![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,637
|
![]()
Hi Wayne,
The sword with the silk has a cut and thrust blade but a smallsword type hilt without a working Pas-de Ane. The 1796 N.C.O. sword is a plain version of the officers 1796 albeit with a substantial blade unlike most of the officer versions. One of the swords I show can more easily be defined as a smallsword. and one as a spadroon type, according to the definition that a spadroon has a cut and thrust blade, but the other one has elements of both albeit the useful smallsword part i.e. the Pas-de Ane is not workable therefore does this not negate using a smallsword reference to this type of hilt, maybe maybe not? My Regards, Norman. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Room 101, Glos. UK
Posts: 4,239
|
![]()
True, just thought some illustrations of the more 'standard' swords mentioned would help. The 5-ball UK spadroons would have had a pommel more similar to my hanger at the bottom. The vestigal 'pas' was dropped on the Official UK 1796 Officers sword, tho I'd bet a lot of officers still wanted their own variations for a while. the 'pas' does help align the edge better for a cut, but not strictly needed for a thrust - which is why I assume they eventually morphed out of existance.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NC, U.S.A.
Posts: 2,184
|
![]()
Thank you both for posting these great contributions to this thread. I particularly like the naval pattern spadroons, of which I haven't yet added to my maritime collection. I've always been drawn to them and I think I'll keep an eye open for one! I have seen a few 'balled hilts' that were naval as well, but I know it was a popular model with infantry.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|