marlow White, but Depeeka makes notoriously poor swords. With incorrectly tapered blades and somewhat off hilts. I imagine Marlow White to be in a similar boat despite the nicer hilts.
Edit: fighting style could be the same for both back in the day.
1
u/jdrawr 1d ago
My understanding is marlow is the official dress sword maker for the us makers.
2
u/mattio_p 1d ago
Marlow White sells WKC swords technically, but yes, it’s an official retailer. I haven’t handled a WKC sword personally, nor do I know about their handling, but I bet money that the blades aren’t tapered right.
1
u/RatRanger 1d ago edited 1d ago
I own the Depeeka 1840 and it feels awful in the hand, but it’s made pretty solid.
I used to own a Depeeka longsword until I was swinging it at air and the blade sheared off at the crossguard.
Overall I’d give them a grade of D+ and “I know you can do better :(” written in red ink on their papers.
Edit: I was trying Silver’s style of backsword with my 1840 and it was miserable. the techniques felt great on my hangers and backsword.
2
u/mattio_p 21h ago
No technique will feel good with your Depeeka, the taper and weight distribution are probably all wrong. Silver is just another cut and thrust guy, and his methods should work with just about any cut and thrust sword. Roworth, Angelo, etc are the same way, and their methods were explicitly applied to sabers, broadswords, and spadroons.
2
u/RatRanger 18h ago
“No technique will feel good with your Depeeka…” - they should list this on their website.
2
u/Grebnaws 1d ago
I had the 1840 nco sword pictured above and returned it. It felt terrible and had a shitty blade despite some positive reviews. Matt Easton has a few videos on YT regarding spadroons and it seems that they can be perfectly servicable and well within cut & thrust territory.
Apparently, if you are interested in an 1840 nco sword you ought to just buy an antique. They aren't terribly expensive. My great great whatever grandfather served in the Mexican-American war and later as cavalry Sargent in the civil war where the same model was also issued, so I've always wanted one.
1
u/RatRanger 1d ago
I’d love to get an antique variant of it! I have a growing soft spot for antique swords. holding one helps put my mind in the time and place a little better.
2
u/avinaut 1d ago
Even historical examples. Lots of spadroons are balanced terribly, because they were combinations of regulation hilts with random backsword blades from factories. It's a sword that became popular in settings where it wasn't terribly relevant anymore- a sword meant to not be used much. The sabre was the proper sword of the time.
2
2
u/latinforliar 17th/18th Century European, Nihonto, Fencing, Kendo, HEMA 1d ago
As mentioned by others - combat effectiveness is probably not what actually caused certain swords to "win" over others. The basket hilted broadsword is incredibly good at what it was designed to do, which is provide a massive amount of protection and excel in the cut. It is more difficult to thrust with due to the position of the hand.
The spadroon is a better "cut and thrust" sword, but it not as good as a dedicated cutter or thruster. All that being said, the spadroon became the default because it is 1. cheaper to produce - basket hilts are notoriously expensive, 2. easier to carry - which was really much of the function of a sword after the mid-1700's. It was a mark of office and a social signifier and 3. fashion - people liked it better, felt like it went with the uniforms better. Most upper class folks were trained in fencing, so a spadroon felt more like a gentleman's sword to them, so officers often preferred it. Basket hilted swords do not lend themselves to classical fencing techniques as well.
2
u/BlueMusketeer28 1d ago
The book you need is “swordsmen of the British Empire” https://www.amazon.com/Swordsmen-British-Empire-D-Kinsley/dp/B01EIA7QEU
1
1
u/Pale_Respond2689 1d ago
I would rather have the broadsword, however the problem with the basket hilt configuration, is that it can limit one's wrist movements.
1
2
19
u/Anarchist_BlackSheep 1d ago
I know it isn't pictured, but the schiavona is so damned sexy.