My pleasure Chris. I experienced a liitle fencing also, it seems several lifetimes ago, and with the sabre as well. We did use the mask and gear, but one learned quickly as those stiff blades really hurt on a good hit, one on the side of the mask would rattle your head pretty good! Not sure if that was supposed to happen, but it sure did.
I finally dragged out my trusty Robson (not an easy task finding it in this bookmobile) and found that these infantry swords were indeed not too well thought of. On p.107 Robson notes that the M1786 hilts were flimsy wigh minimal hand protection, despite its intent for a fighting weapon with potential for cut and thrust.
It noted that prior to 1786, the symbol of authority for infantry officers was the staff weapon known as the 'spontoon'. I wonder if the term for the sword introduced to replace this might have somehow inspired the term 'spadroon', which was apparantly already in the parlance of swordplay and the fashionable smallsword?
Robson notes further that the outbreak of war with France in 1793 and further displeasure with these hilts may have led to a new style hilt in 1796, which was similar to the smallsword with the double shell guard, and using the same style blade.
With your quotation from Morton concerning the complaints on these infantry swords, which at this point must have been the shellguard pattern 1796, Robson cites another;
"...nothing could be more useless or more ridiculous than the old infantry regulation sword, it was good for neither cut nor thrust and was a perfect encumbrance".
Gen. Cavalie Mercer, remininscing about Royal
Artillery at turn of the 18th century.
It remains unclear whether the spadroon term continued to be used referring to the subsequent pattern 1796. Robson does note that the five ball hilt did become popular with English naval officers c.1790, and that the French adopted the form for naval and dragoon officers c.1800 (described as a'la anglaise= in the English style). The U.S. adopted the pattern about 1812, and seems typically associated with 'Federal Period' eagleheads.
Nick Norman was a brilliant scholar, and his book is an amazing reference using actual art and portraiture to date hilt forms. I was truly surprised that there was no attention given to this curious feature, but given the monumental undertaking of this work I suppose it would have been extremely difficult to attend to such a detail. As I have mentioned, it would seem that the only arms scholar who seems to have considered this hilt feature a curiosity or anomaly was May.....until us
All very best regards,
Jim