Why Sabers dominated over Smallswords & Spadroons for Infantry Officers

Why sabres were better weapons for officers than smallswords and spadroons had been.
3 extra videos each month on Patreon, which hugely helps support this channel:
/ scholagladiatoria
Facebook & Twitter updates, info and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfightinglondon.com
Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easton.co.uk/
www.pinterest.co.uk/matt_east...
Easton Antique Arms:
www.antique-swords.co.uk/

[@pilgrim42]

I'm surprised that Matt didn't say it was because sabers were bigger, thicker, stiffer and had greater stamina and delivered more vigorous and satisfying penetration.

[@victorro8760]

Keep in mind that some people prefer deeper penetration over width of penetration. The most satisfying penetration would optimally have both, but to handle such a sword properly would require strong posture, proper point alignment and minimal resistance through the target.

[@willo7734]

On the other hand, some people are packing daggers. It’s not the size it’s where you put it.

[@ligh7foo7]

A one word answer would leave it a very short video

[@victorro8760]

Some additional points: Having the best of both worlds (width _and_ depth of penetration) would also finish off the opponent faster but more importantly, it would be more incapacitating. Another advantage would be the demoralization of members of the opponents team. The sight of such massive penetration and the sounds their team member's cries would surely deter many of them.

[@pilgrim42]

@@victorro8760 Would it fill the enemy with feelings of inadequacy causing them to flee the field suffering terribly from "Sabre Envy"?

[@fiendishrabbit8259]

It's also worth mentioning that in a tight melee a saber can deliver an effective draw- or pushcut against a hand or neck at much closer distances than a smallsword. You see the same design considerations on naval swords.

[@zoiders]

Or - you can punch them in the face with it.

[@aa-yt7wo]

On the other hand a straight sword like a smallsword or spadroon is better at pointing at things.

[@johngarrett5189]

Mameluke forever

[@gene51231356]

There probably was a cultural component for this shift as, in the 19th century, common soldiers gradually started being seen not as ruffians and riff-raff only good to be bossed around, but as protectors of the realm. Brandon F did an episode on this a while ago, I recommend it. Part of the change meant that Officers (especially Junior Officers, directly leading their men) wanted to set a personal example of bravery, leadership, and sharing the risks with their men, which meant equipping more similar, combat-worthy weapons, rather than symbolic weapons designed as a status symbol to separate them from the common soldier.

[@comicmoniker]

Is makes a ton of sense to me from a human psychology perspective. We're talking about a span of several decades here, meaning we've got "generations" of officers - and what younger generation of the upper class *hasn't* decided to distinguish themselves from their stuffy, gentile predecessors by affecting the rugged panache of the everyman?

[@brucetucker4847]

"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an` Chuck him out, the brute! But it's "Saviour of 'is country " when the guns begin to shoot"

[@r.gilman4261]

I really think you nailed it at 11:23 in your video, a dead opponent 30 seconds from now does not mean that your opponent is still not a lethal threat immediately. This is where saber really outshines smallsword, as it has the ability to inflict immeditatly debilitating hits to a opponent that take them out of the fight, unlike smallsword.

[@jamesbparkin740]

Indeed. It's not intended for duels or 1:1 fighting. It's intended to keep you alive in a melee. A lethal stab that is effective at killing a single opponent is no good if you're unprotected whilst you're recovering from stabbing them, and get killed by their comrades. A slash that doesn't kill, but discourages or wounds is better if you can recover as the press of fighting probably means that both of you are likely to then have to consider new threats.

[@ftdefiance1]

Having served as a Light Infantry Officer I can see that a small sword would be very attractive after a twenty mile forced march.

[@jeffantonson2304]

Didn't the infantry officers of the period ride to the battle on horseback?

[@ftdefiance1]

@jeffantonson2304 I am not sure. I have studied the military in the American South West, and Infantry avoided horses when they could for logistical reasons. Horses needed grain, water, and silage . Plus, they couldn't be driven for extended periods of time. Essentially, cavalry was a sprinter while Infantry was a marathon runner.

[@Kamamura2]

@@Malignard You are wrong - officers needed to move around quickly to assess the situations and issue commands (and to flee battle to fight another day). Officer on foot would be totally ineffective.

[@thomasbaagaard]

​@@Kamamura2 except that most officers did not need to get somewhere in a hurry. They only needed to command their company. And that was normally done on foot. Generalizing about 200 years of warfare you can generally say that company level officers (when part of a battalion+ force) did not have horses and battalion level officers and above did.

[@HaloFTW55]

“””light””” infantry (at least modern ones) are honestly the one of the biggest military oxymorons, especially with a 90+ pound rucksack

[@studentloans2488]

I don't really care that much about swords, just that I love it when someone is so obsessively enthusiastic about something like this guy is about melee weapons, that itself makes the topic interesting

[@thiagorodrigues5211]

That's actually the trait of a good learner. It's not the info you search for but you can get into it for the sake of knowledge.

[@captainscarlett1]

I think a sabre is more intuitive to use, especially under life and death pressure. Hacking, slashing and punching are actions that seem to come more naturally than fine subtle technique. Smash the enemy, don't poke him.

that is big truth. Even when under pressure and without sufficient training, your animal instict can kick in and you can swing sabre hard enough to always do some damage or scare enemy. With stabby swords, their use is but more nuanced and requires more focus, training and finesse.

[@a1175779]

The Romans would bid to differ

[@blacklight4720]

​@@a1175779Why would they?

[@sticy5399]

@@blacklight4720because the Gladius is primarily a stabbing weapon. I don’t agree with the previous commenter though. Legionnaires were highly trained and the pro of instinctual behaviour wouldn’t have played a role in any of their decisions.

[@quoccuongtran724]

@@a1175779 the roman gladius is a short sword though stabbing with a short sword would have been as much intuitive as stabbing with a dagger, which again could have been intuitively figured out from uppercut, hook & jab - how an random guy could throw a punch (not counting reverse grip stabs) a longer blade like a rapier, or even a two-handed blade like a longsword, on the other hand, does requires more finesse & focus to maneuver its tip into the target

[@natehammar7353]

I imagine the basket hilted broadsword stayed popular in Scotland for the same reason. Big heavy blade that can stand up to a bayonet equipped infantryman.

[@lightwalker222]

I think it could also be in some small degree a fashion statement. The Mameluke sabres / Ottoman Kilij and similar were becoming really popular in Western Europe around the turn of the 1800's and the success of Hussar regiments which typically used sabres was making them the most admired/respected units in many armies. In other words, sabres were cool! Edit: As you mentioned in the video, the smallsword was the mark of an officer and to some degree a fashion statement more than a tool of war. The cultural popularity of the sabre could have served some of the same purpose!

[@BlueandGilt]

Don’t forget that up until 1786 British and other European officers also carried a spontoon polearm, both as a badge of rank and to assist in signalling to their men. If you’re walking around with a 6ft polearm, you’re going to want to keep any additional sidearms as light and unobtrusive as possible. For this, hunting hangers and smallswords make a lot of sense.

[@bryanreed1328]

Thought that was for Sergeants

[@95DarkFire]

@@bryanreed1328 At first, during the early-mid 18th century, Sergeants had Halberds while Officers had Spontoons. Later only Sergeants carried polearms.

[@thomasbaagaard]

By the mid 18th century is was normal for sergeants to carry muskets when on actual campaign and company level officers to not carry polearms and in some cases, most commonly in light infantry carry muskets like the men. Polearms for company officers and sergeants is something that makes perfect sense in peacetime and looks good. but is less practical in the field.

[@BlueandGilt]

@@thomasbaagaard On the British side, the American Revolution marked the end of the spontoon for officers. They were found to be too cumbersome for the kind of terrain and forest they were fighting in. It was even remarked upon in the reports how the returning officers stood at review without their spontoons. This is when the 1786 regulation came in dropping it in favor of a straight bladed sword (blade 31 inches long and no less than 1 inch wide, with hilt to match the buttons of the uniform).

[@Garbid]

I think main reason is necessity to fight multiple opponents at same time. Thrusting has big problem. After you got good hit into enemy body fisrt you need to pull out the sword and again stub. That's in situation with multiple opponents is death. While sabre can give good cut and allow you to continue atack and cut again and again keeping other opponents at least away. And seeing whide sabre flying in front of your face for ordinary soldiers is more terrifiing than a "aristocratic toothpick" which will take time to pull out if it will not get stuck between ribs.

[@stevenmike1878]

im surprised saber + parry dagger wasn't a common load out they work so well together. a daggers lighter and takes up less space, then a buckler with the option to catch n bind the weapon, as well as deflect. if it becomes a really tight grapple in a trench the dagger fits that tight space.

[@Garbid]

@@stevenmike1878 shield kr buckler takes a lot of place, inconvenient and very visible and can cause questions about standard outfit. Plus size and weight of normal rondal is very heavy. At least it doesn't stop musket. I think two pistols with sabre are better in close combat. About dagger. Dagger is for thrust sabre for cut. Try to drow circle with one hand and at the same time a square with another hand)

[@b.h.abbott-motley2427]

This is a solid video. I appreciate that you note how the smallsword is an effective weapon in unarmored single combat. While I consider rapiers, longer one-handed blades like George Silver's "short sword," & longswords as superior for that purpose, the smallsword surpasses all other sidearms in 1v1 efficiency. At a weight of around a pound & a convenient moderate length, you get a weapon that can hold its own against any other sidearm. One little quibble is that the firearms of the period could weigh a bit more than 8-9lbs, especially with a bayonet attached. Some pushed passed 11lbs. 8-9lbs is also rather heavier than most extant pollaxes, the majority of which fall into the 5-7lb range. There are far more surviving two-handed swords in the 8-9lb range than there are surviving pollaxes.

[@SamuelVSSwindell]

Patrick O'Brian, who was obsessed with historical accuracy, had Aubrey carry a heavy cavalry saber in boarding actions, during the Napoleonic wars.

[@IvanBarsch]

I wouldn’t say obsessed, but he was very historically accurate. On second thought, you’re right. It was close to obsession.

[@Vergilius78]

Probably part of the reason for that is that Aubrey is a big, strong man who would be a natural fit for a bigger, heavier weapon. His counterpart, Stephen Maturin, is described as a deadly duelist with a fencing foil, however.

[@brucetucker4847]

@@Vergilius78 Whatever you do, don't insult the Irish around Dr. Maturin.

[@gordonwood1594]

I used to own a Napoleonic cavalry saber and it was almost 3 feet long. I feel it would be rather cumbersome in a shipboard melee.

[@IvanBarsch]

@@gordonwood1594 yes, could be. I can see why some would prefer it as well though.

[@100thdragoon]

I think a point that often gets overlooked is that in the 18th century officers from Lieutenant to Captain in European armies were expected to perform their duties a polearm of some description such as a spontoon. It's well attested to in the American Revolutionary War too. I would feel very confident fighting off someone rudely trying to interrupt my business with thrusts from a bayonet or cuts from hanger when armed with a spontoon. It's when carrying a polearm started falling out of fashion for officers that naturally we see sabres start to predominate.

[@MasakanSolaris]

I kinda love how when firearms were introduces into widespread warfare, swords(specifically slashing focused swords)went from situation at best to the prefered melee sidearm

[@chriswaters2327]

Armour was made obsolete by firearms so made slashing effective again.

[@JayJet53]

@@chriswaters2327 eventually and starting with infantry

[@daemonharper3928]

Very interesting as usual. I would imagine that junior officers half expecting to need to fight would choose a sabre. Close Quarters Combat back then could be a messy, tangled affair with multiple opponents and comrades in a small area, a thrust sword is too limited - with a sabre or hanger you can get a half hit and do damage, push and pull cut, stab, use the extra weight and whack them with the back of the blade - no style points but effective.

[@WhatIfBrigade]

As an experienced hiker, normally I'm a huge proponent of the lightest equipment possible. Wars and battles are rare, melee combat is even more rare. But something about the smallsword and spadroon has always brothered me and I'd rather carry any almost other one handed sword. I'm shocked they weren't entirely confined to rear echelon officers after word of their very first encounter with bayonets got out.

[@shireboundscribbles]

I'd guess that cavalry had greater social standing, plus sabres caused incapacitating wounds sooner (stabby won't stop an opponent soon enough), and the sabre allows a follow-through to a new opponent when a stabby gets stuck for a short while.

[@BlueandGilt]

Cavalry used both, thrust and cut weapons depending on the time and country. The French cuirassiers and dragoons, arguably the best heavy cavalry in Western Europe of the time used a heavy thrust sword that was a poor cutter. The light cavalry, who’s role was scouting, shoot and scoot, mobile artillery, or baggage train guards were the ones who typically used the curved sabres. Lancers of course used the lance and curved sabre. Going back further in time, Eastern European cavalry used the lance, the estoc (a sword that was more lance than sword) and the sabre.

[@shireboundscribbles]

@@BlueandGilt indeed, hence perhaps copying the light cavalry, as the heavy's sword was not as well suited to melee (as opposed to charge). Giving some of the panache of cavalry appearance whilst retaining or enhancing combat ability.

[@jessebechtold2973]

Fantastic subject! I’m reminded of Patrick O’Brian’s Aubrey/Maturin series. In the novels Royal Navy Captain Jack Aubrey was described as favoring a Cavalry sabre when fighting boarding actions.

[@robertowen-jones443]

Another great and instructive video. Thanks Matt

[@agogecoach8790]

Good discussion Matt! Thank you for sharing

[@jesseshort8]

Again, very interesting. Thanks Mr. Easton!⚔️

[@JeremyRoyaux]

Hello ! Interesting as usual, especially for those of us who use napoleonic sabers in our HEMA courses :)

[@wompa70]

It's easy for us to lose sight of how different officers and regular troops were in the past. Today, at least in the West, even people who have only been in for a year or two are considered "professionals". In addition to the practical reasons you pointed out here, I think this period is the start of the societal shift around this idea.

[@konstantinkonstantinov9720]

Fantastic video,mate. Very informative and interesting to listen to. Awesome t-shirt.

[@adamriles327]

Great video Matt, well said.

[@CanadaMMA]

Matt Easton concise to and to the point..... 13 minutes.

[@-RONNIE]

Thank you for the video ⚔️

[@ruslanmelimatov164]

Nice! Whatching this was a lot of fun and I, in fact, learned something I didn't know. Thank you!

[@leopoldsamsonite1750]

Well said, Matt. Thank you

[@user-ld8ib6jt4e]

Much love to that t-shirt....THE band of my teens! Keep up the good work, Matt, I've learned a lot from your vids. Thank you

[@anthonyhinton583]

Great video, excellent explanation of your way of thinking and I would have to agree with you.

[@toulminbrown9166]

Your filmed lectures, topics, understanding of these very relevant periods in western civilization are superlative!

[@dongeonmaster8547]

I find it very apropos for me that you release this video right now as I am half way through Bernard Cornwell's SHARPE series and the swords and sabers of the era come up frequently, as well as bayonets.

[@roninlifting]

Great video mate

[@fritztheblitz1061]

Great video, thank you 👍

[@mybrandnewsocks9724]

Haven’t commented in while but still loving the videos - consistently informative yet entertaining so here’s one for the algorithm so others can have their chance to enjoy too

[@lacasa3514]

Great taste in music, Matt!

[@crazypetec-130fe7]

It's always interesting to follow your thought process, Matt. One of these days, I'd like to see your take on the 1796 heavy cavalry dress sword.

[@josephfrederic3456]

Cool shirt man. Also, excellent insight as always.

[@squatch2461]

🍻Your videos are a wonderful combination of academic and practical information.

[@alexandermartin2068]

Right when I think of something like this you make a video about it awesome thanks and do keep being you I'd have a devil of time trying to find someone else

[@TheVanguardFighter]

id love to see more videos on how you teach the use of saber/ spadroon and if you have changed what or how you teach over time as well as what is the difference between someone that is competent vs a master/

[@breezyx976]

Saber blade is more visible from the side (wider), so it can be better seen when you wave it in the air to order a charge.

[@thejdmguru621]

Now that you mention it, my fencing Epee has a very similar design to a small sword, both in “blade” and hilt

[@JamesLaserpimpWalsh]

It can do a variety of tasks well probably. Cheers Matt

[@Arddaar]

Thumbs up for the t-shirt ;) Great video as always.

[@charlesburke5925]

Excellent video. The US in 1872 made the frail, straight Model 1860 staff and field officer sword mandatory for infantry officers, resulting in complaints from officers who wanted something serviceable, resulting in numerous experimental models and finally the US model 1902 saber for all officers. The post-Civil War US ordnance reports discuss exactly what Matt mentions, that the sword that officers would need would most likely be used not against another officer with a sword but against an opposing infantryman with a rifle and bayonet. Prior to 1872, and therefore throughout the Civil War, officers who wanted a robust cut and thrust saber could choose the 1850 model that provided better hand protection and a slightly curved yet robust saber blade. (Prior to 1850, generals and their staffs carried an epee similar to the 1796 dress epee carried by British heavy cavalry; the US version was adopted in 1832.) Finally, one example of an 18th C. officer: George Washington owned hangers, small swords and pistols.

[@goatman3828]

Love the t-shirt!

[@johnsmithe4656]

Nice AiC shirt, one of my favs.

[@thomas-marx]

Thanks always learn so much. If i was the prince of Wales i would have Matt come share a little British military and sword history with my son's. They would love it!!!!

[@ryanjamesloyd6733]

Good vid. I would personally like a vid on figuring out what size sword is best for you, beyond just personal preference. Is it worth learning to tolerate and wield something that just feels ridiculously long, or should you go for comfort and nimbleness of wielding? I see pros and cons either way and I'd appreciate your take on it (particularly as I'm trying to figure out- do I chop a couple of these swords off, or just deal with them being ground dragging, barely drawing, slow feeling, but give me needed reach?)

[@TheM00nStar1]

Matt, lovely video as always. Can you help me understand where the Walloon came from?

[@Tobascodagama]

Always fun to see what's on the wall... Is one of those sideswords the new Town Guard Sword from LK Chen, perhaps, or is it the Arms & Armor Town Guard Sword?

[@samlynn1652]

I would like to see a video about what the best Spadroon did or could look like.

[@vonsprague7913]

The Hanger for infantrymen probably fell out of use due to cost but what a great general utility tool and close combat piece of kit. We were always told that officers swords changed because in 17th C European wars officers were not targeted whereas Native American, Marathas and Zulus saw everyone as fair game the cads lol. Great video and highly informative as usual.

[@alexhannah4216]

Would the fact that an officer would not know what environment he will be using his sword in when he leaves on campaign be a big factor. He would have to consider fighting in a large melee in an open field, a skirmish in a woods, being ambushed and taking part in seiges and storming fortifications ( and a lot more scenarios, and lots of different weather and lighting conditions). So he may he face a number of different weapons, in a number of differnet environments in a number of different scenarios. So surely the versatility of the weapon be very important.

[@samuelwolfe4322]

I personally think id rather stick with a spardoon or backsword as im not the biggest fan of curved blades, i don't think the additional cutting coefficient is really worth it over the simplicity and versatility of a straight blade

[@edgaraquino2324]

Good video! Could you review US cavalry swords? I think they are beautiful, especially that graceful curve...i. e. , John Ford trilogy & "Major Dundee"...thanks!

[@adrianburchell8075]

Also because sabres can deal more damage than a thrusting sword, as noted in the Sharpe books amongst other sources, a slashing sword can cut deeper as the the blade is curved (yes, Sharpe carried a heavy cavalryman's straight sabre) and as you slash into a man's body, the cut gets deeper when you use the entire (most?) length of a sabre, thus a nastier wound if you survive. Also unlike a thrusting sword, a sabre has to cut through a usually thick great coat (in colder climes) and a uniform jacket to kill/wound a man.

[@carloparisi9945]

Good point Matt. Thinking about it, though, if I were a field officer in the age of black powder, and before the introduction of the revolver, I'd rely on a sword only in quarters, in the field I'd have a musket and a bayonet myself

[@spamhonx56]

I wondered if it had anything to do with Sabres being the weapon of the dashing cavalryman, and that becoming more fashionable than the infantry officer's smallsword. I have no evidence for this (perhaps those more knowledgable can mention evidence for or against) but i have the impression that gentlemanly duelling leaned more towards sabre, either because returning cavalry officers were familiar with it, or because they were more exciting and desirable to imitate in high society than foot officers.

[@alexparadi522]

I would love to see a video on why shields don't appear to be used in early musket warfare. I have to imagine that steel-on-hardwood would make an effective shield wall from behind which riflemen could shoot? Particularly in the days of two armies standing there facing each other.

[@Vergilius78]

Muskets are two handed weapons. Since you can't use a musket and a shield at the same time, armies probably opted for more firepower. In addition, the shield had already been mostly gone from the battlefield for a good while by the Napoleonic era as pikes had dominated before arquebuses came into play.

[@alexparadi522]

@@Vergilius78 Do pikes cancel shields? I thought that the pike/spear with shield wall in front was a 'thing' pretty much always. And that's what I had in mind - different people holding the shields than who are firing the muskets.

[@FriedEdd]

@alexparadi, you thought like some successful commanders in history. I cannot remember for sure if it was a Swedish king/general who armed his units as a mix of pike and musket or if it was in the Balkens (maybe both). Whoever it was changed how cavalry was used at the time, pikemen held them off whilst the muskets killed them off.

[@FriedEdd]

@Vergilius spot on as well. Armour got better and better and polearms used in 2 hands became the best option in combat. Hence less shield use. But it didn't go completely. A Spanish king had units of pike, musket and sword+shield men. Muskets killed those out of reach Pikes held off and killed as combat was joined and then these sword and shield guys defended and fought between/underneath the pikes where guys were sneaking under with close combat weapons

[@FriedEdd]

As Matt says British soldiers fought less sophisticated enamies, i.e shield carrying opponents in South Africa, Afghanistan and India. Enough so that new ways of using sabres were required. Hutton and Maffey taught how to use an infantryman sabre, (shorter than cavalry sabre) in the style of 16th century side sword ( modern term) which was a cut and thrust form, control space with cuts whilst dishing out lethal accurate thrusts (and cuts), aimed at small gaps in the armour, mid battle during the chaos of combat. (Matt has a couple videos about this). Anyone who believes thrusts don't stop an opponent dead in his tracks haven't had a sword rammed in your fencing mask as you are stepping forward. Those early Italian masters who got it down on paper were also teaching polearms, long swords, sword and shield etc so their sword style had to be able to fight against them on the battlefield.

[@TheSaneHatter]

There was, I'm told, also an element of glamour associated with carrying sabers, thanks to the cavalry, and a lot of officers who weren't assigned sabers as part of their gear would strut around headquarters with them anyway. But I'd love to hear more from your perspective about "hangers," one of these days: I've always liked these kinds of one-edged, utilitarian tool/swords, which sound like what I'd have preferred as a backup weapon myself.

[@michaelkeha]

I think something else in the hanger, saber or say a basket hilted broadsword of the period is also the fact you don't need as much proficiency to yield effective results ie it's fairly easy in a high pressure situatuon to fall back to simple hacking and slicing vs the higher demands of a thrust only weapon with such limited reach

[@Ordo1980]

My idea was, that hussar regiments were created everywhere and the typical hussar clothes plus the saber etc. became fashionable.

[@afd1040]

And hussars were inspired by the Ottoman deli :D

[@BlueandGilt]

In Western European Armies, Hussars came from Hungarian migrants to France in the mid 18th Century before spreading to Britain and Germany. In Eastern Europe they developed from the experience Christian armies earned fighting Ottoman Empire cavalry (and likely included armies from vassal states that rebelled against the Ottomans).

[@frogman4700]

can you make a video about the evolution of late 19th and early 20th century sabres? I know most European armies began favoring more thrust centric designs while the imperial Russian army stuck with a more cut centric blade. Id be interested in seeing the reasoning behind why these decisions were made and what advantages both had in the context of late 19th and early 20th century warfare.

[@leaningfree]

I would love to see a breakdown of the difference between infantry officers' sabres and cavalry sabres. Why one would prefer one of the other and in what context. Why would an infantry officer occasionally choose a cavalry sabre, for example. Why might the opposite be true? For example, in HEMA, I would give certain advantages to a lighter, more nimble sabre (infantry officer's sabre), but the extra reach of a cavalry sabre makes good sense when trying to slay enemies from horseback. But I'm sure there are a lot of subtleties there I haven't thought of.

[@judestevenson4943]

Question! What sword type do you think the British celts used during the anglo saxons invasion? Was it a spatha, was it similar to the germanic style or did they revert to a celtic style? Thanks for all the excellent videos & entertainment 👍

[@robertpatter5509]

The French categorized the Sabre as any type of blade onto a Sabre hilt. It's the hilt in France that determined if it's a Sabre or not. You can have a triangular Smallsword blade on a Sabre hilt and it's a Sabre. England categorized I think Sabers by the blade type. A curved blade of some kind. The French also had curved swords too. The Briquet. The English would call a Briquet potentially a Hanger. Because it's short. Saber is English. Sabre is French. The French also had the 1822 Light Cavalry Sabre as well. Which was curved. That's why you see straight swords categorized as a Sabre. Because it's on a Sabre hilt. If all I had was a Smallsword and my opponent has a musket I could use my left hand to grab the rifle and then thrust with the Smallsword. They have their hands full. I have a free hand. I would not block with a Smallsword. I'd evade. Then thrust. Evasion of a blade is a better option than trying to block it.

[@troydavidson4197]

Hi matt! I was wondering if you could make a small video about how weapons were issued throughout history? I imagine how a man at arms had his pollaxe made and then given to him varied considerably from how a british officer in the age of sail acquired his smallsword (or saber) and im curious what the process was

[@thomasbaagaard]

generalizing a lot - During the musket period privates and NCOs where usually issued both clothing, gear and weapons. Officers had to by their stuff. With more and more standardization and centralization the later we look at.

[@anthonygiaconia7880]

I like your Alice in Chains shirt. They are one of my favorite bands.

[@frankharr9466]

That does make sense.

[@spoutnik7703]

Nice T-shirt Matt

[@GGMCUKAGAIN]

It's interesting to hear that the officers took up the heavier weapons as from what i know of the peninsula war a lot of the infantry just jettisoned anything they could to keep their kit light. I dont imagine certainly the rank and file would want a sabre when it would be unusual to have to use it. I wonder if there was some trading going on between officers and men.

[@jacobcreech4415]

Awesome shirt

[@joelthompson4854]

Matt, you should do a few videos on A&E's series for Horatio Hornblower. Would love to see British historian analyze a story about an up and coming young man in the British navy during the early 19th century.

[@TheBaconWizard]

IT'S BECAUSE THEY WERE EASIER TO USE!

[@roa1d]

Aw man, I wanted to make that joke :c

[@scholagladiatoria]

Grrrr

[@williamknight6600]

I think it is also worth noting that through the 19th century infantry sabers moved away from the cut centric design of say the 1803 toward something that tried to reproduce the cut and thrust balance of a spadroon, but with some of the advantages of sabres. This is most dramatic in late 19th century officers swords but also in the mid century designs, like the French and British 1845s.

[@syazwanshapii9221]

Small sword and spadroon is specialized for duel fight. Whereas saber is specialized slashing multiple opponent. Hangar is short version of saber for infantry as multipurpose blade for cutting and defend.

[@jerichothirteen1134]

As a martial artist not really a swordsman i would prefer the speed of attacks and attacking angles you could make with the sabre.

[@tyrantonion6660]

I love the T-Shirt.

[@dr.victorvs]

AND the smallsword had its origins in the rapier tradition... because they needed a smaller rapier, which most people just called sword... and that came from the long swords, which became longer and thinner to beat armor... but before armor (...) and that's how sticks were used.

[@stevecoates3799]

I would surely prefer a saber on a field of battle over a spadroon or smallsword. Cheers Matt!

[@dakwa1]

Remember that European Fencing is three types of weapons; the Foil/Rapir, saber, and Epee. The foil was originally a rapir with a tip welded to it so it would not injure the opponent. I own a 17th century Foil, in fact it is the thick base that would have been used in the battle field, and not for in town defense, or dueling, the thinner based. A short sword, could be made many different ways, from tipped. like the rapir, to single edged, like the saber, to the double edged like many types of the broadsword. Some also had effective weight and/strength to defend against muskets and other longer weapons. I would not take a rapir into battle, but there were many that did. In fact one of the Kings of England was killed by a rapir in battle, by getting the rip between the plates of the heavier armor, and thrusting it into him. This was the only way to use a rapir against plate mail, as it was not strong enough to puncture the metal, although it could get through chain and leather as well as clothing. A short sword has many advantages, in that it is faster, and more agile to longer or heavier weapons. With the American Indians, they used the axe which was both lighter than the European equivalent and gave the same advantage. All weapons have pluses and minuses, and looking at them with the overly broad view you have, is not based in overall reality. A longer sword gives you reach, but is slower. Both longer and shorter swords can parry most weapons, but remember there wear some longer swords that were very thin and not able to parry many weapons as well.

[@willo7734]

Matt, awesome shirt my friend. I can tell you’re about my age and have great musical taste.

[@rogerlafrance6355]

Also, even into modern times, officers of infantry and artillery, were most often on horseback and would use much the same kit as a cavalry officer. Perhaps they had both. While some solders carried swords, some as seen in french parades would have axes, shovels and such in their load. In any battle, there is soon a large choice of weapons just laying on the ground.

[@BlueandGilt]

The lower officer ranks marched with their men. It wasn’t until they got to around the rank of Captain that they would ride a horse. Horses were expensive to purchase, especially those trained not to flee at the first sound of gunfire, and expensive to keep. In that, and later era’s officers were required to purchase all of their own equipment and many of the entry ranks went into debt just to buy their commission and uniform. Even cavalry officers purchased their own horses and there are accounts of French officers complaining about going broke because of their horses getting killed in battle.

[@LYLEWOLD]

That shirt and the topic combined to make a movie in my head where an officer has his saber out, fighting in slow motion as "Rooster" by Alice In Chains plays. Could happen.

[@leofedorov1030]

Could the switch to sabers occur as infantry officers on horseback may’ve had to defend themselves against charging cavalry armed with sabers? That was after all the golden age of cavalry, so to speak. I would think that a thrusting weapon such as a small sword is far less effective, if used in fighting on horseback against a saber-armed cavalryman specifically. Just a theory.

[@ndalby187]

The question shouldn't be which weapon is better, but which weapon you're better with. I'm decent enough with a sabre, but if I get into a fight with a particularly skilled smallsworder, I'm probably going to end up with some extra holes where I didn't want them.

[@brianedwards7142]

When I think of sabres I think of cavalry. Could there have been an element of keeping up with the Joneses with infantry officers wanting kit like the cavalry were using?

[@thomasjamison2050]

My first thought was that a saber had the advantage of being more visible as one waved it around to use for giving directions, and the wide blade would also be very much more practical for giving a soldier who wasn't particularly moving forward when you wanted him to so some incentive to get moving forward. We are talking about a rap on the back side. That would be far more practical than just shouting when noise levels were extremely high.

[@Luckmorne]

Love The Rooster shirt. For sure my favorite Alice in Chains song.

[@davideddy8557]

Did the standard uniform material change in any way during that time? Did the enemy uniforms?

[@Kanner111]

Yeah, you can be incredibly impressive organised in an official duel with a small sword/rapier type weapon against a single opponent, especially when its a kind of nimble dance in a reasonably wide, flat, open area. Battlefields *aren't* optimal dueling locales, however. They're loud, smokey, muddy, full of enemies, and occasionally on fire. What I love about this is the slow, steady evolution over time from the nimble duelist archetype - the sword you *want* to be seen with - through to the practical, foreign-lookin' curved blade, the weapon of a common rascal. More or less at the same time that Britain (especially) and Europe (in general) are moving from a not-quite-feudal society towards a modern-day democracy. Whatever works best will win out. =)

[@blakewinter1657]

I'm glad that you mentioned the comparison between the saber and the smallsword, because I was wondering about that. I am a bit surprised that they are evenly matched, as I would have expected an advantage to the saber. But I think you are correct that most of the time, an officer might be fighting someone with a very different piece of equipment than another officer with a sword. At any rate, the saber looks much cooler than the smallsword! There might have been a bit of a style thing going on, especially since the curved wide blade resembles the Egyptian and Middle Eastern blades?

[@ramibairi5562]

Matt I GOt A REQUESt ! Would you please do video on non regulation officer's swords during the Indian Mutiny

[@kodiakkeith]

An interesting followup to this would something on the last fighting swords of 1890 to 1913. My understanding is that everyone decided that slashing an opponent usually didn't disable him because of heavy woolen tunics, etc, so all the European powers when to long straight swords for thrusting. The last was the "Patton" cavalry saber M1913. Of course, the Maxim gun was being released at that time and swords became an anachronism, but that final evolution of swords across western armies is rarely talked about.

[@dylanvanwijk9223]

Good video, but mostly I love your shirt😁

[@Jchooie]

Like the shirt man