There is no better endorsement of a pole arms weapon than to categorically state that even pretending to fight with them is just too dangerous to attempt.
Seriously. There’s some armored combat HEMA videos on TH-cam. Experienced HEMA practitioners in full armor get knocked out with even competition pole arms. They are serious weapons.
13:15 If I hit a guy in the (helmeted) head several times with a pollaxe and he doesn't go down, I'm not closing in to grapple; I'm running as fast as possible in the other direction!
actually there were quite a lot army regiments in the 1920s in China armed only with pistols. some of them are full auto ones of course, because of the weapon ban of importing SMGs, carbines etc. so pistols with wood stocks are basically small, short range carbines and SMGs in a way. this trend stopped by the Japanese invasion. the US and European countries decided to lift the weapon ban to arm Chinese army against the Japanese.
@@Ship-security You'll just see a countermovement of people talking about how pistols actually suck and are 100% useless because the rifle was always the better weapon in every context. aka what people do with polearms now.
For the longest time, I totally though the barn doors with weapons hanging was just a static image, and Matt was standing in front of a green screen. My mind was blown when he reached into the picture and grabbed that Danish axe!
"Can't we learn something different, like, what if someone came at you with a pointed stick?" "POINTED STICK!!?? Well I'll tell you something my lad, when you're walking home tonight and some homicidal maniac comes up to you with a bunch of loganberries DON'T COME CRYING TO ME."
I'd just like to point out, at a larp event I took part in 2-3 years ago, someone got concussed and their jaw dislocated after being hit with a foam dane axe, so even making it foam you should be mindful and pull your blows or wear protective equipment ^^
@LurchTheBastard Even when it's not bad, it's never really pleasing also a trip to the hospital is not great for the immersion ^^, it's better to look after each other before it gets that bad ;)
Flails are banned in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) for the simple reason that it's near impossible to make a "safe" one. Even a tennis ball on a nylon cord can generate enough force to break bones.
@@wwm84 flails are fucking amazing lol possibly one of the greatest weapons ever made, bless the man who looked at a sling and said, I want that effect on a hand held stick lol
I will just leave it here - armored full contact axe fight. Looks pretty damn brutal, but it is done apparently: th-cam.com/video/Ad5RJ3TeKSE/w-d-xo.html
This just echoes what my brother and I figured out about 4 years ago: We usually sparr with plate armour and steel sparring longswords (exhibition fight weapons, if the translation is right). Even with longswords that have a thicker blade and are blunt one cannot strike at full force without hurting your opponent. So we have to use a lot of control which makes our fighting a bit slower than a real fight. We then tried to sparr with a blunted steel spear (boar spear) with a rounded metal tip. we soon discovered that polearms are way quicker than you'd expect, they're way more dangerous and you have to REALLY be careful with those (we used a non flexible wooden staff and we accidentally shattered a shield with the spear).
With longer pole-arms the forward arm creates a fulcrum around which the entire weight of the lower or rear portion of the pole-arm is brought to bear. Similar to how a pommel works on swords, but the lever is much longer.
even the SCA, using 2" rattan poles, require 2"-4" of soft padding on the striking surfaces of polearms. A long stick is a long stick. History note: a staff, full length, is a 20'-24' pole used in thatch roofing and was sometimes used by highwaymen as a weapon. Allows you to strike a coachman while standing behind your protective tree. So a quarterstaff is 1/4 of that, about 6'.
This is interesting and useful information (the quaterstaff), I did not know this. And also aren't fibreglass weapons a thing in SCA Heavy, though more around thrusting weapons?
Excellent demonstration of the force behind such weapons is Dr Toby Capwell being whacked on the head with a dense rubber foam pollaxe. He is in full armour for ground combat, and yet is still knocked out for a moment. You can see it at around 1:15 of the "Tournament of the Phoenix" video from 2012 (th-cam.com/video/Xzh5P9go0KI/w-d-xo.html).
I come from SCA heavy fighting and some HEMA on the side, we have to use softer heads on our pole weapons, axes, and maces in order to make the "safe" and they are still more dangerous then swords in our sport. Also our armor is somewhere in between BotN and HEMA including steel helms though we have more sport bar grills then full helms like BotN.
A blunted sword, designed to do damage when sharp, is weaker than polearm weapons, designed to deliver blunt force trauma, in an environment that favors defeating heavily armored opponents by felling and concussing them and forbids stabbing and thrusting. Also, grass is usually green. Now, before you consider me a hater, swords in general are designed to kill, with the least possible energy exertion. HEMA and "Battle of the Nations" are tournaments and sport events. You want to defeat the opponent, who is, in general, more armored than the English King at Agincourt. Of course you want to use a blunt trauma weapon. You don't want to kill them!
I'm sure the anecdote about the 16ft barge pole swung by a thames bargeman vs a rapier on a renowned duellist at some point in the renaissance period(I don't know when and I can't verify if the anecdote is actually a story from the period or something made up to fit) - Spoiler, the duellist loses his head to a blunt but stout piece of wood swung reasonably fast meaning the tip is travelling riduculously fast
I would say that hitting someone in the fencing mask full force with a quarter staff might result in neck injury, but there's a good chance that'll be determined on the autopsy table.
This is why I subscribe to the "fight softly" school of reenactment fighting. Carrying more armour, having stricter regulations on equipment and so on will still give you concussions and whiplashes from polearms. When everyone is intent on "tap fighting" and wears as little protective gear they can get away with (to move faster), you end up in a much safer environment. A battlefield full of people that can't see well, are restricted in movement and control, and feel invincible is a recipe for lasting injuries. In my opinion there are only two ways you can go about having realistic fighting. You can have realistic techniques in a highly regulated duel scenario with anachronistic protective gear (HEMA). Or you can have realistic gear and group dynamics, but with anachronistic techniques (tap fighting). Personally, I don't enjoy individual sports, so I do reenactment fighting wearing toothguard, cup and gauntlets as only protective gear. Most dangerous injury was from crashing into a teammates shield, cutting my nose (one stich), and I've been doing this for years. I don't think I've heard about concussions, whiplashes or anything like that. Most serious is fingers (always a danger when not having good enough gauntlets) and teeth (wear a toothguard, always), both due to inadequate gear.
@Gabriel Bido Bruises are also gonna happen in a "fight safely" approach. Bruises are fine. Broken bones are potentially very serious injuries, at times career-ending injuries and should not be accepted so light-heartedly as you do. But broken bones is not all that the "tough guys" get. Head injuries and concussions are common because of all the heavy head hits. No visible injury, doesn't mean it is safe. NFL football, boxing, even association football have started to realize that repeated knocks on the head has severe long term implications. Go ask Alan Shearer if it is smart to have someone hit you in the helmet as hard as they manage. His problem has been heading a relatively soft and light football. Your brain is gonna take similar beating from a sword through a helmet. Even when there is no visible injury at the time.
@Gabriel Bido There is a thing you need to keep in mind, authentically reenacting a medieval battle is the same as fighting a medieval battle. The only way to make it realistic is to have people die. We obviously don't want that. In order to safely do any of the different ways to simulate medieval combat, we have to find compromises so that we can explore the aspects of combat we wish to explore. In most HEMA settings, the goal is to study blossfechten techniques in a duelling setting, and have rules, equipment, and ways of fighting to accomodate that. I don't find duels interesting, I want battles. In some systems, like the SCA heavy fighting, there are battles, but the rules require immense amount of armour and the use of rattan sticks rather than swords. By having a culture of fighting safely and a ruleset that encourages relatively light fighting, I can partake in large battles in historic gear (for Viking age and earlier, that means almost no armour for almost everyone), without compromising my own safety and the safety of the people I fight with. For me, using a fencing mask is hindering my ability to reenact the manouvering and communication of the battlefield. But the tradeoff is that we can't stab each other in the face - likely the most common technique used in war. It isn't more realistic with heavier fighting, it is just compromising different aspects of combat. I also do not compare what I do (group focused western style reenactment combat) with combat sports often. I compare it with contact sports with teams. What I do is in many ways closer to lacrosse or handball (rough teamgames were the physical violence is undercommunicated in their marketing) than to MMA or boxing. Combat sports that focus on duels are very different in how you play the game than teamgames, and that is a bigger difference than how closely the sport resembles combat. For me, positioning and teamwork are more important to win than how well you defend and attack on an individual level.
Early 13th century / earlier swords had the balance point a lot further from the hand than their successors because they had more of an offensive role which put the emphasize on the cut. Matt himself compared his dynasty forge type 10a arming sword with its 6" center of gravity offset to a sharpened crowbar lol. Not saying it would hit harder than a dane axe, but it certainly pack a wallop and would probably be able to kill even if it was blunt. Sorry for the english :)
Short handle -> short distance between hands -> small lever for gripping -> low mechanical advantage Long handle -> long distance between hands -> large lever for gripping -> high mechanical advantage! Basically, as long as the reach of the weapon is to be maximized, the handle length will need to be short, if an overall maximum length is not to be exceeded -- there's always a trade-off between extra leverage and blade length. But if you allow the weapon's overall length to be greater, you can have both the leverage in grip and the length in the working end.. and what does such a weapon resemble? Pole weapons. Obviously there are very many other factors in determining what makes something effective or not, but in terms of force multiplication and all that, longer handles and longer "blades" both help, and so the classic trope of a hero wielding a one-handed sword and shield to win the day seems full of holes.
Thing that fantasy artist learned : MAKE BIG FANCY HEAVIER SWORDS On a more serious note, the 'fencing' aspects of sword's mass arrangement has its advantages as most of the other weapons (which Matt explained multiple times too), especially the percussive ones, are not that mobile compared to some post-migration era swords, but it can Only help so much against those percussive weapons. And I'l confess my heartbeat quickened when Matt brought the bill close to the dane axe and that back spike seemed to be hovering close to this palm :p
Moment of Inertia, *I = mass*radius^2*, is an object resistance to rotation. A higher moment of Inertia means more force is required to decelerate it thus, a high moment of Inertia means more stopping power and vice versa. As shown in the formula the mass affects an object inertia, not speed. To increase stopping power/moment of Inertia, one could either increase the weapon mass or increase the radius of the axis of rotation(distance between the hands to the centre of balance). A sword has a low moment of inertia as the radius between the hands and centre of balance is small, a lower moment of Inertia means it’s easier to accelerate as there’s less force/resistance to rotate the object. Furthermore, the formula for rectangular objects are, *Inertia = (width*height^3)/12 *, that’s why swords with a rectangular profile such as an Oakshott X are tip heavy. To make a sword more nimble the moment of Inertia must be reduce thus it either have to reduce in height/length or decrease in either the blade width or thickness (or a combination of the two). That’s why distill and profile tapering a sword makes it more nimble as tapering decreases the width and thickness to reduce the sword moment of Inertia. Additionally, the moment of Inertia can be reduce if the centre of gravity is closer to the axis of rotation (the hands). *Centre of Mass = [Sum of (mass*distance from object boundary)]/total mass* . Again tapering the sword helps to reduce the mass thereby moving the centre of balance towards the hilt. PS: I think using the Parallel Axis Theorem might be more accurate for analysis, please feel free to correct me.
That should also mean, that since it is easier to rotate objects with low moment of inertia, one can get a sword up to a greater velocity, right? And since we know that kinetic energy does the damage, and it is calculazed by multiplying 1/2 of said objects apparent mass at a given point by its velocity squared at that point, that would mean that the difference isnt all that big. For example, lets have a sword with an effective mass of 400g at the tip moving at 25m/s. It is going to have roughly the same amount of kinetic energy as a 2000g object moving at 11 m/s. The question is, how big a difference the different rotational characteristics of these different objects make in regards to their velocity. I would be interested in what you think about this subject.
@@henriknemeth3370 I agree that a nimble weapon can reach the same KE as a tip heavy weapon via high acceleration. However, this also mean it's easier to decelerate a nimble weapon thus making it easier to do a static block whereas a weapon with high moments of inertia may be slower but it's harder to block/defend against it. (Skalligrim done a video of quarterstaff vs longsword and it just broke the longsword guard with a slow swing of the quaterstaff). This means that a tip heavy weapon can bash through the guard of another sword and has a stronger guard/defence in theory. In practice it takes less effort to reach a high KE with a tip heavy weapon than a nimble weapon as more effort is needed to accelerate the weapon (Though one might say that more effort is needed to accelerate a tip heavy weapon, but once the tip heavy weapon is in motion it's easy to maintain the acceleration/momentum). That's why less skilled soldiers uses the falchion and Dao as it required less effort to dealt a large damage to the enemy. Also a tip heavy weapon doesn't need to travel that fast to dealt a generate a large KE and, most Dao and Falchion techniques causes the sword to "fall towards the opponent" instead of mainly accelerating with the arms (If I'm not mistaken about the techniques). Furthermore, tip heavy weapons are forgiving cutters as a high moment of inertia helps the sword to retain momentum through the cuts. The common soldiers are conscripted farmers or civilians, normally they don't spent a lot of time practicing cutting therefore they use choppy swords. PS: I think I got side-tracked when writing this. Apologies for that.
@@stanlim9182 That makes a lot of sense. I still find rhis video a bit ,well i would not go as far as to say misleading, because it is obvious that Matt is trying to teach these basics about weapin phisycs to those not at all familiar with them, but my point is, that it is about swords, when it should be about every other single handed melee weapon too. For example, i cant see why a typical one handed viking axe, at a weight of 800-900 g and a length of 60-70 cm would achieve greater KE just by the virtue of it being tip heavy, than an exceptionally heavy, lets say 1,6 kg viking sword with a length of 90 cm.
@@henriknemeth3370 Matt did mention he done A-level physics many years ago in his older videos. Though he did mention he forgotten a bunch of theory as it's been quite a while. A one handed axe may not be as powerful as a long heavy viking sword but it's more affordable than a sword as well as generating enough KE to get the job done.
@@henriknemeth3370 One thing to not forget is even if a sword is moving as fast on paper to make up for the lack of mass of a polearm, axe, or hammer, it's pretty much guaranteed that it will lose a massive amount of that force thanks to the flexibility of most sword blades compared to a thicker piece of metal on a stout haft.
I'm sure you know this, but 7-8lbs is on the heavy end for halberds & pollaxes. There are lots of surviving halberds in museums that weight 5lbs or under. 4.5-6lbs would be the common range for halberds 1400-1550, with a few heavier or lighter than that. (Of course, lightness wasn't necessarily desirable for halberds; Raimond de Fourquevaux complained about some of them being too light.)
In your latest video "Big Stick Energy" you mentioned how the power of a quarterstaff could be significantly reduced by wearing a helmet but here you mention it could still provide injury. Is that just in the matter of sportsmanship or the type of helmet or a separate issue? Love your content man!
Swords in a battlefield of armoured knights and men at arms feel like the equivalent of a submachine gun or pistol to a modern soldier when the rifle is his polearm. Great as a backup, and you can take it with you into buildings worn at your side when in other cases your larger weapon you'd leave behind, or when travelling and you just need a sidearm.
Related, everyone focuses on the helmet or sometimes breastplate. What about arms? I'd like to see tests against arm harness with polearms and with large type XIII swords. One thing, would one feel a hit to the funny bone? I ask as the Harley manuscript is smoetimes thought to imply armour and strikes to the elbows,, neck, and hands.
This was very informative, thank you. Another weakness of the sword is that it breaks very easily (especially when not getting the cut right), the blades can knick or bend and also it requires a lot of skill to actually cut correctly. Give me a spear any day of the week.
Rattan might as well be balsa when used as a staff. I've had a few and literally broke a bo across my ribs when I practiced with too much "conviction" (during kata, not kumite). Looks beautiful, but quite useless against other weapons. Rattan is perfect for escrima, though. Different woods for different needs.
Hey Matt! If an apocalypse broke loose (you can choose one or many) and you had to leave your home, with which of your weapons would you equip yourself?
I like to think of the sword, in certain eras and places and _contexts,_ as equivalent to the pistol of today. Can I put the dagger up as the pocket pistol?
You mentioned that swords rely on their sharpness or they aren't very useful. How much time was spent sharpening swords in the ancient world. What were the tools. Were their specialists to this task? It seems like their may have been lots of logistics in maintaining cutting weapons. way back then.
So this makes me wonder if I should be worrying about the clerics and wizards with quarterstaves. that metal tip aside, would staff and spear be comparable in the amount of force they thrust with? Looks to me that metal tip like a sword blade is more penetration and less force.
When you mention danish axes and inertia, the word that should be used in place of inertia is torque. The wikipedia article for torque has some good images. In short, torque is the force (newtons, i.e., mass x acceleration) multiplied by the length. A longer haft multiplies the force more, leading to a greater torque. So with torque we are covering the mass, the acceleration, and the length, basically all the 3 variables you care about when comparing the relative damage dealt by different medieval weapons arcing through the air. Well, all except for the cross-section of impact, such as a spike vs a hammer. Technically, torque is a cross product, which in our case basically means that its moment of inertia or "rotational mass" is being accounted for; in other words, the weight being balanced toward the site of impact is also a part of torque. Torque is the work horse you want to saddle up for these conversations, as it covers the most variables in one elegant term. The wikipedia description refers to torque as the rotational analog of linear force. So if you want to talk about force in a rotational context, torque would be the succinct single-word alternative to rotational energy or angular momentum.
It depends on what level, and in which period. It is their main weapon, symbolically speaking (with its christian cross symbolism, knighting ceremonies, etc), and symbols were sufficient for a lot of people in high middle-age.
Well, a sword could make for a decent improvisation of a blunt force weapon if you strike with the hilt (either by holding by the blade or simply when in extreme close range). Still, there are better weapons for dedicated blunt force.
Random polearm question: Was there any specific weapon that was a combined spear and mace? Like, a slightly shorter spear, with the other end a solid metal basher of some sort, a hand-and-a-half kind of thing, could be used like a one handed spear with shield.
I 100% second Matts remarks on the dangerous power in polearms. In the reantactment group i used to frequent, we used steel headed spears (with a flat golf ball sized tip), with ash shafts. Like Matt says it meant spearmen had to tailor their thrusting technique to minimize impact (especially since we don't wear armor or padding on the torso (the target for spears). Essentially they use them like they were "playing pool/snooker" (only powering the thrust with the back hand and using minimal engergy behind it, while using the other to aim). Even those minimized thrusts will knock the wind from your lungs, and can leave quite a bruise. Also, if the flat tip breaks, these spears will pierce your flesh and cause scars.
In SCA fighting, polearms are limited to 90° swings only for this very reason. While we wear steel, leather & padding. And strike each other full force. No one wants to receive a full swing. Edit: hold on, you spar without wearing gorgets? Are y'all insane?
I can see this kind of discussion already been made in the past. That's why in history, tip heavy sword like the Falchion or a few versions of Japanese Tachi were made
Probably you are wrong about falchions. As I know this type of swords has very thin and sharp blade. It was designed to cut unarmored or lightly-armored (gambeson like) people. So, swords are still weak including falchion.
6:25 "It's about 18 inches from the tip. Sorry for using Imperial there, it's what I'm used to." As an America I appreciate you using Imperial because I don't have to do any conversions, but I still gotta ask; how is it that you, an Englishman, are used to using Imperial over Metric in any capacity?? Like, for real, I am VERY curious.
Remember, Imperial was originally a British standard. I live in Canada, we use primarily metric because it makes the most sense (all base 10). However, we also understand Imperial as we have British roots and are US trade partners. I think British Motorways use MPH for speed limits still and most UK boomers are pre-metric conversion, so they understand both formats.
@@MoeMoeJoeJoe no, it's in common parlance. Everybody is a bit different. I measure all weights exclusively in kilograms. I describe short distances in inches and feet, very small distances in millimetres, walking distances in metres/km (due to Army training) and driving distances in miles (due to road signs)! Food energy is definitely calories. Volume is litres, unless it's beer in which case it's pints (568ml). Temperature is always Celsius. Anything else is used in a scientific context and is 100% metric
@@chroma6947 unless they have plate armor. Or any arnor really. Even a 200lbs longbow would struggle with killing a fully armored knight _immediately,_ but they can do it faster than weaker bows, at least.
@@VinceMenger Swords were very effective on battlefields. this stuff about "swords are weak" is common sense- they ARE NOT bludgeoning weapons the entire point of a sword is it is sharp and can cut and thrust. A dane axe is not more lethel then a sword- If you are stabbed in the neck or have your arm lopped off both will cause fatal wounds. Swords don't have the reach and they rely on cutting to be lethal. But reach is not the most important thing in every context and NOT in a pitched battle where there is not always room to use pol weapons. The videos point about swords balance being near the hand is a good thing for flexibility since it allow rapid one handed thrusts. If you are using a Shield with a one handed Spear you will not get the level of flexibility that you have with a sword. if you are using a two handed weapon then you don't get a shield- which before the development of full body armor were not as common. This idea that swords don't work is nonsense.
I am a civil engeniering and think a lot about safe materials to sparring. I was thinking about this shaft isue with spears and have an idea, check if you like it: Maybe you can use the historical (rigid) shaft of ash with a long and hard rubber (like a 50 cm or a 100 cm of rubber), if the rubber is rigid enought but flex to the side when you stab, it should work. I don't know the kind of rubber you shoul use, but I garantee if you get bigger than 20 cm you get much less problems in thrusts because it will bend or deflect away. The problem will be to fix the rubber into the shaft without tear it in the fist hit. I think also that the control with the point will be less reliable, but maybe control with the weak of the spear is not a good idea anyways. Otherwise maybe the bind of the spear with such a rubber head maybe too strange and you will fell less or none of the contact thru your contact, you should watch out for this too. That's a tradeoff, no doubt about it. Trying might be nice. Cheers from Brazil.
Interesting point, which brings HEMA somehow closer, than I expected to the Olympic fencing. At least in causes. In both case it is a play: in olympic fencing it's focusing on speed, in HEMA on authentic look. (Sure oversimplification)
Like with everything depends on the scenario. If I was in an army fighting on an open field yeah I'm probably gonna want a pole arm. If I'm fighting one to one I'm probably going to want something like a sword.
I have been wanting you to cover the pros and cons of the one handed vs two handed and how body mechanics fit in. I feel as though one handed swords are better most of the time in unarmored combat.
George Silver thought there was no question that weapons made to be used with two hands had the advantage over single-handed swords. He had a very high opinion of the two-handed sword. The sort of two-handed sword Silver had in mind was probably similar to the bigger longsword feders used today. Gérard Thibault's two-handed sword appears to have been about the same, though perhaps a bit larger. He gave a method for defeating the two-handed sword with the single rapier, but implied that the two-handed sword has the advantage. The same section has instruction for triumphing with single rapier over rapier & dagger & rapier & target. No body could credibly assert that the single rapier has the advantage over rapier plus something else, & Thibault even explicitly wrote that the weapons addressed in that section had some sort of advantage over the single rapier.
Although this is a very important and useful message, I can't help but feel that the main thrust of the argument is that a blunt weapon can't really be blunted.
Indeed they are. I would like to point out something that seems to get overlooked though, and a reason why i began gravitating toward japanese swords years ago. Modern mono-tempered katana make a great use of one of the katanas biggest flaws, its thick, heavy blade which is short for its weight. The rigid nature and heft of a katana actually makes striking with the spine very dangerous for an armored opponent. Most other blades, which are better in my opinion as just cutting/thrusting swords, like a messer, have blades that are to thin and flexible like you discuss. Makes them better as swords in many ways, however the hefty design of katana lends itself well to spine strikes.
@@Vlad_Tepes_III very true. I have a cheness 33” o katana that i totally rebuilt with solid brass fittings and a 16” handle, an effort at a short nodachi type design. It has worked out very well. While missing 6” or so to be in the real nodachi territory the extra leverage with the 16” handle allows me to generate a stunning strike force with the spine.
Would the leaf - getting a bit more 'bulbous' shaped towards the tip- shape of some Greek swords and certain types of Gladius' have increased the inertia of them in a useful way?
I would think so, if you look at some scimitars and falchions as well as the eastern/middle eastern swords, back swords etc. If the emphasis is on hacking the weight is good. The gladius I think would be more of a stabbing/thrust weapon so you dont really need the heavy tips.
A topic that I expect to see in this video but probably is good for another: how would you estimate the endurability of various weapons? e.g. I think maces don't break as fast or as often as swords but I am interested in other comparisons as well, such as axes vs swords.
Durability is/was probably something of a side issue for cheap weapons - and (lowend) polearms were cheap. As for maces - it depends on the materials - bronze or iron maces would deform or crack. As a modern example look at sledgehammers - some will have a mushroomed striking face after hard use. Probably if you put a lump of iron with a lot of inclusions on the end of a stick it will crack or even just fall apart fairly quickly. So there was such a thing as too cheap.
No weapon has a shorter life expetancy than the person wielding it at any point in history. Life expectancy when actively fighting is ridicolusly short, it is measured in minutes. Surviving a battle was probably not that rare, but surviving having to actually use your weapon is. Remember, for every time you strike at someone with a sword, there will be one that is gravely wounded or dead shortly afterwards. Either you or the person you struck. You can survive that encounter, or a few if oyu are lucky and skilled. But you will not survive enough encounters that the durability of oyur weapon will be a disadvantage.
a very relevant question and in my opinion that is exactly another weakness of the sword (along with the skill it takes to use it). The can bend, knick and break.
@@Taeerom I suppose if the user is well-armored and fight in good formation and with good skill and tactics, it wouldn't be so rare for the weapon to break first.
Shad did a video about the mighty Stick, in which he points out exactly the same thing- the stick is the foundation of many weapons (as well as being a decent weapon in its own right) but not swords- they don't apply momentum as well as does a girthy stick of similar length.
@@danieldbdb Are you telling people not to like me? Are you saying *you* don't like me, or Shad, or Matt, or someone else? Is English not your first language?
In buhurt i have gone down like a sack from pole weapon strike, and the gear I was using was much hevtier than historical one. (Historical ones reflect the blows a bit better and I think that helps way more. Not experienced with them thou.)
I would hate to get hit whit a whip and there is no sharp anything there. Fuck it i would hate to get hit whit a fist and hopefully there is no sharp points there eighter.
Inertia is resistance to change in its state of motion. Momentum is the tendency to remain in motion. I overcome the axe's inertia so I can swing it and it's momentum is the force with which it strikes
Interesting you mention spears to the face are problematic. I know when we went to the park and used "boffers" (foamed plastic pipes) we had to standardize how padding on the tip was doing to make thrusts viable, and even then the head and neck were considered invulnerable to discourage attacks there. I think we required 4 inches of padding on the end of a pipe.
it also probably helps that kids are not really generating the forces needed to do as much and technique was more based on whatever people thought might let them win than anything formal.
I have absolutely no experience in fighting with swords, pole arms, etc. But my feeling is this: If artillery has failed, (bows, catapults, trebuchets, etc.) cavalry has failed, and long arms have failed, then it’s a real SHTF situation if you must use a sword.
if you believe this is true "in the real world swords are definitely not weak" why do you insist your HEMA is the closest to real medieval combat that you can possibly get?
swords from asia also tend to have high inertia damage due to most of them being center balanced in the blade, make them comparable to battle axes in cutting power which is why swords like shamshirs, tachi, katana, and willow leaf sabres generally cut better than most european straight blades
if you gave a modern man a medieval sword he would break it the swords back then where not spring temperd all the time was only for high nobels who could get good steel which was quite rare most swords where made out of laminated wrought iron and steel or steel steel lamination and most where differentially edge quenched so they could bend far more easy than a modern spring steel one almost all swords where laminated until the 17th century when good spring steel was available the lamination was cost effective you use less steel easy to make in mass if you had to.
They just don’t pack enough punch when using them in armored combat. I stick with a pole axe,mace or normal axe. In the SCA they have rubber heads on axes and maces. It durable rubber but not too painful either when getting hits
Swords are great for grappling, for when people wear armor. I mean there's a reason why knights used Poleaxes and Polehammers extensively as their primary weapon.
depends a claymore is pretty strong, at the same time for the time period certain one handed swords were very appropriate like the sabre or rapier from the 15th-18th century. Against armored opponents it is not so effective especially those with high quality armor but I think against the average peaseant levy it is effective. The thing with swords is we need to consider the context and time period in which they were used and the equipment the vast majority of people at the time wore.
Man leverage gets thrown around a lot here when length would be more appropriate. Same rotational speed but longer length = higher velocity. A short poleaxe has greater leverage ratio than a long one.
With the exception of the ones that are large enough to be practically pole-arms (Those Warhammer Tucks come to mind) they're designed to look nice, and elegant, not to mention being comfortable to carry, too. You can't have all of that and Raw Power. Everything that's stronger than a good sword (Skilled>Build) is a bitch to live with. That goes double for large Shields.
The lunge is also a lot of Reach, the most you can get out of a given weapon. There's just longer weapons than swords, spears for example, and you can lunge with those 2 handed. The spear is still going to hit harder, because it's a heavier weapon.
So going by the polearm analogy, I guess it wouldn't be safe to execute a mordhau hit in HEMA practice? In practicality that pretty much turns the sword into a mace or crows beak, probably not too safe.
Yeah. I know of at least one case where someone got a concussion that left a permanent injury and resulted in a lawsuit from using that technique. Unlike the sharp edge, mordhau with blunts are pretty similar between 'real' and practice swords-that to say, about the same level of dangerous and injurious, since the mechanics are pretty much identical.
I wouldn't say swords are weak per se. I would say it depends. Well yes, they don't hit as hard as polearms or axes. True. But there are more factors in a fight than just how to hit hard. I would say the weakness of the sword forces the fighter to fight smarter. In a fight with equal fighters, one against one, the swordsman "only" has to get close enough. I would say the sword has more options in this case. In a battle with more combatants, this is more difficult. If you have comrades equipped with polearms next to you, it is much more difficult for your opponents to get to you. Here the polearm is clearly stronger.
Yet even the samurai invented a short yari not much longer than a katana for fighting indoors. Reach isn't the only advantage polearms have, leverage is a HUGE benefit, especially compared to flexible sword blade that doesn't allow a good grip and loses way too much energy on impact.
How do you feel about Viking reenactors using Dane axes and simply just blunted axes when most of us don’t wear mail or helmets. Seeing as most kits are not wealthy enough for it?
Whenever I try to explain this people mention the Roman army using swords and shields to repeatedly beat spears and shields. What’s your counter argument?
My counter argument would be Hasta, Javelin, Pila, Bows, Crossbows and Plumbatae. (that doesnt even include artillary weapons). Whoever claims that a roman army used swords and shields to defeat anyone doesn't know much. Also, at least as far as my limited knowledge goes, their training, equipment and tactics were so much better simply because Rome could afford it.
Counter argument? They never JUST used swords and shields. They used the hasta, switched the pilum for a time, and then went to the hasta again when they had a new throwing weapon (the plumbata). Other counterpoint: When they faced comparably trained and equipped spearmen (as opposed to barbarian rabble who would often break from a pilum throw alone) with short spears (like Hannibals Libyans, their own revolting Auxiliary Batavi and Illyrians), the legionaries usually got their asses kicked.
I've seen some competitive team hema melees on TH-cam where people are dressed in plate armor and wielding pollaxes. Are measures taken to tame the power of pollaxes in these fights? Some of them seem to be thwacking pretty good with them.
If a sharp sword binding on the shaft or the head of a spear gives you an advantage (because you feel where the poleaxe is going to), how can one make any suggestions on how these weapons would be effectiv on a battlefield? Roland Warzecha did spar with sharp sword against a spear and turned the outcome around by winning over the spear. Anybody tryed it? I can´t find any mentioning on this.
Binding the haft is incredibly difficult to do when your opponent isn't cooperating, and doesn't change the fact that a spear has vastly superior leverage in most cases. Sharp swords existing hasn't the changed the fact that we have writings from cultures all over the world overwhelmingly saying the spear is superior for serious fighting.
intresting but is it not easier and faster to recover when you miss with a sword, the with a pole axe or hamers as the inertia and weight makes them harder to change direction in mid swing or recover from a miss
You have two hands on a poleweapon which helps greatly in recovery, especially if you're thrusting with it often like you should. Even if you do a big overhand blow and a swordsman rushes in, you can hit with the other end of the weapon as well.
I mean... that's basically Dagorhir or Belegarth. Full-contact, full-force fighting, with softened weapons, allowing for non-armored combat. Definitely fun.
Except that pool noodles are dangerous! Don’t you know that?!! What if someone hits just right and the other person looses an I?!! Oh wait, we can’t let kids be aggressive or physical! (Being facetious).
@@danielniffenegger7698 No, see, they thought of that! One of the rules is that none of the weapons can be small enough around to fit through an eye socket! So what if that makes it look like you're fighting with oversized popsicles and q-tips, it's safe! (Real rule, tho. I recognize your facetiousness.)
A single handed sword is only fit for use with a shield, dueling, or just to have something. For all else, there's two handers. When I think of two handers, I can only think of my experience with baseball. I feel like you are able to put so much more of your body weight, swinging your hips, turning your shoulders, getting your whole body involved. That's in addition to the length, weight, and concentration aspects you mentioned in the video.
Hack away two handed all you like. You will still fall to the chap with a one handed weapon who can score a penetrating wound around 2 inches in depth.
Matt question, what is your opinion on regenyei swords? i want to buy one and would like opinions, also if someone know about them plz fell free to tell
Hey, Matt is your English bill made with wootz steel? Or just rusty? Lol it looked like wootz or some interesting patterning on the head of it. Also, great video as always!
Actually in the Chinese civilization swords (the jian 剑) Was replaced by dao (saber) pretty early in Han dynasty, with emergence of armour Maces and spiked club (bone club 骨朵, hammers 锤， wolf fang club 狼牙棒) Are weapons made for armour. The most direct upgrade to the jian 剑 is the jian 锏 (no pun intended, but the two weapons sounded similar. th-cam.com/video/oLNO4KnQI5s/w-d-xo.html The weight is about 2-4 times that of a sword, basically a square prism of hard metal with a pointy tip, it can bash armour without being damaged and thrust through armour with the heavier inertial. Still it definitely dwarf in comparison to the halberd 戟 Which have about 10 foot pole on it and used in formation Or even crossbows which the historical range is about 180 meter or so. This is drama "reenactment" on a historical battle, the uniform, armour and weapons Are historically accurate to the relics being dug up. Battle between Wang Jian (Qin) and Xiang Yan (Chu) That is the last few battles before unification of China in around 220 BC th-cam.com/video/muAbSCaLOoA/w-d-xo.html Swords have limited use in formation and "short weapons" like axe and clubs are usually Backup weapons.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 The Roman Gladius is about 60cm overall length. Which would be around the length of a Wakizashi, or a machete. So it behaves closer to what we would call a "short sword" than regular swords. The swords used in early Spring Autumn period in ancient China is actually around that length. (looking at the Sword of Gou Jian which is 55cm long) th-cam.com/video/KgH-aMuuRdw/w-d-xo.html That is during the bronze age where the swords are predominantly bronze swords. When going into the Warring States period, the sword's length grew to 70+ to even 91cm overall for the Qin swords (that is dug up with the Terracotta Army) That is a 91cm long bronze sword we are talking about The 刺客列传 or Assassin's Biography actually depicted a scene where Jing Ke with "the dagger hidden in a map scroll" actually caught the Qin King by surprise in an attempted assassination. The Qin king need to be reminded to draw his sword from the back before taking out the assassin on his own. Which kept scholars baffled for over 2000 years as swords of the period were thought to be short swords in 50 - 60 cm in length until a 91cm long Qin sword is being excavated 4m 27s - documentary footage of excavation. th-cam.com/video/SvXRczu8tOk/w-d-xo.html 28m 22s The assassination scene (in a historical drama) th-cam.com/video/ct543N0l6tQ/w-d-xo.html I am not too sure if the average people would be familiar with those lengths. 55-60cm is about the length of your elbow, which means it is possible to hide a short sword between the shield and the arm holding it, you wouldn't be obstructed by the scabbard, Or if you hold it in reverse grip (ice pick grip) the blade would be just about the length of your forearm. A round shield would usually be sufficient to cover the forearm up to the elbow, usually up to the shoulder Also if you have any experience with swords you might find that shorter swords are quicker to draw. (usually means you have less arm displacement away from you) The thing is a 91cm sword which I mostly mean actually has the blade length nearing a Katana. Which average people might find it difficult to draw from the hip especially when your other hand is holding a shield. This means you will need extra clearance when drawing the sword, something which in formation can be difficult or annoying when your scabbard struck the knees of your teammates. Not only will you need to watch out of the extended draw length, the pommel will hit your fellow soldier on your right hand side or right in front of you if you gotten too close within the formation.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 I started the paragraph with "Actually in ancient China..." I did not mentioned Roman. And those were explanation why swords didn't become a mainstream weapons in formation IN ANCIENT CHINA. Saying short swords are swords is as good as saying. "Wakizashi are katana" I don't know if you really understand certain terminology are used to describe certain specification of weapons. The Chinese jian (sword) has more or less been in the 90cm to 100cm length that is around "3 feet" for the past 2200+ years. Sword 剑 (Jian) is usually refered to the 90+ cm (Over 3 feet) Similar to Katana referring to "Daito" Short sword 短剑 (duan jian) is referring to the 60-80 cm range (under 3 feet) Wakizashi, kodachi, chisa katana (small sword) In Japanese context Dagger 匕首 (bi shou) is the 1 feet+ 30-40cm range, or it could be shorter. Tanto in Japanese context.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 Did I not read it wrongly ? You are asking a Chinese ethnic if English is their second language ? Actually English is "on the books" my first language for compulsory education, but in terms of proficiency it is considered a second language as my mother tongue is Chinese language. It could be translation and misunderstanding of the terms. And the differences between languages leading to lost in translation. I should have actually used "Jian" 剑 to be specific, instead of leaving the term in the bracket at the beginning of the comment. So for most of the original post the "sword" that I am referring to is "Straight-bladed double-edged Chinese Jian" For single edged straight or curved bladed weapons it is actually referring to "knife" or "saber" depending on the length. Both uses the term "Dao" 刀 in Chinese Katana かたな has the kanji of "刀" Which is the same as "dao" in Chinese This is more of a habit of thinking in Chinese terminology and writing directly into English. Especially when writing about Chinese terminology. As the English dictionary definition of "sword" is a relatively vague term which a Katana (That has a classification as "saber/ Dao" under Chinese language) could be refered to as "Japanese sword" In Chinese translation a Katana is refered to "日本刀" which has the same pronunciation as "Nihonto" And roughly translate to "Japanese saber" The Roman gladius is translated to "罗马短剑" literally meaning "Roman short sword"
IN reenactment spears are generally the most dangerous weapon (in early times) because even blunt tip is bad and natural spear grip make you attack face, throat are so using it really restricted. And axes are second that why there are so few of them and not given to new guys even they are cheap, so that why most people use swords.
With the exception of KATANAS of course, which can cut throu armor like butter , you can cut the fabric of the universe with it, Katanas will never be weak.
There is no better endorsement of a pole arms weapon than to categorically state that even pretending to fight with them is just too dangerous to attempt.
Seriously. There’s some armored combat HEMA videos on TH-cam. Experienced HEMA practitioners in full armor get knocked out with even competition pole arms. They are serious weapons.
13:15 If I hit a guy in the (helmeted) head several times with a pollaxe and he doesn't go down, I'm not closing in to grapple; I'm running as fast as possible in the other direction!
thats not a man you are hitting.......
unless you are tapping him very gently
Honestly super impressed with the dude who is still standing after getting hit once!
@@MusMasi It's a trolloc. You are screwed
I look forward to a thousand years from now people creating historical or fantasy fiction where entire armies are armed with pistols.
full auto ones
Exactly.
actually there were quite a lot army regiments in the 1920s in China armed only with pistols. some of them are full auto ones of course, because of the weapon ban of importing SMGs, carbines etc. so pistols with wood stocks are basically small, short range carbines and SMGs in a way. this trend stopped by the Japanese invasion. the US and European countries decided to lift the weapon ban to arm Chinese army against the Japanese.
Every one of those soldiers will also dress and talk like a cowboy while using anachronistic handguns.
@@Ship-security You'll just see a countermovement of people talking about how pistols actually suck and are 100% useless because the rifle was always the better weapon in every context. aka what people do with polearms now.
For the longest time, I totally though the barn doors with weapons hanging was just a static image, and Matt was standing in front of a green screen. My mind was blown when he reached into the picture and grabbed that Danish axe!
"If you hit someone with an axe a couple of times in the head and he doesn't go down, run away" Treatise of Brave Sir Robin
"Can't we learn something different, like, what if someone came at you with a pointed stick?"
"POINTED STICK!!?? Well I'll tell you something my lad, when you're walking home tonight and some homicidal maniac comes up to you with a bunch of loganberries DON'T COME CRYING TO ME."
Release the tiger!
At least they’ll have learned the banana
In this situation you should address self defending techniques my friend. HEMA is just keeping the history alive and kicking. Cheers!
12 seconds in and I expect something along the lines of "forget about sword, return to stick!"
Reject weaponry
Return to stik
Big stick club
I loved that episode! :D
Shadiversity
@@jonwashburn7999 Shad became a shitpost channel...
I'd just like to point out, at a larp event I took part in 2-3 years ago, someone got concussed and their jaw dislocated after being hit with a foam dane axe, so even making it foam you should be mindful and pull your blows or wear protective equipment ^^
Nah man be brutal and win the day
@LurchTheBastard Even when it's not bad, it's never really pleasing also a trip to the hospital is not great for the immersion ^^, it's better to look after each other before it gets that bad ;)
Flails are banned in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) for the simple reason that it's near impossible to make a "safe" one. Even a tennis ball on a nylon cord can generate enough force to break bones.
@@wwm84 flails are fucking amazing lol possibly one of the greatest weapons ever made, bless the man who looked at a sling and said, I want that effect on a hand held stick lol
I will just leave it here - armored full contact axe fight.
Looks pretty damn brutal, but it is done apparently:
th-cam.com/video/Ad5RJ3TeKSE/w-d-xo.html
This just echoes what my brother and I figured out about 4 years ago: We usually sparr with plate armour and steel sparring longswords (exhibition fight weapons, if the translation is right). Even with longswords that have a thicker blade and are blunt one cannot strike at full force without hurting your opponent. So we have to use a lot of control which makes our fighting a bit slower than a real fight. We then tried to sparr with a blunted steel spear (boar spear) with a rounded metal tip. we soon discovered that polearms are way quicker than you'd expect, they're way more dangerous and you have to REALLY be careful with those (we used a non flexible wooden staff and we accidentally shattered a shield with the spear).
With longer pole-arms the forward arm creates a fulcrum around which the entire weight of the lower or rear portion of the pole-arm is brought to bear. Similar to how a pommel works on swords, but the lever is much longer.
Kudos for emphasizing the intertia factor!
Swords are weak, but flesh is strong.
THAT is power!
even the SCA, using 2" rattan poles, require 2"-4" of soft padding on the striking surfaces of polearms. A long stick is a long stick.
History note: a staff, full length, is a 20'-24' pole used in thatch roofing and was sometimes used by highwaymen as a weapon. Allows you to strike a coachman while standing behind your protective tree. So a quarterstaff is 1/4 of that, about 6'.
This is interesting and useful information (the quaterstaff), I did not know this. And also aren't fibreglass weapons a thing in SCA Heavy, though more around thrusting weapons?
That's the third explanation of "quarterstaff" I've seen, and the coolest.
Excellent demonstration of the force behind such weapons is Dr Toby Capwell being whacked on the head with a dense rubber foam pollaxe. He is in full armour for ground combat, and yet is still knocked out for a moment. You can see it at around 1:15 of the "Tournament of the Phoenix" video from 2012 (th-cam.com/video/Xzh5P9go0KI/w-d-xo.html).
I come from SCA heavy fighting and some HEMA on the side, we have to use softer heads on our pole weapons, axes, and maces in order to make the "safe" and they are still more dangerous then swords in our sport. Also our armor is somewhere in between BotN and HEMA including steel helms though we have more sport bar grills then full helms like BotN.
A blunted sword, designed to do damage when sharp, is weaker than polearm weapons, designed to deliver blunt force trauma, in an environment that favors defeating heavily armored opponents by felling and concussing them and forbids stabbing and thrusting. Also, grass is usually green.
Now, before you consider me a hater, swords in general are designed to kill, with the least possible energy exertion. HEMA and "Battle of the Nations" are tournaments and sport events. You want to defeat the opponent, who is, in general, more armored than the English King at Agincourt. Of course you want to use a blunt trauma weapon. You don't want to kill them!
I'm sure the anecdote about the 16ft barge pole swung by a thames bargeman vs a rapier on a renowned duellist at some point in the renaissance period(I don't know when and I can't verify if the anecdote is actually a story from the period or something made up to fit) - Spoiler, the duellist loses his head to a blunt but stout piece of wood swung reasonably fast meaning the tip is travelling riduculously fast
almost def true. And shows a stupid duellist, or one that wasn't looking.
It's just like the Japanese story about the guy who dueled Musashi who was using a boat oar and killed the guy
It occurs to me now that the phrase "Knocking their block off" may actually be based on somebody decapitating a guy with blunt force alone.
I think that was the death of Rocco Bonetti? One of the London Masters of Defense, at any rate.
@@PXCharon that sounds about right to me
Thanks a lot for all the information conveyed by the video.
A blunt Dane Axe is still a war hammer.
I would say that hitting someone in the fencing mask full force with a quarter staff might result in neck injury, but there's a good chance that'll be determined on the autopsy table.
All true. I still bear injuries to my neck from a hit from a foam axe while fighting SCA. Through a sallet and gorget too. Clocked me pretty proper.
This is why I subscribe to the "fight softly" school of reenactment fighting. Carrying more armour, having stricter regulations on equipment and so on will still give you concussions and whiplashes from polearms. When everyone is intent on "tap fighting" and wears as little protective gear they can get away with (to move faster), you end up in a much safer environment. A battlefield full of people that can't see well, are restricted in movement and control, and feel invincible is a recipe for lasting injuries.
In my opinion there are only two ways you can go about having realistic fighting. You can have realistic techniques in a highly regulated duel scenario with anachronistic protective gear (HEMA). Or you can have realistic gear and group dynamics, but with anachronistic techniques (tap fighting).
Personally, I don't enjoy individual sports, so I do reenactment fighting wearing toothguard, cup and gauntlets as only protective gear. Most dangerous injury was from crashing into a teammates shield, cutting my nose (one stich), and I've been doing this for years. I don't think I've heard about concussions, whiplashes or anything like that. Most serious is fingers (always a danger when not having good enough gauntlets) and teeth (wear a toothguard, always), both due to inadequate gear.
@Gabriel Bido Bruises are also gonna happen in a "fight safely" approach. Bruises are fine. Broken bones are potentially very serious injuries, at times career-ending injuries and should not be accepted so light-heartedly as you do.
But broken bones is not all that the "tough guys" get. Head injuries and concussions are common because of all the heavy head hits. No visible injury, doesn't mean it is safe. NFL football, boxing, even association football have started to realize that repeated knocks on the head has severe long term implications.
Go ask Alan Shearer if it is smart to have someone hit you in the helmet as hard as they manage. His problem has been heading a relatively soft and light football. Your brain is gonna take similar beating from a sword through a helmet. Even when there is no visible injury at the time.
@Gabriel Bido There is a thing you need to keep in mind, authentically reenacting a medieval battle is the same as fighting a medieval battle. The only way to make it realistic is to have people die. We obviously don't want that.
In order to safely do any of the different ways to simulate medieval combat, we have to find compromises so that we can explore the aspects of combat we wish to explore. In most HEMA settings, the goal is to study blossfechten techniques in a duelling setting, and have rules, equipment, and ways of fighting to accomodate that. I don't find duels interesting, I want battles. In some systems, like the SCA heavy fighting, there are battles, but the rules require immense amount of armour and the use of rattan sticks rather than swords.
By having a culture of fighting safely and a ruleset that encourages relatively light fighting, I can partake in large battles in historic gear (for Viking age and earlier, that means almost no armour for almost everyone), without compromising my own safety and the safety of the people I fight with. For me, using a fencing mask is hindering my ability to reenact the manouvering and communication of the battlefield. But the tradeoff is that we can't stab each other in the face - likely the most common technique used in war.
It isn't more realistic with heavier fighting, it is just compromising different aspects of combat.
I also do not compare what I do (group focused western style reenactment combat) with combat sports often. I compare it with contact sports with teams. What I do is in many ways closer to lacrosse or handball (rough teamgames were the physical violence is undercommunicated in their marketing) than to MMA or boxing. Combat sports that focus on duels are very different in how you play the game than teamgames, and that is a bigger difference than how closely the sport resembles combat. For me, positioning and teamwork are more important to win than how well you defend and attack on an individual level.
Early 13th century / earlier swords had the balance point a lot further from the hand than their successors because they had more of an offensive role which put the emphasize on the cut. Matt himself compared his dynasty forge type 10a arming sword with its 6" center of gravity offset to a sharpened crowbar lol.
Not saying it would hit harder than a dane axe, but it certainly pack a wallop and would probably be able to kill even if it was blunt.
Sorry for the english :)
Short handle -> short distance between hands -> small lever for gripping -> low mechanical advantage
Long handle -> long distance between hands -> large lever for gripping -> high mechanical advantage!
Basically, as long as the reach of the weapon is to be maximized, the handle length will need to be short, if an overall maximum length is not to be exceeded -- there's always a trade-off between extra leverage and blade length. But if you allow the weapon's overall length to be greater, you can have both the leverage in grip and the length in the working end.. and what does such a weapon resemble? Pole weapons. Obviously there are very many other factors in determining what makes something effective or not, but in terms of force multiplication and all that, longer handles and longer "blades" both help, and so the classic trope of a hero wielding a one-handed sword and shield to win the day seems full of holes.
Thing that fantasy artist learned : MAKE BIG FANCY HEAVIER SWORDS
On a more serious note, the 'fencing' aspects of sword's mass arrangement has its advantages as most of the other weapons (which Matt explained multiple times too), especially the percussive ones, are not that mobile compared to some post-migration era swords, but it can Only help so much against those percussive weapons.
And I'l confess my heartbeat quickened when Matt brought the bill close to the dane axe and that back spike seemed to be hovering close to this palm :p
Moment of Inertia, *I = mass*radius^2*, is an object resistance to rotation. A higher moment of Inertia means more force is required to decelerate it thus, a high moment of Inertia means more stopping power and vice versa. As shown in the formula the mass affects an object inertia, not speed. To increase stopping power/moment of Inertia, one could either increase the weapon mass or increase the radius of the axis of rotation(distance between the hands to the centre of balance).
A sword has a low moment of inertia as the radius between the hands and centre of balance is small, a lower moment of Inertia means it’s easier to accelerate as there’s less force/resistance to rotate the object. Furthermore, the formula for rectangular objects are, *Inertia = (width*height^3)/12 *, that’s why swords with a rectangular profile such as an Oakshott X are tip heavy. To make a sword more nimble the moment of Inertia must be reduce thus it either have to reduce in height/length or decrease in either the blade width or thickness (or a combination of the two). That’s why distill and profile tapering a sword makes it more nimble as tapering decreases the width and thickness to reduce the sword moment of Inertia.
Additionally, the moment of Inertia can be reduce if the centre of gravity is closer to the axis of rotation (the hands). *Centre of Mass = [Sum of (mass*distance from object boundary)]/total mass* . Again tapering the sword helps to reduce the mass thereby moving the centre of balance towards the hilt.
PS: I think using the Parallel Axis Theorem might be more accurate for analysis, please feel free to correct me.
That should also mean, that since it is easier to rotate objects with low moment of inertia, one can get a sword up to a greater velocity, right? And since we know that kinetic energy does the damage, and it is calculazed by multiplying 1/2 of said objects apparent mass at a given point by its velocity squared at that point, that would mean that the difference isnt all that big. For example, lets have a sword with an effective mass of 400g at the tip moving at 25m/s. It is going to have roughly the same amount of kinetic energy as a 2000g object moving at 11 m/s. The question is, how big a difference the different rotational characteristics of these different objects make in regards to their velocity. I would be interested in what you think about this subject.
@@henriknemeth3370 I agree that a nimble weapon can reach the same KE as a tip heavy weapon via high acceleration. However, this also mean it's easier to decelerate a nimble weapon thus making it easier to do a static block whereas a weapon with high moments of inertia may be slower but it's harder to block/defend against it. (Skalligrim done a video of quarterstaff vs longsword and it just broke the longsword guard with a slow swing of the quaterstaff). This means that a tip heavy weapon can bash through the guard of another sword and has a stronger guard/defence in theory.
In practice it takes less effort to reach a high KE with a tip heavy weapon than a nimble weapon as more effort is needed to accelerate the weapon (Though one might say that more effort is needed to accelerate a tip heavy weapon, but once the tip heavy weapon is in motion it's easy to maintain the acceleration/momentum). That's why less skilled soldiers uses the falchion and Dao as it required less effort to dealt a large damage to the enemy. Also a tip heavy weapon doesn't need to travel that fast to dealt a generate a large KE and, most Dao and Falchion techniques causes the sword to "fall towards the opponent" instead of mainly accelerating with the arms (If I'm not mistaken about the techniques).
Furthermore, tip heavy weapons are forgiving cutters as a high moment of inertia helps the sword to retain momentum through the cuts. The common soldiers are conscripted farmers or civilians, normally they don't spent a lot of time practicing cutting therefore they use choppy swords.
PS: I think I got side-tracked when writing this. Apologies for that.
@@stanlim9182 That makes a lot of sense. I still find rhis video a bit ,well i would not go as far as to say misleading, because it is obvious that Matt is trying to teach these basics about weapin phisycs to those not at all familiar with them, but my point is, that it is about swords, when it should be about every other single handed melee weapon too. For example, i cant see why a typical one handed viking axe, at a weight of 800-900 g and a length of 60-70 cm would achieve greater KE just by the virtue of it being tip heavy, than an exceptionally heavy, lets say 1,6 kg viking sword with a length of 90 cm.
@@henriknemeth3370 Matt did mention he done A-level physics many years ago in his older videos. Though he did mention he forgotten a bunch of theory as it's been quite a while.
A one handed axe may not be as powerful as a long heavy viking sword but it's more affordable than a sword as well as generating enough KE to get the job done.
@@henriknemeth3370 One thing to not forget is even if a sword is moving as fast on paper to make up for the lack of mass of a polearm, axe, or hammer, it's pretty much guaranteed that it will lose a massive amount of that force thanks to the flexibility of most sword blades compared to a thicker piece of metal on a stout haft.
I'm sure you know this, but 7-8lbs is on the heavy end for halberds & pollaxes. There are lots of surviving halberds in museums that weight 5lbs or under. 4.5-6lbs would be the common range for halberds 1400-1550, with a few heavier or lighter than that. (Of course, lightness wasn't necessarily desirable for halberds; Raimond de Fourquevaux complained about some of them being too light.)
In your latest video "Big Stick Energy" you mentioned how the power of a quarterstaff could be significantly reduced by wearing a helmet but here you mention it could still provide injury. Is that just in the matter of sportsmanship or the type of helmet or a separate issue? Love your content man!
Over appreciated weapons: The sword.
Under appreciated weapon: Cuckoldry.
Swords in a battlefield of armoured knights and men at arms feel like the equivalent of a submachine gun or pistol to a modern soldier when the rifle is his polearm.
Great as a backup, and you can take it with you into buildings worn at your side when in other cases your larger weapon you'd leave behind, or when travelling and you just need a sidearm.
At the end should have mentioned their nimbleness. With the weight closer to the hands it's easier to be precise and correct/adjust your attack.
Related, everyone focuses on the helmet or sometimes breastplate. What about arms? I'd like to see tests against arm harness with polearms and with large type XIII swords. One thing, would one feel a hit to the funny bone? I ask as the Harley manuscript is smoetimes thought to imply armour and strikes to the elbows,, neck, and hands.
Pietro Monte & Juan Quijada de Reayo both pointed to this dynamic of injuring the arms with cavalry impact weapons (maces/hammers) as I recall.
Compared to an axe? Absolutely swords don’t innately hit very hard at all. They are weighted for precision and control, not power. No argument here.
Different weapons designed to work differently.
This was very informative, thank you. Another weakness of the sword is that it breaks very easily (especially when not getting the cut right), the blades can knick or bend and also it requires a lot of skill to actually cut correctly. Give me a spear any day of the week.
Rattan might as well be balsa when used as a staff. I've had a few and literally broke a bo across my ribs when I practiced with too much "conviction" (during kata, not kumite). Looks beautiful, but quite useless against other weapons. Rattan is perfect for escrima, though. Different woods for different needs.
Wow.. I learned something. Don't smack someone with a Blunt Dane Axe in jest, you will probably kill them.
Hey Matt! If an apocalypse broke loose (you can choose one or many) and you had to leave your home, with which of your weapons would you equip yourself?
I like to think of the sword, in certain eras and places and _contexts,_ as equivalent to the pistol of today. Can I put the dagger up as the pocket pistol?
The mace should be the shotgun
Very useful! Please keep doing more videos like this!
You mentioned that swords rely on their sharpness or they aren't very useful. How much time was spent sharpening swords in the ancient world. What were the tools. Were their specialists to this task? It seems like their may have been lots of logistics in maintaining cutting weapons. way back then.
"Hold on... gotta Sharpen my Hammer..."
~ Hammer Mains in Monster Hunter, since 2004
So this makes me wonder if I should be worrying about the clerics and wizards with quarterstaves. that metal tip aside, would staff and spear be comparable in the amount of force they thrust with? Looks to me that metal tip like a sword blade is more penetration and less force.
When you mention danish axes and inertia, the word that should be used in place of inertia is torque. The wikipedia article for torque has some good images. In short, torque is the force (newtons, i.e., mass x acceleration) multiplied by the length. A longer haft multiplies the force more, leading to a greater torque. So with torque we are covering the mass, the acceleration, and the length, basically all the 3 variables you care about when comparing the relative damage dealt by different medieval weapons arcing through the air. Well, all except for the cross-section of impact, such as a spike vs a hammer.
Technically, torque is a cross product, which in our case basically means that its moment of inertia or "rotational mass" is being accounted for; in other words, the weight being balanced toward the site of impact is also a part of torque. Torque is the work horse you want to saddle up for these conversations, as it covers the most variables in one elegant term.
The wikipedia description refers to torque as the rotational analog of linear force. So if you want to talk about force in a rotational context, torque would be the succinct single-word alternative to rotational energy or angular momentum.
Which is why swords were not a knights main weapon
It depends on what level, and in which period. It is their main weapon, symbolically speaking (with its christian cross symbolism, knighting ceremonies, etc), and symbols were sufficient for a lot of people in high middle-age.
@@mooncorp212 Agreed with what you say. It was symbolic and it does depend on the time period.
Zweihänder: Am I a joke to you?
@@Likexner Yes you are
Sword is not the end, it's a mean. The reason to have sword training is to train reflex & agility.
Well, a sword could make for a decent improvisation of a blunt force weapon if you strike with the hilt (either by holding by the blade or simply when in extreme close range). Still, there are better weapons for dedicated blunt force.
10:39 feels like a nod to Shad's recent video "Underappreciated historical weapons: THE STICK!!".
Indeed
Random polearm question:
Was there any specific weapon that was a combined spear and mace? Like, a slightly shorter spear, with the other end a solid metal basher of some sort, a hand-and-a-half kind of thing, could be used like a one handed spear with shield.
There was the goedendag, but it was more of a combined spear and club.
Poleaxe comes to mind. A scary thing it is.
I 100% second Matts remarks on the dangerous power in polearms. In the reantactment group i used to frequent, we used steel headed spears (with a flat golf ball sized tip), with ash shafts. Like Matt says it meant spearmen had to tailor their thrusting technique to minimize impact (especially since we don't wear armor or padding on the torso (the target for spears). Essentially they use them like they were "playing pool/snooker" (only powering the thrust with the back hand and using minimal engergy behind it, while using the other to aim). Even those minimized thrusts will knock the wind from your lungs, and can leave quite a bruise. Also, if the flat tip breaks, these spears will pierce your flesh and cause scars.
In SCA fighting, polearms are limited to 90° swings only for this very reason.
While we wear steel, leather & padding. And strike each other full force.
No one wants to receive a full swing.
Edit: hold on, you spar without wearing gorgets?
Are y'all insane?
the tital is a bit ambiguous. I did not know if you were referring to the formidableness or the literal physical durability of swords.
I can see this kind of discussion already been made in the past. That's why in history, tip heavy sword like the Falchion or a few versions of Japanese Tachi were made
Probably you are wrong about falchions. As I know this type of swords has very thin and sharp blade. It was designed to cut unarmored or lightly-armored (gambeson like) people. So, swords are still weak including falchion.
6:25 "It's about 18 inches from the tip. Sorry for using Imperial there, it's what I'm used to."
As an America I appreciate you using Imperial because I don't have to do any conversions, but I still gotta ask; how is it that you, an Englishman, are used to using Imperial over Metric in any capacity?? Like, for real, I am VERY curious.
Remember, Imperial was originally a British standard. I live in Canada, we use primarily metric because it makes the most sense (all base 10). However, we also understand Imperial as we have British roots and are US trade partners. I think British Motorways use MPH for speed limits still and most UK boomers are pre-metric conversion, so they understand both formats.
@@jm9371 I knew that Imperial was the British standard, they did make it, but I guess I just assumed it had been out of use much long than it was.
@@MoeMoeJoeJoe no, it's in common parlance. Everybody is a bit different.
I measure all weights exclusively in kilograms.
I describe short distances in inches and feet, very small distances in millimetres, walking distances in metres/km (due to Army training) and driving distances in miles (due to road signs)!
Food energy is definitely calories.
Volume is litres, unless it's beer in which case it's pints (568ml).
Temperature is always Celsius.
Anything else is used in a scientific context and is 100% metric
@@joshuapeckham2453 I see, thank you for the insight.
Even the peasants equipped with polearms like flails or "sudlice" were able to defeat mounted knights in large battles. Terrifying weapons.
"Sudlice" - billhook
Numbers
And a simple bow would lay them down before they even got within 30m so your point??
@@chroma6947 unless they have plate armor. Or any arnor really. Even a 200lbs longbow would struggle with killing a fully armored knight _immediately,_ but they can do it faster than weaker bows, at least.
@@baronprocrastination1722 not if you hit mail.
"Swords are weak" .. Matt making the Internet Cry
If we view dps, indeed weak. Does it make it less DEADLY? No.
Swords got famous because they were difficult to make and expensive. But they were easily nullified by armor and were weaker than other weapons.
@@danieldbdb That is wrong. Many swords were made for soldiers without a lot of money. A soldier could afford a falchion with simple guard in 2 weeks.
@@danieldbdb Swords were most likely very useful in self defense/edc, polearms better suited for battlefields.
@@VinceMenger Swords were very effective on battlefields. this stuff about "swords are weak" is common sense- they ARE NOT bludgeoning weapons the entire point of a sword is it is sharp and can cut and thrust. A dane axe is not more lethel then a sword- If you are stabbed in the neck or have your arm lopped off both will cause fatal wounds.
Swords don't have the reach and they rely on cutting to be lethal. But reach is not the most important thing in every context and NOT in a pitched battle where there is not always room to use pol weapons.
The videos point about swords balance being near the hand is a good thing for flexibility since it allow rapid one handed thrusts.
If you are using a Shield with a one handed Spear you will not get the level of flexibility that you have with a sword.
if you are using a two handed weapon then you don't get a shield- which before the development of full body armor were not as common.
This idea that swords don't work is nonsense.
"Is it as effective as a baseball bat? Probably not." *Harley Quinn liked this*
I think the word you were searching for when saying leverage was moment force.
I am a civil engeniering and think a lot about safe materials to sparring. I was thinking about this shaft isue with spears and have an idea, check if you like it:
Maybe you can use the historical (rigid) shaft of ash with a long and hard rubber (like a 50 cm or a 100 cm of rubber), if the rubber is rigid enought but flex to the side when you stab, it should work. I don't know the kind of rubber you shoul use, but I garantee if you get bigger than 20 cm you get much less problems in thrusts because it will bend or deflect away. The problem will be to fix the rubber into the shaft without tear it in the fist hit.
I think also that the control with the point will be less reliable, but maybe control with the weak of the spear is not a good idea anyways. Otherwise maybe the bind of the spear with such a rubber head maybe too strange and you will fell less or none of the contact thru your contact, you should watch out for this too. That's a tradeoff, no doubt about it. Trying might be nice.
Cheers from Brazil.
Interesting point, which brings HEMA somehow closer, than I expected to the Olympic fencing. At least in causes. In both case it is a play: in olympic fencing it's focusing on speed, in HEMA on authentic look. (Sure oversimplification)
Like with everything depends on the scenario. If I was in an army fighting on an open field yeah I'm probably gonna want a pole arm. If I'm fighting one to one I'm probably going to want something like a sword.
I have been wanting you to cover the pros and cons of the one handed vs two handed and how body mechanics fit in. I feel as though one handed swords are better most of the time in unarmored combat.
why?
More reach, easier to grab with the offhand and have the option to stand more sideways to expose your body less when using a one handed sword.
George Silver thought there was no question that weapons made to be used with two hands had the advantage over single-handed swords. He had a very high opinion of the two-handed sword. The sort of two-handed sword Silver had in mind was probably similar to the bigger longsword feders used today. Gérard Thibault's two-handed sword appears to have been about the same, though perhaps a bit larger. He gave a method for defeating the two-handed sword with the single rapier, but implied that the two-handed sword has the advantage. The same section has instruction for triumphing with single rapier over rapier & dagger & rapier & target. No body could credibly assert that the single rapier has the advantage over rapier plus something else, & Thibault even explicitly wrote that the weapons addressed in that section had some sort of advantage over the single rapier.
Although this is a very important and useful message, I can't help but feel that the main thrust of the argument is that a blunt weapon can't really be blunted.
Indeed they are. I would like to point out something that seems to get overlooked though, and a reason why i began gravitating toward japanese swords years ago. Modern mono-tempered katana make a great use of one of the katanas biggest flaws, its thick, heavy blade which is short for its weight. The rigid nature and heft of a katana actually makes striking with the spine very dangerous for an armored opponent. Most other blades, which are better in my opinion as just cutting/thrusting swords, like a messer, have blades that are to thin and flexible like you discuss. Makes them better as swords in many ways, however the hefty design of katana lends itself well to spine strikes.
This would be especially true in the case of the longer nodachi/odachi length swords because of the greater overall mass.
@@Vlad_Tepes_III very true. I have a cheness 33” o katana that i totally rebuilt with solid brass fittings and a 16” handle, an effort at a short nodachi type design. It has worked out very well. While missing 6” or so to be in the real nodachi territory the extra leverage with the 16” handle allows me to generate a stunning strike force with the spine.
Would the leaf - getting a bit more 'bulbous' shaped towards the tip- shape of some Greek swords and certain types of Gladius' have increased the inertia of them in a useful way?
I would think so, if you look at some scimitars and falchions as well as the eastern/middle eastern swords, back swords etc. If the emphasis is on hacking the weight is good. The gladius I think would be more of a stabbing/thrust weapon so you dont really need the heavy tips.
We fence with rigid ash spearshafts and it's true, we get frequently injured lightly, even without a metal spear tip.
9:33 If a sword is blunt... You have stick! - Shad Brooks 2021
A bad stick, would much rather have a equaly long 2' thick stick in my hands
"Stick very good" - Shad Brooks 2021
The next video will be the “Efficiency of Cardboard as armour”, no doubt. I
A topic that I expect to see in this video but probably is good for another: how would you estimate the endurability of various weapons? e.g. I think maces don't break as fast or as often as swords but I am interested in other comparisons as well, such as axes vs swords.
Durability is/was probably something of a side issue for cheap weapons - and (lowend) polearms were cheap. As for maces - it depends on the materials - bronze or iron maces would deform or crack. As a modern example look at sledgehammers - some will have a mushroomed striking face after hard use.
Probably if you put a lump of iron with a lot of inclusions on the end of a stick it will crack or even just fall apart fairly quickly. So there was such a thing as too cheap.
No weapon has a shorter life expetancy than the person wielding it at any point in history. Life expectancy when actively fighting is ridicolusly short, it is measured in minutes. Surviving a battle was probably not that rare, but surviving having to actually use your weapon is.
Remember, for every time you strike at someone with a sword, there will be one that is gravely wounded or dead shortly afterwards. Either you or the person you struck. You can survive that encounter, or a few if oyu are lucky and skilled. But you will not survive enough encounters that the durability of oyur weapon will be a disadvantage.
a very relevant question and in my opinion that is exactly another weakness of the sword (along with the skill it takes to use it). The can bend, knick and break.
@@Taeerom I suppose if the user is well-armored and fight in good formation and with good skill and tactics, it wouldn't be so rare for the weapon to break first.
Shad did a video about the mighty Stick, in which he points out exactly the same thing- the stick is the foundation of many weapons (as well as being a decent weapon in its own right) but not swords- they don't apply momentum as well as does a girthy stick of similar length.
Don't like this guy
@@danieldbdb Are you telling people not to like me?
Are you saying *you* don't like me, or Shad, or Matt, or someone else?
Is English not your first language?
I remember getting hit for the first time in armor with a blunted sword. there is defiantly a pause to think.... wow that was it?
In buhurt i have gone down like a sack from pole weapon strike, and the gear I was using was much hevtier than historical one. (Historical ones reflect the blows a bit better and I think that helps way more. Not experienced with them thou.)
This is really intetesting. Is there actually something like a realistic electronic simulation for different kinds of weapons and armor?
All this is well and good. Still don't want to be hit with a sharp sword.
Welp to be fair, you wouldn't want to be hit with a sharp anything if you are unarmored.
Frankly, I don't want to be hit with a blunt anything either. Slapping also hurts a bit, too.
I would hate to get hit whit a whip and there is no sharp anything there. Fuck it i would hate to get hit whit a fist and hopefully there is no sharp points there eighter.
Inertia is resistance to change in its state of motion. Momentum is the tendency to remain in motion. I overcome the axe's inertia so I can swing it and it's momentum is the force with which it strikes
Interesting you mention spears to the face are problematic. I know when we went to the park and used "boffers" (foamed plastic pipes) we had to standardize how padding on the tip was doing to make thrusts viable, and even then the head and neck were considered invulnerable to discourage attacks there. I think we required 4 inches of padding on the end of a pipe.
it also probably helps that kids are not really generating the forces needed to do as much and technique was more based on whatever people thought might let them win than anything formal.
I have absolutely no experience in fighting with swords, pole arms, etc. But my feeling is this: If artillery has failed, (bows, catapults, trebuchets, etc.) cavalry has failed, and long arms have failed, then it’s a real SHTF situation if you must use a sword.
if you believe this is true "in the real world swords are definitely not weak" why do you insist your HEMA is the closest to real medieval combat that you can possibly get?
swords from asia also tend to have high inertia damage due to most of them being center balanced in the blade, make them comparable to battle axes in cutting power which is why swords like shamshirs, tachi, katana, and willow leaf sabres generally cut better than most european straight blades
if you gave a modern man a medieval sword he would break it the swords back then where not spring temperd all the time was only for high nobels who could get good steel which was quite rare most swords where made out of laminated wrought iron and steel or steel steel lamination and most where differentially edge quenched so they could bend far more easy than a modern spring steel one almost all swords where laminated until the 17th century when good spring steel was available the lamination was cost effective you use less steel easy to make in mass if you had to.
very good point
They just don’t pack enough punch when using them in armored combat. I stick with a pole axe,mace or normal axe.
In the SCA they have rubber heads on axes and maces. It durable rubber but not too painful either when getting hits
@chinto kata I tend to completely ignore that
Swords are great for grappling, for when people wear armor.
I mean there's a reason why knights used Poleaxes and Polehammers extensively as their primary weapon.
Swords are also versatile. Can use it as a spear or a hammer if you hold it right.
depends a claymore is pretty strong, at the same time for the time period certain one handed swords were very appropriate like the sabre or rapier from the 15th-18th century. Against armored opponents it is not so effective especially those with high quality armor but I think against the average peaseant levy it is effective. The thing with swords is we need to consider the context and time period in which they were used and the equipment the vast majority of people at the time wore.
Man leverage gets thrown around a lot here when length would be more appropriate. Same rotational speed but longer length = higher velocity. A short poleaxe has greater leverage ratio than a long one.
With the exception of the ones that are large enough to be practically pole-arms (Those Warhammer Tucks come to mind) they're designed to look nice, and elegant, not to mention being comfortable to carry, too. You can't have all of that and Raw Power. Everything that's stronger than a good sword (Skilled>Build) is a bitch to live with. That goes double for large Shields.
The lunge is also a lot of Reach, the most you can get out of a given weapon. There's just longer weapons than swords, spears for example, and you can lunge with those 2 handed. The spear is still going to hit harder, because it's a heavier weapon.
So going by the polearm analogy, I guess it wouldn't be safe to execute a mordhau hit in HEMA practice? In practicality that pretty much turns the sword into a mace or crows beak, probably not too safe.
avoid that, yes, unless it's padded and you're careful.
Yeah. I know of at least one case where someone got a concussion that left a permanent injury and resulted in a lawsuit from using that technique.
Unlike the sharp edge, mordhau with blunts are pretty similar between 'real' and practice swords-that to say, about the same level of dangerous and injurious, since the mechanics are pretty much identical.
It turns them into a really shitty mace or crows beak, but yeah they're more dangerous that way.
What is with the Murderstroke (Mordschlag , Donnerschlag)?
This is a comment to feed the algorithm. 🙂
Replying for the same reason
Feined disagreement to extend the reply section.
😊😄😁😂🥰
Hay there me too
I wouldn't say swords are weak per se. I would say it depends. Well yes, they don't hit as hard as polearms or axes. True. But there are more factors in a fight than just how to hit hard. I would say the weakness of the sword forces the fighter to fight smarter. In a fight with equal fighters, one against one, the swordsman "only" has to get close enough. I would say the sword has more options in this case. In a battle with more combatants, this is more difficult. If you have comrades equipped with polearms next to you, it is much more difficult for your opponents to get to you. Here the polearm is clearly stronger.
Yet even the samurai invented a short yari not much longer than a katana for fighting indoors. Reach isn't the only advantage polearms have, leverage is a HUGE benefit, especially compared to flexible sword blade that doesn't allow a good grip and loses way too much energy on impact.
How do you feel about Viking reenactors using Dane axes and simply just blunted axes when most of us don’t wear mail or helmets. Seeing as most kits are not wealthy enough for it?
Whenever I try to explain this people mention the Roman army using swords and shields to repeatedly beat spears and shields. What’s your counter argument?
My counter argument would be Hasta, Javelin, Pila, Bows, Crossbows and Plumbatae. (that doesnt even include artillary weapons). Whoever claims that a roman army used swords and shields to defeat anyone doesn't know much. Also, at least as far as my limited knowledge goes, their training, equipment and tactics were so much better simply because Rome could afford it.
Counter argument? They never JUST used swords and shields. They used the hasta, switched the pilum for a time, and then went to the hasta again when they had a new throwing weapon (the plumbata).
Other counterpoint: When they faced comparably trained and equipped spearmen (as opposed to barbarian rabble who would often break from a pilum throw alone) with short spears (like Hannibals Libyans, their own revolting Auxiliary Batavi and Illyrians), the legionaries usually got their asses kicked.
I've seen some competitive team hema melees on TH-cam where people are dressed in plate armor and wielding pollaxes. Are measures taken to tame the power of pollaxes in these fights? Some of them seem to be thwacking pretty good with them.
Thank you, you just ( very elegantly) made Shad's point in his last video.
seein' they're both right....
If a sharp sword binding on the shaft or the head of a spear gives you an advantage (because you feel where the poleaxe is going to), how can one make any suggestions on how these weapons would be effectiv on a battlefield? Roland Warzecha did spar with sharp sword against a spear and turned the outcome around by winning over the spear. Anybody tryed it? I can´t find any mentioning on this.
Binding the haft is incredibly difficult to do when your opponent isn't cooperating, and doesn't change the fact that a spear has vastly superior leverage in most cases. Sharp swords existing hasn't the changed the fact that we have writings from cultures all over the world overwhelmingly saying the spear is superior for serious fighting.
intresting but is it not easier and faster to recover when you miss with a sword, the with a pole axe or hamers as the inertia and weight makes them harder to change direction in mid swing or recover from a miss
You have two hands on a poleweapon which helps greatly in recovery, especially if you're thrusting with it often like you should. Even if you do a big overhand blow and a swordsman rushes in, you can hit with the other end of the weapon as well.
Instructor: "And so in order to ensure everyones complete safety we will be sparring with pool noodles from now on. Oi, where's everyone going? ".
I don't know why, but that made me sad. Like comparing chihuahua and wolf. What happened..
I mean... that's basically Dagorhir or Belegarth. Full-contact, full-force fighting, with softened weapons, allowing for non-armored combat. Definitely fun.
Lol
Except that pool noodles are dangerous! Don’t you know that?!! What if someone hits just right and the other person looses an I?!! Oh wait, we can’t let kids be aggressive or physical! (Being facetious).
@@danielniffenegger7698 No, see, they thought of that! One of the rules is that none of the weapons can be small enough around to fit through an eye socket!
So what if that makes it look like you're fighting with oversized popsicles and q-tips, it's safe!
(Real rule, tho. I recognize your facetiousness.)
A single handed sword is only fit for use with a shield, dueling, or just to have something. For all else, there's two handers.
When I think of two handers, I can only think of my experience with baseball. I feel like you are able to put so much more of your body weight, swinging your hips, turning your shoulders, getting your whole body involved. That's in addition to the length, weight, and concentration aspects you mentioned in the video.
Hack away two handed all you like. You will still fall to the chap with a one handed weapon who can score a penetrating wound around 2 inches in depth.
@@zoiders That's true of anything. :D
You can still use a single handed sword with two hands by grasping the pommel if needed
@@zoiders provided he is even in range against 2 handers,
After a while fighting, I should think most would want to go two-handed.
Matt question, what is your opinion on regenyei swords? i want to buy one and would like opinions, also if someone know about them plz fell free to tell
Hey, Matt is your English bill made with wootz steel? Or just rusty? Lol it looked like wootz or some interesting patterning on the head of it. Also, great video as always!
Hello Matt, what longsword would you recommend against home invaders? I was thinking an Albion Principe would make a good example. Thanks 👍
Depends on the size of your home. You need a lot of space for a longsword.
A langmesser maybe. Another name for it was Hauswehr or Bauernwehr, literally house defender. It's like a mix of a long bowy knife and a short sword.
Actually in the Chinese civilization swords (the jian 剑)
Was replaced by dao (saber) pretty early in Han dynasty, with emergence of armour
Maces and spiked club (bone club 骨朵, hammers 锤， wolf fang club 狼牙棒)
Are weapons made for armour.
The most direct upgrade to the jian 剑 is the jian 锏 (no pun intended, but the two weapons sounded similar.
th-cam.com/video/oLNO4KnQI5s/w-d-xo.html
The weight is about 2-4 times that of a sword, basically a square prism of hard metal with a pointy tip, it can bash armour without being damaged and thrust through armour with the heavier inertial.
Still it definitely dwarf in comparison to the halberd 戟
Which have about 10 foot pole on it and used in formation
Or even crossbows which the historical range is about 180 meter or so.
This is drama "reenactment" on a historical battle, the uniform, armour and weapons
Are historically accurate to the relics being dug up.
Battle between Wang Jian (Qin) and Xiang Yan (Chu)
That is the last few battles before unification of China in around 220 BC
th-cam.com/video/muAbSCaLOoA/w-d-xo.html
Swords have limited use in formation and "short weapons" like axe and clubs are usually
Backup weapons.
@@jacquesstrapp3219 I suspect he was referring to swords as used in Ancient China. In Rome tacrics would have been different
@@jacquesstrapp3219
The Roman Gladius is about 60cm overall length.
Which would be around the length of a Wakizashi, or a machete.
So it behaves closer to what we would call a "short sword" than regular swords.
The swords used in early Spring Autumn period in ancient China is actually around that length.
(looking at the Sword of Gou Jian which is 55cm long)
th-cam.com/video/KgH-aMuuRdw/w-d-xo.html
That is during the bronze age where the swords are predominantly bronze swords.
When going into the Warring States period, the sword's length grew to 70+ to even
91cm overall for the Qin swords (that is dug up with the Terracotta Army)
That is a 91cm long bronze sword we are talking about
The 刺客列传 or Assassin's Biography actually depicted a scene where Jing Ke with
"the dagger hidden in a map scroll" actually caught the Qin King by surprise in an attempted assassination.
The Qin king need to be reminded to draw his sword from the back before taking out the assassin on his own.
Which kept scholars baffled for over 2000 years as swords of the period were thought to be short swords in 50 - 60 cm in length
until a 91cm long Qin sword is being excavated
4m 27s - documentary footage of excavation.
th-cam.com/video/SvXRczu8tOk/w-d-xo.html
28m 22s The assassination scene (in a historical drama)
th-cam.com/video/ct543N0l6tQ/w-d-xo.html
I am not too sure if the average people would be familiar with those lengths.
55-60cm is about the length of your elbow, which means it is possible to hide a short sword
between the shield and the arm holding it, you wouldn't be obstructed by the scabbard,
Or if you hold it in reverse grip (ice pick grip) the blade would be just about the length of your forearm.
A round shield would usually be sufficient to cover the forearm up to the elbow, usually up to the shoulder
Also if you have any experience with swords you might find that shorter swords are quicker to draw.
(usually means you have less arm displacement away from you)
The thing is a 91cm sword which I mostly mean actually has the blade length nearing a Katana.
Which average people might find it difficult to draw from the hip especially when your other hand is holding a shield.
This means you will need extra clearance when drawing the sword, something which in formation can be difficult or annoying
when your scabbard struck the knees of your teammates.
Not only will you need to watch out of the extended draw length, the pommel will hit your fellow soldier on your right hand side or right in front of you
if you gotten too close within the formation.
@@jacquesstrapp3219
I started the paragraph with
"Actually in ancient China..."
I did not mentioned Roman.
And those were explanation why swords didn't become a mainstream weapons in formation IN ANCIENT CHINA.
Saying short swords are swords is as good as saying.
"Wakizashi are katana"
I don't know if you really understand certain terminology are used to describe certain specification of weapons.
The Chinese jian (sword) has more or less been in the 90cm to 100cm length that is around "3 feet" for the past 2200+ years.
Sword 剑 (Jian) is usually refered to the 90+ cm
(Over 3 feet)
Similar to Katana referring to "Daito"
Short sword 短剑 (duan jian) is referring to the
60-80 cm range (under 3 feet)
Wakizashi, kodachi, chisa katana (small sword)
In Japanese context
Dagger 匕首 (bi shou) is the 1 feet+
30-40cm range, or it could be shorter.
Tanto in Japanese context.
@@jacquesstrapp3219
Did I not read it wrongly ?
You are asking a Chinese ethnic if English
is their second language ?
Actually English is "on the books" my first language for compulsory education, but in terms of proficiency it is considered a second language as my mother tongue is Chinese language.
It could be translation and misunderstanding of the terms.
And the differences between languages leading to lost in translation.
I should have actually used "Jian" 剑 to be specific, instead of leaving the term in the bracket at the beginning of the comment.
So for most of the original post the "sword" that I am referring to is
"Straight-bladed double-edged Chinese Jian"
For single edged straight or curved bladed
weapons it is actually referring to "knife" or "saber" depending on the length.
Both uses the term "Dao" 刀 in Chinese
Katana かたな has the kanji of "刀"
Which is the same as "dao" in Chinese
This is more of a habit of thinking in Chinese terminology and writing directly into English. Especially when writing about Chinese terminology.
As the English dictionary definition of "sword" is a relatively vague term which a Katana
(That has a classification as "saber/ Dao" under Chinese language) could be refered to as "Japanese sword"
In Chinese translation a Katana is refered to
"日本刀" which has the same pronunciation as "Nihonto"
And roughly translate to "Japanese saber"
The Roman gladius is translated to
"罗马短剑" literally meaning
"Roman short sword"
IN reenactment spears are generally the most dangerous weapon (in early times) because even blunt tip is bad and natural spear grip make you attack face, throat are so using it really restricted. And axes are second that why there are so few of them and not given to new guys even they are cheap, so that why most people use swords.
With the exception of KATANAS of course, which can cut throu armor like butter , you can cut the fabric of the universe with it, Katanas will never be weak.