Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dmitry
Hello, gentlemen.
We might want to define the spadroon in 2 ways -
HILT - D-shaped with or without the beaded balls on the guard
or
BLADE - narrow, straight, with a cutting edge
Which way would you like to go - blade or hilt?
|
Hi Dmitry,
Welcome aboard!!!!! I'm really glad to have you with us!!!
Good points on the definition of the term 'spadroon' , and it is so true that terminology is often the bane of typologists with the classification of weapons. With that, I'd like to add some of my thoughts to date that the readership might find interesting.
In the study of ethnographic weapons, as an example, the swords of India carry the conundrum of the terms tulwar vs. shamshir. Is a sword with a tulwar style Indo-Persian hilt (with disc pommel) mounted with a Persian blade a shamshir, by the blade?, or tulwar ?( by definition an Indian word for 'sword', but by application construed as the familiar Indian sabre).
I have seen Persian shamshirs, which of course found great favor in Mughal courts, classified among Indian weapons as tulwars.
While on the subject of shamshirs, the topic of terminology brings up the very exotic term 'scimitar', which in my opinion is more of a linguistic term used in romanticized literature to describe curved Eastern sabres. The word itself is generally held to have been a transliterated version of the word 'shamshir' arrived at through a 'perfect storm' of translations in several interlinguistic exchanges.
Personally, I am seriously wondering if the term 'spadroon' was simply a fashionable allusion to the described move in Italian fencing, and applied by those hoping to suggest cut and thrust associations recalling those of the smallsword. It seems clear that the intent was to add a certain 'elegance' of station to these military swords for infantry officers in a time when the neoclassic theme was rapidly becoming popular.
Until the introduction of the infantry officers sword was introduced in 1786, I have understood that the polearm known as the 'spontoon' was symbolic of that rank, though in the Revolutionary War proved patently absurd in the styles of combat that became known in actions there.
Perhaps the 'oon' suffix added to the fashionable 'espadon' terms from the Italian term? although admittedly simplistic, might explain what was probably a colloquial application initially.
Returning to the neoclassic associations described in these times and these swords, the British M1796 was also a blade of this type, with a hilt clearly recalling the gentlemans smallsword, with shellguards and a classical pommel. It is unclear whether these swords following the seemingly soundly classified 'spadroons' of the M1786, now with the type having moved into naval swords and across the continent, were also termed 'spadroons'.
It would seem that the term was applied to them occasionally, but not nearly with the consistancy and conviction well established with the five ball hilt form.
In France, the examples with numeric ball motif were simply termed with reference to 'in English style', and I do not believe the examples that began use in the Federal period in the U.S. were referred to as 'spadroons'. The British naval examples I think did receive the appellation in degree, but not universally, and again, recalling the original infantry use.
It seems that by blade definition, these would simply be 'backswords'...but then there is yet another quite profoundly debated issue over the term 'broadsword' and 'backsword'....as in those times in certain instances, the broadsword term was applied to single edge swords. Perhaps this might have brought the detour, at least at that time, to spadroon rather than having this new type sword fall into that fray?
All of these thoughts are presented simply as open observations that may or may not be considered possible explanations for this intriguing term for these swords.
All the best,
Jim