Long blades are super inconvenient when most of your job is crouching, lifting, and dragging. Which pretty much defines gun bunnies, engineers, and corpsmen.
@Colin Cleveland a Korean War era howitzer can make adjustments as fine as ten meters, firing a projectile with a fifty meter blast radius, using only a map and a protractor. Modern computerized fire direction can probably place that same round in a guy's dinner plate.
These are my favorite types of swords, ones that are both sidearm weapon and tool. If I ever buy a sword or large knife, it will be something like a pioneer's/sapper's sword, messer, kukri, or bowie knife. I would totally carry it while hiking/camping/hunting.
I said this once and I'm gonna say it again: why this guy has only 262K subs? OK, I like all of these guys - Skall, Lindy, Shad, Metatron... - but Matt is by far the most knowledgeable on the topics of swords and talks about much more different swords than anybody else. I just don't get it
Thanks. Serious answer - I don't do as many videos on video games, roleplaying, cosplay, politics, dragons etc. Plus I have less time for editing, thumbnails and SEO. Basically I am more of a part-time TH-camr whereas they are all full time. I am also busy running other businesses :-)
@@beardedbjorn5520 you would think most would flock this way after that shout out. But Matt made a good point, that he doesn't usually do video game videos, while that might be the biggest hits those guys make when gamers wanna know what weapons would actually be suited to its chosen stats
@@scholagladiatoria I spent 15 minutes writing an essey-long comment about why I think your videos are great, no matter what's their subject or how unedited they are. And then my laptop died. Sorry, can't do that again. But, the summary was this: your channel is great and people who don't follow you are unreasonable. =D Cheers!
Matt, can you do a video on fighting in cramped spaces (trenches, under the deck, in narrow alleyways, etc) in the 16th to 18th century? The shorts swords seams like specialized sidearms that shine on these scenarios!
Ian MacCallum from ForgottenWeapons did a trench fighting video with Karl from InRange TV. The trench knives got even shorter, made by cutting down swords and bayonets. The french invented a thing nicknamed a "French nail" which was an steel bar, sharpened at the tip and the other end was bent into a handle with a knuckle bow hand protection - all from one piece of round steel stock.
I live in the Southern US. A few years ago I became interested in some uniquely Southern & martial things. Namely the history of Rough & Tumble fighting but also large Confederate knives. The Confederate D-guard Bowie knives are probably the best known examples, but other styles were certainly around. For those who don't know a Confederate D-guard could be anywhere from a 10 inch blade up to 18 inches (and probably smaller & bigger). So they look like shorter hangers. While it's debatable how often any of them actually we're used in combat they are often the size of machetes. Although if used as weapons they probably mostly cut down fleeing enemies, maybe occasionally faced a bayonet, they certainly were a multi purpose tool & symbol of being a Southern Soldier (many surviving pics of Southern soldiers posing with their knives exist) But for a Civil War Southerner, who likely grew up hunting or farming, it was a great tool, sometimes weapon & badge of honor. I'd call the bigger ones demi-swords rather than short sword or large knife...but regardless it again is a side arm/tool with multiple roles in mind.
I can’t remember the source, but I do remember a chap talking about the Confederate D-guard Bowie being used for Impromtu entrenching tools by scouting parties.
@@beardedbjorn5520 No, pretty much ditching the things. Sam Watkins in "Co. H" I believe describes them being left alongside the road. They were big, heavy, not much use as a general purpose knife nor in the type of combat infantry units were usually engaged in.
Leave it to the Rebs to come at a fellow with Big Knives! 😁 I grew up knowing the knife culture in parts of the South, even in the 1960's... and "nicking" didn't mean stealing... While I like bowies and khukris, and own a few, the Welsh short sword machete by Cold Steel is my handy camp chopper.
I would love to hear more about artillery from a historical perspective. Granted, I'm a little biased because of my brother's service, but I feel like artillery and engineers don't get nearly enough credit.
Artillery became increasingly important on the battlefield (as opposed to formerly predominantly instruments for sieges, hence their name 'siege engines') especially from the 15th century onward, especially with improvements to cannons. Later on, a lot of open battlefield warfare was dictated by the use and control of artillery since it could decimate significant numbers and disrupt formations from extreme distances (and rendered armor less and less valuable on the battlefield, eventually rendering metal armor functionally obsolete. Plate armor was bulletproof, not cannon-proof) . While there was some use of siege engines (trebuchets, ballistae and so on) prior, I do not know much of them dictating open battlefields and sieges alike very often as cannons came to. Mind, the way that early firearms (handcannons, arquebuses, muskets) were employed was essentially that of miniature artillery rather than small, personal arms in the way that bows and polearms were, given their intricate preparation process, low rate of fire and accuracy. The way that they were employed seems to me to be more like smaller, faster artillery en masse than small arms.
@@NevisYsbryd "rendering metal armor functionally obsolete" How come metal armor was reintroduced in the XXth century? It should become even more obsolete, should it not? Helmets were not even bulletproof.
@@bakters Different tools for different contexts. Warfare became dictated not by large formations on open fields but by trenches, guerrilla warfare and the use of much more mobile, powerful and long-range artillery such as tanks, ships and planes. Soldiers no longer generally faced artillery head-on and instead fought other units on foot using small arms or hid from artillery via either stealth or barriers such as trenches, fortresses and so on. Given that the function of foot soldiers became tackling small arms rather than artillery and the preference for mobility over defense changed (given the increased need for stealth as opposed to swiftness) , body armor was once again rendered a cost-effective tool. Body armor is about stopping weaker-penetration bullets, general head protection (Matt here has already covered that in another video) and protecting from shrapnel, knives and daggers and other relatively small-scale dangers.
@@NevisYsbryd Man, your explanations make no sense whatsoever. For once, metal armor was reintroduced as a protection against artillery barrage, *not* as protection against smallarms. Current helmets might stop a carbine round, but a steel pot will not stop a full powered rifle round. Also, since when armor improves mobility? Because you seem to argue that people put armor on in order to be more mobile... "body armor [...] a cost-effective tool" You are onto something here. Basically, armor was more costly while human life was way cheaper back then. That's why it was abandoned for a time. It came back when the economics changed.
@@bakters To protect from the fragments, shrapnel and flying debris, not from direct fire from the artillery themselves which body armor is not likely to save you from a direct him from. In a more modern context, then we also have bullet-proof and knife-proof vests which are obviously for the purposes of defending against smaller-scale threats and not direct hits from bombs or missiles. You completely misread what I wrote if you understood what I said to mean that armor increased mobility. Armor, especially armor sufficient to stop a bullet, was quite heavy and came at the expense of mobility (or required larger, stronger horses in the case of cavalry) . Armor become obsolete (logistically) for infantry because they were too subject to direct artillery fire which largely nullified their defensive value. Once you no longer have soldiers taking direct artillery fire but indirect explosions of debris, knives in trenches and other confined spaces and occasional small arms fire, body armor can actually significantly matter and thus warrant the investment and hassle of maintaining and wearing. Armor, especially helmets, is about a lot more than defending from direct hits from enemy attacks. They protect from debris, shrapnel, broken glass, hitting your head as you move around, can be part of an insulation system (heavy coats routinely worn during such periods as the Napoleonic period essentially being armor against blades and bludgeons) th-cam.com/video/pHTNy_6kM9M/w-d-xo.html
Context is key, no matter how much things appear similar. "Smart bald guy with a weapon" could be Matt Easton, or Lex Luthor. The context is whether he is talking about penetration, or trying to kill Superman.
Something to note about the artillery sword and it's utility. Their side arm was really a last ditch effort so it could afford to be a hefty boy and not exactly ideal for combat. Artillery cannons were generally protected by units comprised of soldiers called "fusileers" in the 18th century. Even as the specific fusileer type soldier was phased out, artillery units still had other units protecting them. Even today, artillery units are protected by by infantry and armor. If you're whipping out your choppy-tool like artillery side arm, it's hit the fan for you so to speak!
While i agree, i think the SHTF situation did occur a bit more often back then, than in later times due to the range of artillery increasing immensly over time. I mayb be wrong here, but i think in napoleonic times direct fire with artillery was still more common than later. Thus shorter range and a bigger chance for artillery guys to have contact.
@@nirfz Oh it *definitely* happened. Since Matt is talking about the Napoleonic Wars here, the Battle of Somosierra is probably one of the most famous and successful cavalry vs artillery charges of all time. Polish Cavalry in service to Napoleon charged 4 entrenched artillery positions over miles of rough ground. They suffered staggering losses. Not only did the cannons shred them but the units defending those cannons fought in a bitter hand to hand melee with bayonets. Stabbing one of their officers in the leg who *still* lead the final charge. Artillery men were expensive to train and because they handled gun powder directly, didn't usually carry their own firearms. The officers, enlisted, and civilian laborers who manned cannons were more likely to just abandon those cannons to the enemy rather than stand and fight if the enemy got through their defenses. Ultimately, the infantry units defending the cannons were expendable compared to the artillery men themselves. So if an artillery officer is drawing that hefty choppy blade, the soldiers defending him didn't last long enough for them to retreat properly. Since he probably doesn't have a firearm himself except maaaaybe a flintlock pistol depending on era. He's in a rough sport to say the least.
A saw edge like that is used for notching, which is a simple method of joining timber in basic carpentry. You can make structures, and such with notches, and a push saw is perfect for notching. A tool for sappers, pioneers and engineers would make heavy use of this. If you paired it with a smaller size hammer poll felling axe you could basically build a house if you wanted with just those two tools.
>Skall abuses some swords by splitting wood with them. >a few days later Matt makes a video about swords made for the purpose of being both weapons and tools Coincidence? I don't think so. :P
Matt has discussed this before in prior videos. I believe he most often refers to it as a 'stirrup' hilt. Basically, it makes it easier to fling your hand into the space of the grip in a rush, while not needing to expend more metal and changing the balance of the sword as much. Similarly, when worn at the belt, the bulge isn't as noticeable, because... well, it's most of what you see. The sword being bottom-up. It is, being effectively only protective in one plane, less protective than some other hilts we see later. In period, its compared to certain basket hilts (which are much more protective, but Matt repeatedly points out that they're not always the most convenient to draw), or some smallsword hilts. Personally, I love crossguards and knucklebows, far more than I favor discs, shells, or swept hilts WITHOUT a prominent cross. So, as a compromise, I'd still like it.
If nothing else I'd imagine the "dent" in such guards will partially "catch" an opponent's blade rather than letting it glance off and possibly hit your arm. That gives you just a little more protection, and a little more control of *their* blade.
@@Dominator046 Great summary! I think one point you missed is how, when swinging hard (and missing) sometimes the sword goes too far from hammer grip and way past handshake, so the guard can rotate inwards at the pinky fingers. I've felt such a crammed hilt before, crushing my little finger when I swung hard and missed and my grip didn't stop the tip from rotating in line with my forearm bones which brought the low end of the knucklebow against my little finger. It wasn't pleasant. Even the book "Memoir on Swords" talks about how much force of the strike goes into the pinky finger, hence the forward protruding bottom of many grips to stop the hand from sliding down/off and give the little finger max leverage against forces from the tip. Also, the larger space makes room for thickly gloved hands. Many people wonder about the "large" trigger guards on firearms, "who has a finger that thick?" and its for the same reason. Just my opinion, hypothesis, and experiences; IDK I'm no expert, and haven't seen it explicitly stated anywhere that the extra bulge is for that reason.
I use my 1860 USN cutlass as essentialy a hanger. It is a very nice short saber and one can use it with Roworth quite well. Not perhaps a subtle tool but a delightful combination nonetheless.
I think Forgotten Weapons channel did a test with the bayonet version of the pioner sword, alone and mounted on the rifle/musket. Was quite interesting t see how much faster it went through the wood when mounted.
The Fascine knife (Faskinkniv) was used in Sweden also during the 1800s. m/1848 Faskinkniv was a sidearm for the infantry and use until the end of the century when the bayonet for the M/96 Mauser replaced it.
Context is key! People don't know how critical cultural context is to determining the effective technique in hand to hand combat. The truth is all martial arts work but only in their respective culture and society.
0:52 I see that sword, and I think I'm in love with it lolz, so much yes. I've found that I'm not used to handling longer 1 handed blades like arming swords. I feel like I can 1 hand a katana more effectively than my DSA type XIV, the extra length makes for leverage and forces and wielding considerations I'm not used to. Keeping the blade machete length or somewhere between a DnD D6 sword and a D8 sword helps me manage it. I'm working on weapon proficiency arming sword (and with shields in general, especially bucklers), but I can clearly see my ability to man handle the weapon(s) isn't up to par with what I see lots of people showing. I can move it to parry and to different garde/posta positions, it's the ability to attack fast, hard, precisely, and rapidly that I need to work on. Beyond pure proficiency, I do think the shorter swords (all other things being equal) make for faster and more rapid attacks with greater ability to change course quickly. A caveman could brawl with a gladius, a boxer could have a gladius in hand and not need much martial skill to be pretty deadly. An arming sword doesn't really pay off in the hands of a caveman the same way IMHO, same with a how you talk about a katana being "better for a noob" I think a machete or gladius qualifies to. The cool thing, is that the AK is also very simple and uncomplicated, but even in the hands of an expert that simplicity of use pays off in spades :) Just because Mike Tyson could rock a gladius effectively without any fencing knowledge doesn't mean a veteran Roman legionarre isn't going to make that sword "come alive" in ways the ear biter can only dream of... I do think, like snubby sub-compact pistols vs full size duty pistols, there are advantages to what is overall a less effective weapon. Mostly concealment, ease of carry, draw speed, light weight, the ability to be stashed anywhere, etc. I think the biggest advantage of shorter swords is how much faster they are, all other things being equal. I spear 1 handed is kinda slow, I can work a sword (bastard or arming) 1 handed a bit better, but with 1 hand on a lesser 1 handed blade I can manage it much better. IMHO, that's why some weapons in DnD are called "simple" (like a machete, DAO revolver, or Glock) and others are called "martial" (like arming swords, 1911s, etc). One advantage of a level 1 fighter is just being proficient with martial weapons, which are always purpose built and meant for heavier combat - so they offer more in exchange for their non-instinctive use and steeper learning curve, IMHO. 5:20 Also very cool sword, especially if one can make it tough enough to chop a tree down. I always liked artillery 2nd and infantry 1st. Clausewitz said in "On War" one could imagine an army missing the cavalry wing and doing OK, missing the artillery wing and doing OK, but no army would ever work with just cav and arty. I agree. "Sabring the gunners there" was my favorite verse in Charge of the Light Brigade since I read it freshman year in high school One can always change the distal taper and nuances of dimensions for the purpose, the way a katana can be subtley different. In my experience, a very thin blade works best on brush and small trees. Less friction, like the Cluny falchion, soft targets. For splitting wood, yeah forget thin blade or distal taper. For me, I'll take the light brush optimization and better fighting tool, as long as the sword won't break cutting a tree down. My machete never did, and these swords look way more robust. Good point about how the sword is meant as JUST a sidearm, not a sword meant for a primary weapon (like most sabers etc). It's a sword meant to back up guns, not a sword meant to be backed up by a gun. The hospital corps one is the most like what the 21st century needs IMO. (Homer Simpson drool) Perfect... Chopping a thick branch is cool, but it doesn't need to be optimized for chores and engineering. Most "operators" don't do that kinda stuff, and the people who do that stuff these days have better tools than a compromise sword design. All these designs rock tho, getting a customized one with kydex mollee scabbard on my battle rattle is a priority. Make Spetsnaz and Gurkas and Marines think twice about their signature melee weapons... nah, probably not - they love their shovels, kukris, and kabars. And to be fair, I'd want my kabar to go with any Modern sword I picked, which is where all that "rapier and dagger" stuff proves useful. If the other guy has just a knife or longgun, do you need an actual rapier to fence him to death real good like? Not IMHO. 10:15 Just so you know, NEVER carry a firearm without a holster. Even pocket rockets in the pocket should have a holster. If Wild Bill (who wore his 2 wheelguns "cowboy style" butts facing forward thrust through the belt) would use a holster for the same position if such existed. I've see people with no holster or low quality holsters fumble again and again under pressure. Check out the famous video when the Fillipine PM or president or some such big wig was assassinated back in the 70s or 80s. All his secret service looking body guards can't get their pistols out in the OH SHIT moment, most of them have the holster come out with the pistol or drop the gun or can't get it free in time to matter, and the VIP was killed by a random dude with like a knife or snubby 38 crap weapon in the middle of a big ceremony. Sorry, for once it was an actual VHS tape I saw that on in a concealed carry weapon permit class and not a YT vid I can link =( so I don't remember it well. The military holsters I see most of the time in the 19th and first half of 20th century look like junk mostly meant to keep a stupid monkey from breaking or filthying up the weapon - even at the cost of him dying because he can't get the pistol out in time. Example of good cowboy custom grade 19th century holsters, that historically existed and are still made, and beautifully customized Colt SAAs of the 3 main types. th-cam.com/video/Oh7jimmLPxk/w-d-xo.html I BIG part of why it's so much easier to use a SAO revolver than most people think is because of such holsters. If I had to use the big "Zulu" movie flap over my wheelgun, I might want a DAO to - since fast draw is out of the question. 13:00 The sword I'd pick for a Gears of War game lolz. The idea of nickel plated 1911s is that it's harder metal and rusts lest and looks cooler, is my understanding. I know very little about decorating weapons, because I generally prefer them not to be. I will admit, nickel plated 1911s (like in Terminator 2, they did the longslide 1911 with 80s laser sighting in Terminator 1's famous gun store scene) look fucking awesome! So does that sword, which is why I'd never wear it. If I ever see anyone with anything fancy among the enemy, and all other things are equal, the guy with the fancy thing gets it first. For being foolishly wasteful and ostentatious, and because he's more likely to be important. In the book "Out of Captivity" about 3 Americans captured by the FARC when their spy plane crashed, it mentions how they just threw their guns over the side of a cliff and surrendered, but not before they saw the enemy walking at them 2-300 yards out over open ground with little cover and one of the 30-50 had a bright red shirt on. I expect to die if caught, so I'd fight. And I'd have started with bright red shirt in jungle person, because they're fucking stupid! Well, in the book, it is revealed later as the Americans spend time (almost 4 years) as prisoners, that the red shirt person was a woman and their leader. The gang was largely incompetent and unruly without her, and not very skilled. They literally say "without her, they'd be nothing." So... an Army, Navy, and USMC guy crash a plane in the jungles of Latin America... sounds like a joke lol. But seriously, I can't believe the Marine (who looks like the damn Terminator) would do that! Fight, evade, and try for the chopper. I know the Marine could easily make that shot, much less the other 2 (all were non combat MOS) having a fair chance to with the M14s they had. I think they could have wasted all 30-50 of them from their cover with their better weapons at that range. It seems that just little old me (who can make that same shot if the rifle is zeroed) would have been enough, much less 3 retired soldiers... But I wasn't there, so I won't criticize too much. I just think resistance is always better than compliance, because being at the mercy of an evil enemy is utterly terrible.
@Vapor Common sense dude! I lift weights 3 times a week, live active, and do the 1 hand sword exercises Schola posted while watching vids. Did you see my fitness level? High school? I guess HS Valedictorian and Summa Cum Laude from Gonzaga mean nada; since a YT zombie labels my writing "high school." Try listening, reading, and understanding everything someone says before replying to or commenting on it. I don't bother to call most of the comments I see "elementary" (even tho they generally are, at best...), I just respond to the person and their ideas. I don't insult or degrade them, or try to label them in a category just so I can dismiss it (unless they ignore logic and facts). Ah, clearly my opinion says this is X educational level, therefore it can be dismissed - seems to be your attitude. I guess you never learned in PHIL 101 that all ideas stand or fall purely on their own merits, and anything else is a fallacy, huh? Sorry if, in an effort to stay chill and real, I write casually in a YT comment, instead of going through multiple drafts and citing sources as if preparing a paper for peer-review. ALL weapons benefit from having surplus strength than is required to wield them. Pretentious asshole... Some of the best essays I ever read were by HS students!
It appears that the all in one sword/tool has been replaced by the folding entrenching tool. These too can be used as a weapon, while being able to dig, chop, slice and dice as needed.
"Chunky little boy" being the technical terms...lol, Great Video Matt! I've particularly liked your discussions of these type of swords, as i'm fond of their dual purpose applications.
I would recommend a 20-23" blade w/ 4" handle for even modern combat. Especially if you know how to use it. Ive experienced the battlefield & an m4 A1 isnt a great hand 2 hand weapon when faced w/ big knives & spears like what I saw in Middle east. Besides sometimes you dont want to have to kill them & a well placed cut can sometimes stop an attacker w/o killing them. Many times i was dealing w/ famers that were using hand weapons & shooting them just isnt necessary. They were just trying to defend their homes. I still feel immense guilt not for what we did to other soldiers. They like me signed up for it but those farmers didnt sign up for any of it.
People complain about too many 18th-19th century sword videos? Those are why I'm subscribed to the channel. I'll admit I'd like to see a bit more continental European stuff, but I understand why you mostly have English and Indo-Persian weapons come through your hands.
When you look at the Baker Rifle sword bayonet you can see a similarity to the artillery sword. Chunky enough to be used as a tool and it was most used, and most useful, as a tool to clear space, construct shelters and make firewood thus the Rifles were sooner sheltered and fed than their infantry counterparts which helped to keep them in better condition. The old army saying applies: 'any fool can be uncomfortable'.
American here. In our civil war (at least in meuseums) we had "artillery shortswords" that are very attractive little swords but 1860s seems a little late so I'm assuming they were for dress.
I would think that they had appropriate tools with them (axes and saws) but not as many to give one to everyone, and they might have been transported on a support wagon which during fighting might be far off. So if the artillery piece has to move i think they couldn't just go fetching the real tools if they were maybe on the far side of the support wagons ect.
some of the reproduction gladius style artillery swords are about 2.6 - 2.9 lbs, very hefty, but the infantry briquet version is 2.21 lbs just under 1kg
Great Video as usual Matt! Do you think you could do a short video on 19th Century English/French/German/Austrian Hunting Swords sometime in the future? Congrats to you and Lucy on your expanding family!!!
Nobody knows. The word first appears in the 15th century and therefore we don't know the exact explanation of the name. All swords hang from a belt :-) Accept no other explanations.
All my weapons and training are aimed at fighting in confined spaces, like in a house for example as that’s where we are realistically likely to need to fight. I find a short sword like a gladius hispanensis or similar to be ideal
@@scholagladiatoria I recently rewatched your series on victorian police weapons, and noticed the hanger you had had a speartip point like the typical "wilkinson" style blade. Both of mine, and I think any others I have seen have the fuller going all the way to the tip, was that a later type you had, or a particular pattern for other ranks?
Another really interesting and informative video. A question I'd like to ask is on the claim of knuckle bows having had their origins in similarly designed swords from the 15th century. Could it actually instead be a case of convergent evolution (i.e. unrelated developments arriving at a similar design by virtue of something being a good idea) or do we have continued lineage/development between those swords through the centuries to the 19th century swords? A second line of inquiry I'd like to raise is on the different short sword designs. Would it be safe to say that despite their different designs and users, their primary purpose for being carried (and what they did get used for most of the time) are as a defensive sidearm with the other capabilities (e.g. wood chopping, brush clearing, etc) being secondary functions? After all, a sword won't chop wood as efficiently as an axe and costs more to make. As such, if the Royal Artillery gunner was going to use his sword primarily to chop wood, one would argue he would've carried an axe instead (or simply, both) since an axe can be used to defend oneself in a pinch just as easily as a sword can be used to chop wood in a pinch.
No, knucklebows appear in the 15th century, become common in the 16th century and then never went away. 19th century hangers directly come from a continual line of hangers which go back to the 15th century.
@@scholagladiatoria Cool. Thanks for the clarification. It's much appreciated. Your knowledge around swords and their history never ceases to amaze me. Thanks again for the great vids.
Oddly enough, I have found that too much handgaurd can be painful to the hands... learned that from my butterfly sword training. Used them so much I needed gloves as it was raising blisters. Maybe my hands where too big, maybe I practiced too much. Lol
I quite enjoy the 18th&19th century industrial type weaponry! Lol great video 👍 recently subd. To your channel , absolutely fascinating . Cheers from KY, USA
Well in terms of the blade effectiveness they are the same. The advantage of the cutlass is that you're less likely to get bitten in the hand, so I would still vote for the cutlass.
A thought about the nickle plated Engineer's sword. Possibly it could either be used for an opening ceremony of an Engineer's barracks or similar. Second thought it could have been a retirement gift for an NCO or similar. Welcome to hear about other ideas people have.
Ive always wanted a pioneers cutlass. Never liked the sawback but always curious if the teeth are properly indexed (offset). Love the oversized guard for thick gloves.
Matt, have you been able to get up close to the "Wakefield hanger" type swords either as originals or repos? I'm curious how they might handle since they are quite short over all: would they still feel like a normal messer given the amount of hilt development? longswordsinlondon.tumblr.com/post/167213975266/wakefield-hangers
So, in the context of a British Artilleryman in the early going of the Napoleonic Wars equipped with a heavy hanger sidearm/tool, what techniques would have been effective for fending off enemy cavalry? Seems like a major disadvantage. Is there a record of group tactics that could negate the disadvantage of a shorter weapon that is also less nimble?
Great video. I've always loved shorter swords...(I'm short too🙂). Didn't know about the medieval connection. Unrelated question though....what is the brown shiny leathery bag looking thing on the wall to your right? Its ringing bells but mainly drawing blanks.🤔
Andre Kröger trench knives in WWI? Bayonets were often shortened by the troops to be handier in the small space of a trench where a bayonet on the end of a rifle wouldn’t be as useful. That’s my guess.
@@kiltymacbagpipe Thanks for the informations. These combat knives we see today, the ones with the multipurpose blade, do you know when these came into use for everybody in the military forces?
Andre Kröger I’d say before WWII. The Kabar was introduced for the marines around that time as was the Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife as used by the SAS. Those are fighting knives and not bayonets. If you consider bayonets which were more swordlike and not a spike, those have been around since the napoleonic wars and before. They could be a tool as well as a bayonet. I don’t consider them to be knives first, unlike bayonets today which are often fighting knives with a ring and clip for mounting on a rifle. This is conjecture on my part. I’m sure someone has a more knowledgeable opinion.
Been thinking that during my country's Maori wars, a pioneer or cutlass , would the preferred weapon ( yes apart from a musket /bayonet) as our bush can and is pretty rugged, not a lot of room for fancy saber and no roads you would need to clear your own path so to speak, wonder if it was the same in India or ? any weres theres jungle?
Good afternoon Mr. Easton, I have a question or am asking your expert opinion. I was in my local knife/sword and gun store looking at swords and the topic of sword fighting came up. I told the clerk i was possibly interested in fencing lessons...might as well since i collect and do security jobs sometimes. He had laughed and stated you are way too large to do so ( i am 6 foot tall and a very solid 350 pounds 53 inch chest and 52 inch waist) i understand i would be a tad slower or tire easily, my question though is if he is completely right and if i did start fencing if large men can fence well?
Do you think it would have been a weapon used by a doctor or medic to do field amputations? I can't tell how teeth per inch from watching the video, but do you think it could have been used for bone?
Been a hard day at work, time to fill my cup of tea, lean back and enjoy some scholagladiatoria. Thank you.
Me too lol
Long blades are super inconvenient when most of your job is crouching, lifting, and dragging.
Which pretty much defines gun bunnies, engineers, and corpsmen.
PXCharon or when your wedged into a shield wall and you can only thrust forward
Gun bunnies?
@@junichiroyamashita A modern ironic nickname for artillery men.
Colin Cleveland Lol
@Colin Cleveland a Korean War era howitzer can make adjustments as fine as ten meters, firing a projectile with a fifty meter blast radius, using only a map and a protractor. Modern computerized fire direction can probably place that same round in a guy's dinner plate.
I always carry a saw in enemy territory so I can steal their wood.
so don't know about others. But I'd be very pissed if my enemies took my precious wood.
@@RikthDcruze xD
Lol!
Wololo
Plus, you might need to build a quick forte to gain the higher ground.
Long, stiff, slightly curved...
Seems like something that would feel really natural in hand.
Sawbacked??! (The Horror!)
These are my favorite types of swords, ones that are both sidearm weapon and tool. If I ever buy a sword or large knife, it will be something like a pioneer's/sapper's sword, messer, kukri, or bowie knife. I would totally carry it while hiking/camping/hunting.
"This hefty boy is thicc THICC at the base of the blade" - Matt Easton, 2019
As thick as some Chinese Da Dao.
Ngl I got really anxious when I first heard it
I said this once and I'm gonna say it again: why this guy has only 262K subs? OK, I like all of these guys - Skall, Lindy, Shad, Metatron... - but Matt is by far the most knowledgeable on the topics of swords and talks about much more different swords than anybody else. I just don't get it
Thanks. Serious answer - I don't do as many videos on video games, roleplaying, cosplay, politics, dragons etc. Plus I have less time for editing, thumbnails and SEO. Basically I am more of a part-time TH-camr whereas they are all full time. I am also busy running other businesses :-)
I've also thought the same thing. His channel is easily my favourite among the sword channels. The history he shares is amazing
And the funny thing is that most of them put Matt as the most knowledgeable sword youtuber as well. Especially Shad and Metatron.
@@beardedbjorn5520 you would think most would flock this way after that shout out. But Matt made a good point, that he doesn't usually do video game videos, while that might be the biggest hits those guys make when gamers wanna know what weapons would actually be suited to its chosen stats
@@scholagladiatoria I spent 15 minutes writing an essey-long comment about why I think your videos are great, no matter what's their subject or how unedited they are. And then my laptop died. Sorry, can't do that again.
But, the summary was this: your channel is great and people who don't follow you are unreasonable. =D
Cheers!
Using a hanger and Saber together is a fun way to duel people.
Using the hanger to ward and parry while simultaneously using the Saber to strike.
hurray
Someone's going to be mad at you if you don't use a shield !
Matt, can you do a video on fighting in cramped spaces (trenches, under the deck, in narrow alleyways, etc) in the 16th to 18th century? The shorts swords seams like specialized sidearms that shine on these scenarios!
Ian MacCallum from ForgottenWeapons did a trench fighting video with Karl from InRange TV. The trench knives got even shorter, made by cutting down swords and bayonets. The french invented a thing nicknamed a "French nail" which was an steel bar, sharpened at the tip and the other end was bent into a handle with a knuckle bow hand protection - all from one piece of round steel stock.
I live in the Southern US. A few years ago I became interested in some uniquely Southern & martial things. Namely the history of Rough & Tumble fighting but also large Confederate knives. The Confederate D-guard Bowie knives are probably the best known examples, but other styles were certainly around. For those who don't know a Confederate D-guard could be anywhere from a 10 inch blade up to 18 inches (and probably smaller & bigger). So they look like shorter hangers. While it's debatable how often any of them actually we're used in combat they are often the size of machetes. Although if used as weapons they probably mostly cut down fleeing enemies, maybe occasionally faced a bayonet, they certainly were a multi purpose tool & symbol of being a Southern Soldier (many surviving pics of Southern soldiers posing with their knives exist)
But for a Civil War Southerner, who likely grew up hunting or farming, it was a great tool, sometimes weapon & badge of honor. I'd call the bigger ones demi-swords rather than short sword or large knife...but regardless it again is a side arm/tool with multiple roles in mind.
I can’t remember the source, but I do remember a chap talking about the Confederate D-guard Bowie being used for Impromtu entrenching tools by scouting parties.
@@beardedbjorn5520 A lot of sources say that most of these big bowies got "lost" after the first serious route march.
@@althesmith as in they were nicking them?
@@beardedbjorn5520 No, pretty much ditching the things. Sam Watkins in "Co. H" I believe describes them being left alongside the road. They were big, heavy, not much use as a general purpose knife nor in the type of combat infantry units were usually engaged in.
Leave it to the Rebs to come at a fellow with Big Knives! 😁 I grew up knowing the knife culture in parts of the South, even in the 1960's... and "nicking" didn't mean stealing...
While I like bowies and khukris, and own a few, the Welsh short sword machete by Cold Steel is my handy camp chopper.
9:00 it protecc it attacc and it also chopp the hecc out of bushes
I would love to hear more about artillery from a historical perspective. Granted, I'm a little biased because of my brother's service, but I feel like artillery and engineers don't get nearly enough credit.
Artillery became increasingly important on the battlefield (as opposed to formerly predominantly instruments for sieges, hence their name 'siege engines') especially from the 15th century onward, especially with improvements to cannons. Later on, a lot of open battlefield warfare was dictated by the use and control of artillery since it could decimate significant numbers and disrupt formations from extreme distances (and rendered armor less and less valuable on the battlefield, eventually rendering metal armor functionally obsolete. Plate armor was bulletproof, not cannon-proof) . While there was some use of siege engines (trebuchets, ballistae and so on) prior, I do not know much of them dictating open battlefields and sieges alike very often as cannons came to.
Mind, the way that early firearms (handcannons, arquebuses, muskets) were employed was essentially that of miniature artillery rather than small, personal arms in the way that bows and polearms were, given their intricate preparation process, low rate of fire and accuracy. The way that they were employed seems to me to be more like smaller, faster artillery en masse than small arms.
@@NevisYsbryd "rendering metal armor functionally obsolete"
How come metal armor was reintroduced in the XXth century? It should become even more obsolete, should it not? Helmets were not even bulletproof.
@@bakters Different tools for different contexts. Warfare became dictated not by large formations on open fields but by trenches, guerrilla warfare and the use of much more mobile, powerful and long-range artillery such as tanks, ships and planes. Soldiers no longer generally faced artillery head-on and instead fought other units on foot using small arms or hid from artillery via either stealth or barriers such as trenches, fortresses and so on. Given that the function of foot soldiers became tackling small arms rather than artillery and the preference for mobility over defense changed (given the increased need for stealth as opposed to swiftness) , body armor was once again rendered a cost-effective tool. Body armor is about stopping weaker-penetration bullets, general head protection (Matt here has already covered that in another video) and protecting from shrapnel, knives and daggers and other relatively small-scale dangers.
@@NevisYsbryd Man, your explanations make no sense whatsoever. For once, metal armor was reintroduced as a protection against artillery barrage, *not* as protection against smallarms. Current helmets might stop a carbine round, but a steel pot will not stop a full powered rifle round. Also, since when armor improves mobility? Because you seem to argue that people put armor on in order to be more mobile...
"body armor [...] a cost-effective tool"
You are onto something here. Basically, armor was more costly while human life was way cheaper back then. That's why it was abandoned for a time. It came back when the economics changed.
@@bakters To protect from the fragments, shrapnel and flying debris, not from direct fire from the artillery themselves which body armor is not likely to save you from a direct him from. In a more modern context, then we also have bullet-proof and knife-proof vests which are obviously for the purposes of defending against smaller-scale threats and not direct hits from bombs or missiles.
You completely misread what I wrote if you understood what I said to mean that armor increased mobility. Armor, especially armor sufficient to stop a bullet, was quite heavy and came at the expense of mobility (or required larger, stronger horses in the case of cavalry) .
Armor become obsolete (logistically) for infantry because they were too subject to direct artillery fire which largely nullified their defensive value. Once you no longer have soldiers taking direct artillery fire but indirect explosions of debris, knives in trenches and other confined spaces and occasional small arms fire, body armor can actually significantly matter and thus warrant the investment and hassle of maintaining and wearing.
Armor, especially helmets, is about a lot more than defending from direct hits from enemy attacks. They protect from debris, shrapnel, broken glass, hitting your head as you move around, can be part of an insulation system (heavy coats routinely worn during such periods as the Napoleonic period essentially being armor against blades and bludgeons)
th-cam.com/video/pHTNy_6kM9M/w-d-xo.html
Context is key, no matter how much things appear similar. "Smart bald guy with a weapon" could be Matt Easton, or Lex Luthor. The context is whether he is talking about penetration, or trying to kill Superman.
Something to note about the artillery sword and it's utility. Their side arm was really a last ditch effort so it could afford to be a hefty boy and not exactly ideal for combat. Artillery cannons were generally protected by units comprised of soldiers called "fusileers" in the 18th century. Even as the specific fusileer type soldier was phased out, artillery units still had other units protecting them. Even today, artillery units are protected by by infantry and armor. If you're whipping out your choppy-tool like artillery side arm, it's hit the fan for you so to speak!
While i agree, i think the SHTF situation did occur a bit more often back then, than in later times due to the range of artillery increasing immensly over time. I mayb be wrong here, but i think in napoleonic times direct fire with artillery was still more common than later. Thus shorter range and a bigger chance for artillery guys to have contact.
@@nirfz Oh it *definitely* happened. Since Matt is talking about the Napoleonic Wars here, the Battle of Somosierra is probably one of the most famous and successful cavalry vs artillery charges of all time. Polish Cavalry in service to Napoleon charged 4 entrenched artillery positions over miles of rough ground. They suffered staggering losses. Not only did the cannons shred them but the units defending those cannons fought in a bitter hand to hand melee with bayonets. Stabbing one of their officers in the leg who *still* lead the final charge.
Artillery men were expensive to train and because they handled gun powder directly, didn't usually carry their own firearms. The officers, enlisted, and civilian laborers who manned cannons were more likely to just abandon those cannons to the enemy rather than stand and fight if the enemy got through their defenses. Ultimately, the infantry units defending the cannons were expendable compared to the artillery men themselves.
So if an artillery officer is drawing that hefty choppy blade, the soldiers defending him didn't last long enough for them to retreat properly. Since he probably doesn't have a firearm himself except maaaaybe a flintlock pistol depending on era. He's in a rough sport to say the least.
fusil=firelock=musket. Line infantry were all fusileers. Some line units were posted on the battlefield to defend artillery positions.
A saw edge like that is used for notching, which is a simple method of joining timber in basic carpentry. You can make structures, and such with notches, and a push saw is perfect for notching.
A tool for sappers, pioneers and engineers would make heavy use of this. If you paired it with a smaller size hammer poll felling axe you could basically build a house if you wanted with just those two tools.
>Skall abuses some swords by splitting wood with them.
>a few days later Matt makes a video about swords made for the purpose of being both weapons and tools
Coincidence? I don't think so. :P
I really like the begging as subtitles. Doesn't take time away from the video and reminds me. Like
Why the"B" or "R" shaped guard? It seems it would be less structurally sound than the typically "D" shape.
Vivificus Byo fashion.
I think they better to strike with, the more rounded D shape is more likely to glance off someone's face
Matt has discussed this before in prior videos. I believe he most often refers to it as a 'stirrup' hilt.
Basically, it makes it easier to fling your hand into the space of the grip in a rush, while not needing to expend more metal and changing the balance of the sword as much. Similarly, when worn at the belt, the bulge isn't as noticeable, because... well, it's most of what you see. The sword being bottom-up.
It is, being effectively only protective in one plane, less protective than some other hilts we see later. In period, its compared to certain basket hilts (which are much more protective, but Matt repeatedly points out that they're not always the most convenient to draw), or some smallsword hilts. Personally, I love crossguards and knucklebows, far more than I favor discs, shells, or swept hilts WITHOUT a prominent cross. So, as a compromise, I'd still like it.
If nothing else I'd imagine the "dent" in such guards will partially "catch" an opponent's blade rather than letting it glance off and possibly hit your arm. That gives you just a little more protection, and a little more control of *their* blade.
@@Dominator046 Great summary! I think one point you missed is how, when swinging hard (and missing) sometimes the sword goes too far from hammer grip and way past handshake, so the guard can rotate inwards at the pinky fingers. I've felt such a crammed hilt before, crushing my little finger when I swung hard and missed and my grip didn't stop the tip from rotating in line with my forearm bones which brought the low end of the knucklebow against my little finger. It wasn't pleasant. Even the book "Memoir on Swords" talks about how much force of the strike goes into the pinky finger, hence the forward protruding bottom of many grips to stop the hand from sliding down/off and give the little finger max leverage against forces from the tip.
Also, the larger space makes room for thickly gloved hands. Many people wonder about the "large" trigger guards on firearms, "who has a finger that thick?" and its for the same reason.
Just my opinion, hypothesis, and experiences; IDK I'm no expert, and haven't seen it explicitly stated anywhere that the extra bulge is for that reason.
I use my 1860 USN cutlass as essentialy a hanger. It is a very nice short saber and one can use it with Roworth quite well. Not perhaps a subtle tool but a delightful combination nonetheless.
I think Forgotten Weapons channel did a test with the bayonet version of the pioner sword, alone and mounted on the rifle/musket. Was quite interesting t see how much faster it went through the wood when mounted.
I love this channel, cup of coffee, a Scholagladiatoria vid and a comfortable chair. Today, is a good day.
In the german armies of 18th and 19th century these weapon/tool combination was called ,Faschinenmesser' - fascine knife.
The Fascine knife (Faskinkniv) was used in Sweden also during the 1800s. m/1848 Faskinkniv was a sidearm for the infantry and use until the end of the century when the bayonet for the M/96 Mauser replaced it.
Many of them are "Swiss army" swords? Do they also have scissors and a Nail File?
For that you'd have to unscrew the pommel.
@@oneoranota Indeed
Some french swords had saws in the back.
Edit: He shows a english sword with a saw later.
I just got a P1856 Pioneer Sword and I love it. Very handy little sword!
Context is key! People don't know how critical cultural context is to determining the effective technique in hand to hand combat. The truth is all martial arts work but only in their respective culture and society.
0:52 I see that sword, and I think I'm in love with it lolz, so much yes. I've found that I'm not used to handling longer 1 handed blades like arming swords. I feel like I can 1 hand a katana more effectively than my DSA type XIV, the extra length makes for leverage and forces and wielding considerations I'm not used to. Keeping the blade machete length or somewhere between a DnD D6 sword and a D8 sword helps me manage it. I'm working on weapon proficiency arming sword (and with shields in general, especially bucklers), but I can clearly see my ability to man handle the weapon(s) isn't up to par with what I see lots of people showing. I can move it to parry and to different garde/posta positions, it's the ability to attack fast, hard, precisely, and rapidly that I need to work on. Beyond pure proficiency, I do think the shorter swords (all other things being equal) make for faster and more rapid attacks with greater ability to change course quickly. A caveman could brawl with a gladius, a boxer could have a gladius in hand and not need much martial skill to be pretty deadly. An arming sword doesn't really pay off in the hands of a caveman the same way IMHO, same with a how you talk about a katana being "better for a noob" I think a machete or gladius qualifies to. The cool thing, is that the AK is also very simple and uncomplicated, but even in the hands of an expert that simplicity of use pays off in spades :) Just because Mike Tyson could rock a gladius effectively without any fencing knowledge doesn't mean a veteran Roman legionarre isn't going to make that sword "come alive" in ways the ear biter can only dream of...
I do think, like snubby sub-compact pistols vs full size duty pistols, there are advantages to what is overall a less effective weapon. Mostly concealment, ease of carry, draw speed, light weight, the ability to be stashed anywhere, etc. I think the biggest advantage of shorter swords is how much faster they are, all other things being equal. I spear 1 handed is kinda slow, I can work a sword (bastard or arming) 1 handed a bit better, but with 1 hand on a lesser 1 handed blade I can manage it much better.
IMHO, that's why some weapons in DnD are called "simple" (like a machete, DAO revolver, or Glock) and others are called "martial" (like arming swords, 1911s, etc). One advantage of a level 1 fighter is just being proficient with martial weapons, which are always purpose built and meant for heavier combat - so they offer more in exchange for their non-instinctive use and steeper learning curve, IMHO.
5:20 Also very cool sword, especially if one can make it tough enough to chop a tree down. I always liked artillery 2nd and infantry 1st. Clausewitz said in "On War" one could imagine an army missing the cavalry wing and doing OK, missing the artillery wing and doing OK, but no army would ever work with just cav and arty. I agree. "Sabring the gunners there" was my favorite verse in Charge of the Light Brigade since I read it freshman year in high school
One can always change the distal taper and nuances of dimensions for the purpose, the way a katana can be subtley different. In my experience, a very thin blade works best on brush and small trees. Less friction, like the Cluny falchion, soft targets. For splitting wood, yeah forget thin blade or distal taper. For me, I'll take the light brush optimization and better fighting tool, as long as the sword won't break cutting a tree down. My machete never did, and these swords look way more robust.
Good point about how the sword is meant as JUST a sidearm, not a sword meant for a primary weapon (like most sabers etc). It's a sword meant to back up guns, not a sword meant to be backed up by a gun.
The hospital corps one is the most like what the 21st century needs IMO. (Homer Simpson drool) Perfect... Chopping a thick branch is cool, but it doesn't need to be optimized for chores and engineering. Most "operators" don't do that kinda stuff, and the people who do that stuff these days have better tools than a compromise sword design. All these designs rock tho, getting a customized one with kydex mollee scabbard on my battle rattle is a priority. Make Spetsnaz and Gurkas and Marines think twice about their signature melee weapons... nah, probably not - they love their shovels, kukris, and kabars. And to be fair, I'd want my kabar to go with any Modern sword I picked, which is where all that "rapier and dagger" stuff proves useful. If the other guy has just a knife or longgun, do you need an actual rapier to fence him to death real good like? Not IMHO.
10:15 Just so you know, NEVER carry a firearm without a holster. Even pocket rockets in the pocket should have a holster. If Wild Bill (who wore his 2 wheelguns "cowboy style" butts facing forward thrust through the belt) would use a holster for the same position if such existed. I've see people with no holster or low quality holsters fumble again and again under pressure. Check out the famous video when the Fillipine PM or president or some such big wig was assassinated back in the 70s or 80s. All his secret service looking body guards can't get their pistols out in the OH SHIT moment, most of them have the holster come out with the pistol or drop the gun or can't get it free in time to matter, and the VIP was killed by a random dude with like a knife or snubby 38 crap weapon in the middle of a big ceremony. Sorry, for once it was an actual VHS tape I saw that on in a concealed carry weapon permit class and not a YT vid I can link =( so I don't remember it well. The military holsters I see most of the time in the 19th and first half of 20th century look like junk mostly meant to keep a stupid monkey from breaking or filthying up the weapon - even at the cost of him dying because he can't get the pistol out in time.
Example of good cowboy custom grade 19th century holsters, that historically existed and are still made, and beautifully customized Colt SAAs of the 3 main types.
th-cam.com/video/Oh7jimmLPxk/w-d-xo.html
I BIG part of why it's so much easier to use a SAO revolver than most people think is because of such holsters. If I had to use the big "Zulu" movie flap over my wheelgun, I might want a DAO to - since fast draw is out of the question.
13:00 The sword I'd pick for a Gears of War game lolz. The idea of nickel plated 1911s is that it's harder metal and rusts lest and looks cooler, is my understanding. I know very little about decorating weapons, because I generally prefer them not to be. I will admit, nickel plated 1911s (like in Terminator 2, they did the longslide 1911 with 80s laser sighting in Terminator 1's famous gun store scene) look fucking awesome! So does that sword, which is why I'd never wear it. If I ever see anyone with anything fancy among the enemy, and all other things are equal, the guy with the fancy thing gets it first. For being foolishly wasteful and ostentatious, and because he's more likely to be important.
In the book "Out of Captivity" about 3 Americans captured by the FARC when their spy plane crashed, it mentions how they just threw their guns over the side of a cliff and surrendered, but not before they saw the enemy walking at them 2-300 yards out over open ground with little cover and one of the 30-50 had a bright red shirt on. I expect to die if caught, so I'd fight. And I'd have started with bright red shirt in jungle person, because they're fucking stupid! Well, in the book, it is revealed later as the Americans spend time (almost 4 years) as prisoners, that the red shirt person was a woman and their leader. The gang was largely incompetent and unruly without her, and not very skilled. They literally say "without her, they'd be nothing." So... an Army, Navy, and USMC guy crash a plane in the jungles of Latin America... sounds like a joke lol. But seriously, I can't believe the Marine (who looks like the damn Terminator) would do that! Fight, evade, and try for the chopper. I know the Marine could easily make that shot, much less the other 2 (all were non combat MOS) having a fair chance to with the M14s they had.
I think they could have wasted all 30-50 of them from their cover with their better weapons at that range. It seems that just little old me (who can make that same shot if the rifle is zeroed) would have been enough, much less 3 retired soldiers... But I wasn't there, so I won't criticize too much. I just think resistance is always better than compliance, because being at the mercy of an evil enemy is utterly terrible.
@Vapor Common sense dude! I lift weights 3 times a week, live active, and do the 1 hand sword exercises Schola posted while watching vids. Did you see my fitness level? High school? I guess HS Valedictorian and Summa Cum Laude from Gonzaga mean nada; since a YT zombie labels my writing "high school."
Try listening, reading, and understanding everything someone says before replying to or commenting on it. I don't bother to call most of the comments I see "elementary" (even tho they generally are, at best...), I just respond to the person and their ideas. I don't insult or degrade them, or try to label them in a category just so I can dismiss it (unless they ignore logic and facts). Ah, clearly my opinion says this is X educational level, therefore it can be dismissed - seems to be your attitude. I guess you never learned in PHIL 101 that all ideas stand or fall purely on their own merits, and anything else is a fallacy, huh?
Sorry if, in an effort to stay chill and real, I write casually in a YT comment, instead of going through multiple drafts and citing sources as if preparing a paper for peer-review. ALL weapons benefit from having surplus strength than is required to wield them. Pretentious asshole... Some of the best essays I ever read were by HS students!
15:05 Batoning 😊
It appears that the all in one sword/tool has been replaced by the folding entrenching tool. These too can be used as a weapon, while being able to dig, chop, slice and dice as needed.
"Chunky little boy" being the technical terms...lol, Great Video Matt! I've particularly liked your discussions of these type of swords, as i'm fond of their dual purpose applications.
I would recommend a 20-23" blade w/ 4" handle for even modern combat. Especially if you know how to use it. Ive experienced the battlefield & an m4 A1 isnt a great hand 2 hand weapon when faced w/ big knives & spears like what I saw in Middle east. Besides sometimes you dont want to have to kill them & a well placed cut can sometimes stop an attacker w/o killing them. Many times i was dealing w/ famers that were using hand weapons & shooting them just isnt necessary. They were just trying to defend their homes. I still feel immense guilt not for what we did to other soldiers. They like me signed up for it but those farmers didnt sign up for any of it.
JC Owens, I'd give you 10 "thumbs Up" if that were possible.
People complain about too many 18th-19th century sword videos? Those are why I'm subscribed to the channel. I'll admit I'd like to see a bit more continental European stuff, but I understand why you mostly have English and Indo-Persian weapons come through your hands.
When you look at the Baker Rifle sword bayonet you can see a similarity to the artillery sword. Chunky enough to be used as a tool and it was most used, and most useful, as a tool to clear space, construct shelters and make firewood thus the Rifles were sooner sheltered and fed than their infantry counterparts which helped to keep them in better condition. The old army saying applies: 'any fool can be uncomfortable'.
It would be rad if you did a talk on the Hospital Core. What did they do? How were they organized. How and when did they fight?
American here. In our civil war (at least in meuseums) we had "artillery shortswords" that are very attractive little swords but 1860s seems a little late so I'm assuming they were for dress.
They were mostly intended as tools, so clearing brush, chopping up kindling and if needed self-defence.
I would think that they had appropriate tools with them (axes and saws) but not as many to give one to everyone, and they might have been transported on a support wagon which during fighting might be far off. So if the artillery piece has to move i think they couldn't just go fetching the real tools if they were maybe on the far side of the support wagons ect.
some of the reproduction gladius style artillery swords are about 2.6 - 2.9 lbs, very hefty, but the infantry briquet version is 2.21 lbs just under 1kg
I LOVE this episode Matt
Bravo !!
Great Video as usual Matt! Do you think you could do a short video on 19th Century English/French/German/Austrian Hunting Swords sometime in the future?
Congrats to you and Lucy on your expanding family!!!
Thanks.
Excellent selection of shorter swords...
“Hanger”?
Is that because they hang from a belt?
Curious
In short, yes, but from a different cross belt.
In long, here is a link to another S.G. video.
th-cam.com/video/-Km5tWrhU-4/w-d-xo.html
Nobody knows. The word first appears in the 15th century and therefore we don't know the exact explanation of the name. All swords hang from a belt :-) Accept no other explanations.
I’m surprised naval officers weren’t issued something like these swords as their standard pattern sword - basically a “dress cutlass.”
All my weapons and training are aimed at fighting in confined spaces, like in a house for example as that’s where we are realistically likely to need to fight. I find a short sword like a gladius hispanensis or similar to be ideal
Maybe a video about the hilts direction. forward, backward, etc. And they pros and cons.
Interesting stuff, I'd like to see more about these utility swords or combat machetes.
I just really want to buy a pioneer saw back short sword
Any plans to do a video on hunting swords any time soon?
I have touched on them in previous videos, but as I don't own any probably not soon.
@@scholagladiatoria I recently rewatched your series on victorian police weapons, and noticed the hanger you had had a speartip point like the typical "wilkinson" style blade. Both of mine, and I think any others I have seen have the fuller going all the way to the tip, was that a later type you had, or a particular pattern for other ranks?
Totally down for more industrial era weapons videos.
Great video from a great channel. Keep up the good work Matt!
So what type of sword do you recommend for someone who's inbetween jobs?
The cheapest good quality one - something in need of restoration.
Another really interesting and informative video. A question I'd like to ask is on the claim of knuckle bows having had their origins in similarly designed swords from the 15th century. Could it actually instead be a case of convergent evolution (i.e. unrelated developments arriving at a similar design by virtue of something being a good idea) or do we have continued lineage/development between those swords through the centuries to the 19th century swords?
A second line of inquiry I'd like to raise is on the different short sword designs. Would it be safe to say that despite their different designs and users, their primary purpose for being carried (and what they did get used for most of the time) are as a defensive sidearm with the other capabilities (e.g. wood chopping, brush clearing, etc) being secondary functions? After all, a sword won't chop wood as efficiently as an axe and costs more to make. As such, if the Royal Artillery gunner was going to use his sword primarily to chop wood, one would argue he would've carried an axe instead (or simply, both) since an axe can be used to defend oneself in a pinch just as easily as a sword can be used to chop wood in a pinch.
No, knucklebows appear in the 15th century, become common in the 16th century and then never went away. 19th century hangers directly come from a continual line of hangers which go back to the 15th century.
@@scholagladiatoria Cool. Thanks for the clarification. It's much appreciated. Your knowledge around swords and their history never ceases to amaze me. Thanks again for the great vids.
About the pionéer sword.. He would have an axe in his tool chest. So, I guess he wouldn't have the need for a makeshift one like a gunner might?
"You're not going to be sawing people's limbs off while they try and fight you."
Speak for yourself, Hippie!
How does that Gunner's sword compare to a Victorian Lead Cutter?
*Relevant and Supportive Comment*
Oddly enough, I have found that too much handgaurd can be painful to the hands... learned that from my butterfly sword training. Used them so much I needed gloves as it was raising blisters. Maybe my hands where too big, maybe I practiced too much. Lol
EXCELLENT INFO. THANK YOU.
I quite enjoy the 18th&19th century industrial type weaponry! Lol great video 👍 recently subd. To your channel , absolutely fascinating . Cheers from KY, USA
Made me say, "wow" when you said 9 mm to 6mm that close to the end! That is a hefty boy, that is! Let us, in the future, employ our Gurkha as gunners!
On your zombie sword video I thought the pioneer sword was better choice than the cutlass
Well in terms of the blade effectiveness they are the same. The advantage of the cutlass is that you're less likely to get bitten in the hand, so I would still vote for the cutlass.
A thought about the nickle plated Engineer's sword. Possibly it could either be used for an opening ceremony of an Engineer's barracks or similar. Second thought it could have been a retirement gift for an NCO or similar. Welcome to hear about other ideas people have.
You should do a video on hanger/messer vs spadroon
Yesssssss! Hangars! Huzzar!
Sorry, kept getting distracted by the gorgeous patu in the background and tuning out of the history of hangers
Underrated video.
Ive always wanted a pioneers cutlass. Never liked the sawback but always curious if the teeth are properly indexed (offset).
Love the oversized guard for thick gloves.
Thanks for the vid sir.👍🏼👍🏼
Excellent. Thanks.
tool+weapon=awesome
Is there a history of swords on (early) tank crews?
Great stuff Matt. How about the same for ancient/medieval short swords?
What about the 1800 Pattern sword bayonet used with the Baker rifle? Is 24 inches long enough to qualify as a "hanger"?
Love that round shield on the wall.. very Central Asian-looking..
In general are these short swords lighter? How much? And how do you see the relationship to even older weapons like the Langseax?
Would a 36" rapier ever be used with a steel Rotella shield? Or were those Rapiers more on the long end ?
I'm too sexy for my short sword, too sexy it hurts!
Hey did you use to be the singer for Right said Fred ?
Matt, have you been able to get up close to the "Wakefield hanger" type swords either as originals or repos? I'm curious how they might handle since they are quite short over all: would they still feel like a normal messer given the amount of hilt development?
longswordsinlondon.tumblr.com/post/167213975266/wakefield-hangers
So, in the context of a British Artilleryman in the early going of the Napoleonic Wars equipped with a heavy hanger sidearm/tool, what techniques would have been effective for fending off enemy cavalry? Seems like a major disadvantage. Is there a record of group tactics that could negate the disadvantage of a shorter weapon that is also less nimble?
So many uses for these swords. I probably need one as well to... do stuff 😅
Like the German ww1 bayonet my grandfather has one. It saws very well. How he got I don't know.
Bold of you to assume that I won't be sawing people during battle.
We need a vid on Dusacks
Hmm 🤔 Very similar to confederate D guard bowies
Well they were pretty much designed for the same kind of thing. They were meant to be used as a weapon and a tool.
D guard Bowies are Cool
Great video. I've always loved shorter swords...(I'm short too🙂). Didn't know about the medieval connection. Unrelated question though....what is the brown shiny leathery bag looking thing on the wall to your right? Its ringing bells but mainly drawing blanks.🤔
It's a Maori war club.
Theres no way an officer was clearing brush or using any type of tool. It must be that way for another reason
Great video.
These things looks like early combat knives. Do you know when the first combat knives as we know them today were used?
Andre Kröger trench knives in WWI? Bayonets were often shortened by the troops to be handier in the small space of a trench where a bayonet on the end of a rifle wouldn’t be as useful.
That’s my guess.
@@kiltymacbagpipe
Thanks for the informations. These combat knives we see today, the ones with the multipurpose blade, do you know when these came into use for everybody in the military forces?
Andre Kröger I’d say before WWII. The Kabar was introduced for the marines around that time as was the Fairbairn-Sykes fighting knife as used by the SAS. Those are fighting knives and not bayonets.
If you consider bayonets which were more swordlike and not a spike, those have been around since the napoleonic wars and before. They could be a tool as well as a bayonet. I don’t consider them to be knives first, unlike bayonets today which are often fighting knives with a ring and clip for mounting on a rifle.
This is conjecture on my part. I’m sure someone has a more knowledgeable opinion.
They ground off the saw edge? Wouldn't ship crews find that functionality useful?
What is the source of the discoloration on that blade? Was it marked? Or had it somehow been reforged?
It is some form of stain from a chemical, but I don't know how that happened - it's how it came to me.
@@scholagladiatoria Understood, thank you!
Been thinking that during my country's Maori wars, a pioneer or cutlass , would the preferred weapon ( yes apart from a musket /bayonet) as our bush can and is pretty rugged, not a lot of room for fancy saber and no roads you would need to clear your own path so to speak, wonder if it was the same in India or ? any weres theres jungle?
Damn that's a hefty lil' boy
So why do you think it is that in the 15th century short swords saw a growth in popularity?
Due to the professionalisation of infantry soldiers. More or more soldiers were doing it as a paid job and providing their own equipment.
@@scholagladiatoria I figured it had to do with that, and the growth of professional standing armies during the 15th century.
Matt have you watched the wilkinson factory movies on the british pathe channel. Id think you'd like it
This seems like a similar idea to the Katzbalger, do you have any experience with those?
Weird, I was thinking that the short sword was much more useful as a machete then as a sword. Or at least typically used that way.
Good afternoon Mr. Easton, I have a question or am asking your expert opinion. I was in my local knife/sword and gun store looking at swords and the topic of sword fighting came up. I told the clerk i was possibly interested in fencing lessons...might as well since i collect and do security jobs sometimes. He had laughed and stated you are way too large to do so ( i am 6 foot tall and a very solid 350 pounds 53 inch chest and 52 inch waist) i understand i would be a tad slower or tire easily, my question though is if he is completely right and if i did start fencing if large men can fence well?
Great vid, what is the difference between a hanger a messer and a dussack or tessak? Was wondering if you could do something about this.
Do you think it would have been a weapon used by a doctor or medic to do field amputations? I can't tell how teeth per inch from watching the video, but do you think it could have been used for bone?
and what if i want to knock in a nail?
Hello all. Can anyone, pls, tell me what type of sword is pictured on 0:34 ? I assume it`s a pattern of some sort, if so which?
basically what you are trying if that short swords are used as machetes or choppers