8:40 I've had people argue that the Spartans actually dressed like this meanwhile in their own history a man was fined for not wearing armor in a battle. They were some of the most heavily armored Greeks
Yeah, not always. During the peloponesian war they're actually wear no body armor and prefer simple pilos helmet instead of older corinthian helmet. But 300 is set on late archaic and early classic period, so give king Leonidas a linothorax or bronze cuirass doesn't hurt.
@@assumjongkey1383 Go back to your history books , and Xenophon and Thucydides. The Spartiates did not constitute "every free man". They were the upper class and drew on the States resources. '
Actually, Harry Turtledove has written a book which DOES feature AK47's being used during the Civil War. However, to be fair, his story begins with some South African White Supremacists using time travel to take the AK47s back to the American Civil War, but still.
I can forgive the Raiders of the Lost Ark due to the era of the film. Seeing as it was during the 1940's there is a good chance that it would be possible to get a sword from a different time and place. Also, considering international forces were moving through the region it makes this more possible.
Maybe he got it from the Arsenal of Alexandria! The setting took place in the 30's when the arsenal was discovered by Americans. Also, Alexandria isn't too far from Cairo! 😁
The sword that the Kurgan uses in Highlander would not fit any era, but I always found funny that Ramirez (an ancient Egyptian living as a Spaniard with a Scottish accent) used a katana. With a round, ivory handle.
Katana with carved bone tsuka are a real thing, they are almost always purely ornamental and didn't really come around until the 1800s. As for why an Egyptian Scotiard would have one, I guess he just gets around.
"Ramirez" claimed that his Japanese father-in-law was a genius; I guess he invented the katana millennia before anyone else, but had no surviving apprentices.
Yeah, always thought that part was silly. The Kurgan and his sword don't fit any culture at all. Frankly, forget the sequels-I want an explanation on what the hell is Ramirez's life was like!
Both of El Cid's swords were in fact re-hilted and gifted to nobles by Ferdinand II of Aragon. So we're left to assume they're renaissant and ornamental versions of the originals. And considering Tizona is probably the most replicated sword in history, I don't blame Samuel Bronston for using it as is.
@Matthew Aldridge He pronounces it more correctly than the usual way people pronounce it in English. It's almost completely like the original Greek except he uses a "d" instead of a "th" sound, which is understandable considering the spelling. The usual "Leo-nai-das" is mispronouncing it for the sake of convenience (since those letters, in that order, would be pronounced differently in an English name) and habit but if we're being pedantic about it, it's _far_ more wrong than how Matt pronounces it. I don't particularly mind considering most names get mangled in translation understandably, no matter what languages you're talking about but it slightly irritates me when someone who clearly _doesn't_ know what the original pronunciation is expresses an opinion on the correctness of it. Especially when they can't even be bothered to check how it's even usually spelled in _English_, let alone Greek. Considering I'm Greek, I think I have a bit better authority on the matter compared to someone who's only heard Americans and Brits speak a Greek name.
@@iviecarp but this video is talking about the movie, the fictional movie based on a fictional comic. Whether or not it was inspired by the actual historical figure, he should have pronounced it how it was pronounced in the movie, not his own completely unique version.
"_Should_" is a strong word. It's debatable. Some would say correctness to the original name is important since it's a historical name, even if it's based on a fictionalized version of semi-historical events. Others would say, like you, that it should be faithful to the subject material. I say it doesn't matter as long as everyone knows what we're talking about. I was also not commenting on general correctness but specifically on the correctness of pronouncing this particular name. I hope I made it clear (though perhaps I have not), that I don't particularly care how it's pronounced. I was irritated by the fact that someone decided to comment on correctness when they clearly had no idea what they were talking about. _That_ was the point of my comment, not what pronunciation is strictly correct in my opinion. I couldn't care less either way, as long as it's clear which character he's talking about.
@@iviecarp yeah, I understand. I'm now used to Hollywood westernising things, even changing the laws of physics to make something look more spectacular. Even in 300, the amount of blood thrown around.....you'd think it was a Quentin Tarantino movie. It just makes me appreciate it more when a movie does it right. Haha. I'm mean Sean Connery played a British spy with a Scottish accent the entire time and no one seemed bothered by it.
Historian shouting at you here Matt: The equipment generally worn in braveheart is as rubbish as the sword. (also, as an aside, Richard Lionheart never returned home, he died in France)
True trivia: the reason Harrison Ford changed the fight scene with the swordsman was because he had contracted a tropical disease while filming and (I swear this is true) developed as one of his symptoms epic diarrhea. He didn’t want to embarrass himself while filming an elaborate fight scene and introduced some comic relief by just shooting the swordsman.
Indiana Jones also had Afrika Korps uniforms and panzerfausts about a decade before either actually existed, not to imagine a German army detachment running around and killing people and blowing stuff up in 1930s Egypt without the authorities taking any interest, so I think it's safe to assume that historical accuracy was not a concern for the filmmakers.
It's set in a historical period, but of course the actual plot centered around the fictional characters never happened. I don't really take issue with them straining the plausibility of the specific plot elements. Yes, there are a few inaccuracies here and there if you really want to nitpick, but mostly it's broadly accurate to the appearance of the time period it's meant to take place in, if you don't focus too much on every little minutia and just judge it as what it's trying to be: a fantasy based on the style of pulp comics and serials of the 1930's and 1940's which weren't too concerned about accuracy or plausibility.
@daAnder71 Well, Tanks like the Mark I from WWI were still in service until the 1930's in Canada I believe and it would not be far fetched to assume that a Turkish state is not up to scratch with the latest tank designs but kept some older designs in service
Yeah, firearms are often wrong in Westerns. As well as post-Civil War firearms ('73 Colts and Winchesters) being shown during or just after the Civil War, we also see cap'n'ball revolvers of the Civil War often being represented by blank cartridge-firing versions - in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly they even change from cap'n'ball to cartridge within scenes.
Gladius, Egyptian/Middle-eastern "Sickle" sword, Damascus Steel Scimitar, Japanese Katana, and Claymore. I could go to 8 or 10 because historically true swords come to us through history because they were good. The rubbish swords didn't last. Fantasy swords we see being made today have little combat value as they are embellished with things that won't change the outcome of a fight like serrations up towards the hilt. Cool looking and useless except maybe in camp to saw that odd stick or tent peg.
1. Polish Szalba Sabers in _The Deluge_ (1974) 2. Napoleonic Hussar Sabers and Dueling small swords in _The Duelists_ 3. Roman Gladius in HBO's _Rome_ That's what I got for SPECIFIC swords in specific productions.
If I remember rightly Harrison Ford suggested just shooting the swordsman because he was suffering with diarrhoea and was only managing a couple of minutes in front of the camera at a time between toilet breaks on that day.
To be fair Mat: El Cid was made in a filmmaking period when historical accuracy wasnt a consideration when making an epic "history" romantic drama. 300 is meant to be a narrative told in the style of Homer by a survivor of the battle, so its full of drama and monsters like the Oddessy. Its meant to look like a fantasy film, as that is the style the a Greek storyteller / narrator would have used to tell the tale of the battle. RotLA is a "Boys Own" type adevnture story, so the scimitar would be exaggerated and out of context as its like a live action comic strip. Again, not exactly a history film.
Cheers mate. The 300 thing really bites me....no matter how many times its pointed out that the author himself clearly stated over and over again in interviews that its meant to be a story told by an ancient Greek storyteller in the same 'epic monsters and heroes' style that Homer used in the Illiad and Oddessy people keep saying "but its not historically accurate. Spartans wore armor, and there were more than 300 troops there, blah blah blah." I wonder what the hell they were thinking they were watching....did they miss the clues at the start and end, and the clues seeded through the film (like the slo-mo battle sequences with the 'heroes' striking poses straight off a Greek vase)? Seems Mat has to join Metatron, Shad and Lindy in the "missed the whole sodding point" club.
You should have added "The Thirteenth Warrior." The swords used by the Vikings in that movie look like crude, barely sharpened iron bars, like something made by people who might have learned how to smelt iron and forge blades out of it maybe last week. The swords look cruder than early Iron Age blades did. The swords weren't the only problem. One Viking, played by Clive Russell, is wearing helmet and armor that look vaguely 17th century, while another of the Vikings is wearing -- so help me -- a Roman gladiator's helmet!
You know, I never had any problem with the gladiator helmet. That could be just an eccentric warrior using an existing, if old style of helmet. Almost everything else was pretty bad though, no arguments there from me.
Yeah, '13th Warrior' was not big on historical accuracy, what redeemed the movie, ( at least for me ) was the score. Phenomenal work from late Jerry Goldsmith.
To me the robinhood sword seems to have a ridiculously thick, and completely round handle. @Osmosis Jones: If you're talking about the sword Conan pulled off a skeleton, supposedly the Atlantean king it belonged to was something crazy like eight and a half feet tall. It's all from some old comic books. Hard to call it era appropriate when Conan isn't part of any particular era and is more of an alternate-earth setting.
Or face paint or fought on foot or sacked York or made grandiose speeches about freedom or porked Isabella of France (as if the She Wolf would choose some Scottish knight instead of the most powerful men in England) or had to be dragged from Falkirk instead of running for his life.
people always cite the historical inaccuracies as a reason to hate this film... and they are 100% correct... but the cinematography is also horrid... i can only assume that they found the slow motion button in the edit suite and got a bit carried away... 8.4 on imdb... 8.4... sigh...
My Dad was a Special Effects man, and I brought this exact subject up in a move we were working that had U.S. Marines. I was on active duty at the time and the equipment, uniforms, actions, employment of tactics, and the spoken words were absolutely in accurate. My Dads response was “We’re making a move, not a documentary”.
Also in 300, I suppose the persian army are not composed off silver masked ninjas, and persian Kings don't go to battle in the buff. Celts maybe, but not Persians.
I doubt they used gigantic rhinos with gold chains to charge the Spartan lines either. Come to think of it, I doubt They had dancing sitar playing goat headed men and deformed courtesans in their Kings tent either lol.
At least in the case of "300" it was meant to be the fantastical retelling of the battle by Dilios, to inspire the other Greek nations, and not a true representation.
Re: the Spartans, as much as they're depicted as a gay art students dream come true, they clearly took note of scholagladiatoria's insistence that "If you're only going to wear one piece of armor, wear a helmet!" (at least, they take that advice for the most part)
El Cid is a great movie, very underrated, I always recommend it to people who like Game of Thrones. Ivanhoe from the same period is also a great movie.
I think "El Cid" falls into the category where the entire setting in terms of clothes, props and stuff is shifted a couple of centuries off the mark. Take for example the story of King Arthur, which historically can be placed to around 510-530 a.d. and is often depicted as taking place several centuries later. Also most (Caribbean) pirate movies are set in 18th century surroundings while the pirates were most active in the 17th century.
I've been selling replica swords for around 30 years, many of them I designed based on real swords from the period. It always bugs me when movie makers get the armour and weapons wrong for the period they're filming.
15:45 I just watched Prince of Thieves again and the sword Morgan Freeman is carrying isn't for fighting, it is the sword they were using to cut off hands in the prison at the beginning. It seems well suited for that task.
On Indiana Jones: Harrison Ford was suffering from dysentery at the time, so he could only be available for minutes at a time before having to go. His sidekick had already soiled his pants days before, so they substituted a lengthy swordfight for a quick gunshot. 😁
Almost every member of the crew on that film suffered from dysentery. The only person who didn't was Steven Spielberg, as he only ate canned food that he brought with him from the States.
"Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his King Bonehead crown, I see we have an heir to the throne. I'm sure the word you were looking for was symbolism." -Agent Smecker
Del-Tin made one of the swords used in the Highlander TV series too, Graham Ashe's Gothic Broadsword which MacLeod gives to Richie when his old Broad Rapier broke.
An interesting case is the movie "The Vikings" with Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis. The Vikings were portrayed reasonably accurately, but the English costumes, weapons, armor (not to mention castles and ships) seem to be more or less early 13th century. My guess is that this was a deliberate choice, because otherwise it would have been difficult to tell the two cultures apart on the screen, especially during battle sequences.
Good catch! The Muslim=saber myth is a relic of the Turkish empires in the last millennium AD. However, if you look at the Muslim warriors in Sudan fighting the British and Egyptians under the Mahdi, you'll see the Kaskara, a broadsword little changed from the days of the Prophet (who wore a Spatha)
As Robin Hoods go I rather liked what they did in the 1980s British TV version of Nasir; dual wielding reasonably proportioned scimitars. They might not have been particularly historically accurate but at least they were functional weapons, unlike what they put into Morgan Freeman's hands.
Very well done, but you have overlooked one small bit that was most well displayed in Highlander....Heroes forging their own specially designed swords. Movies being movies, this "poetic license" has to be taken into account, yes they do not "fit the standard mold" for the period, but in at least some cases (like Morgan Freeman's blade) it (sort of) makes sense, and the hand grip/pommel would need to be extra large for two distinct reasons...his HANDS are rather large and the need to offset the weight of the oversize blade. Keep in mind, for every day soldiers sword were pretty much one-size fits all, but royalty and the well to do often had swords made specifically to FIT them if they were larger or smaller than the norm. Great job on explanations BTW, don't think I have heard anyone else mention a falchion by name, almost like it has been lost to time. Would love to see you make a video on the development of some of these "off brand (lol)" swords...when and where made/used etc.
But hey, they are wearing helmets AND shields. Stuff Matt's normally complaining about when it's missing. So they got that going for them (and bullet proof beards, duh)...
Because the cuirass they would normally be wearing are styled after a man's cut abs. So they went straight to the cut abs. It's simple. I know so many historians that do NOT get the point of The 300. It has nothing to do with history. It has to do with the power of myth, of story. It is a film length St. Cripin's day speech. Told from the point of view of Dilios from the very start, it is a story to rouse the morale of men facing death. It is a gorgeous movie, beautifully shot and conceived and is one of my favorites. But we in it shall be rememberèd- We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Because both movie and graphic novel pretty much bases its visuals on ancient greek concept of "kalos kagatos" (not sure if I spelled it right). It basically means that looks are expression of a person soul. If a person is good and noble than he looks beautifully (hence why spartans are this fabulous, godlike, perfect-bodied demigods) and if he is evil than he will loom ugly (hence why persians and ephialtes are so grotesque and twisted).
It's funny how medieval filmmakers love the 15th and 16th centuries so much they put them in the 11th-13th century. And why does Hollywood have such a problem making sabers? They look more like West African machete-style swords than anything used by a Muslim warrior.
The suits of armour used in El Cid would later go on to be used as part of Angela Lansbury's magic assault against a Nazi raiding group in Bedknobs And Broomsticks!
I’ve often wondered why the forward curving recurve style of sword seems to have disappeared from Europe before the middle ages. Any theories on that Matt?
GOAT Straight swords fare better against armor, and thus became the most iconic of a knight's sidearms because the most iconic battles were against other equally armored knights. Sabers, messers, and other curved swords didn't completely disappear, but they didn't become more popular until swords were once again facing lots of unarmored opponents.
See, I've heard that theory put forth before, but I'm sort of skeptical, mainly because there are medieval European swords that are honestly even worse at thrusting than a falcata for example. The other thing is that as far as I've been able to work out, the height of early medieval armor was mail, which had been around for ages before that.
GOAT I'm embarrassed to say that I missed the detail about *forward* facing blades. My mistake. I'll sidestep and allow someone with more knowledge to help.
One I would like to add: in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, they repeatedly refer to Godric Gryffindor as having existed, "a thousand years ago", so his sword would have been made somewhere around end-10th Century/beginning of the 11th Century. Yet, the Gryffindor Sword as it appears in the films, is an arming sword with a disc pommel, narrow blade, no fuller, and almost no edge. As far as I know, that is highly anachronistic.
Except it is an Urban Fantasy, taking place on Earth, in the 20th/21st Century. Maybe the wizards were ahead of their time, but it would be by quite an amount, and the point of the video is simply pointing out swords that historically don't make sense in the setting and context. Regardless of what technology 11th Century wizards had in Harry Potter, that sword would still be out of place in the 11th Century.
I'm just saying that, regardless of any in-story justifications, it would still be out of place in the 11th Century. 11th Century Europeans would look at his sword and say, "Wow; that's a... strange sword. Can it even cut?" Regardless of fantasy elements, it is still an anachronistic sword. That is the point. If Rowling decided to publish a novel about Godric Gryffindor, I would suggest to her that Godric have a bit of introspection upon receiving the sword, that's along the lines of this: "It was an... interesting design. The pommel was a disc, and the thick blade was narrow, and tapered to a point; a far cry from the blades of human muggles, which were primarily meant to cut. It would certainly stand out, even if it sat in its scabbard to the end of its days. But that didn't matter; what mattered was it would never rust, tarnish or lose its edge. It will only ever take in that which will make it stronger."
I enjoyed this very much. Over many years I have collected replica swords (as well as non-firing guns & period costume pieces). I'm an actor in LA, so I do a lot of low/no-budget theater. My hobby has become a useful sideline. So I am extremely guilty of fudging periods. I once outfitted a production of HENRY V & tried to stick as close as possible to the 1415 period with what I had, but I have to admit that a couple Viking & Celtic swords made their way into the mix (it's a big cast). When the theater I'm a member of recently did THE LION IN WINTER (one of my favorites) they didn't consult me at all. When I saw the show I started grinding my teeth as soon as the lights went up. All the men were wearing that weird sparkly knitted stuff that's supposed to look like chainmail but just looks like weird sparkly knitted stuff. Then, in the final scene, when everyone starts pulling knives, & Richard Coeur de Lion came up with a stag handled Bowie knife, I nearly bit through my tongue. I was, of course, polite when I saw everyone after the show, but I was pissed. Oh, did mention I really wanted to play Henry. So there's that. What's my point? None. I just wanted to vent, & this seemed an appropriate place. But I still really loved the video
If you allow for a little diversity in craftmanship through the ages, Morgan Freeman's " moorish" sword is actually not too bad. It looks a lot like the widely used talwar, more specifically the zulfikar variant with it's twin points. In the movie those points are obviously somewhat stumped, though this is something easily explained by it's use as an executioners sword in the beginning of the movie. This still presents us with a problem though, since the talwar is from about 1300 at it's earliest - and hails from India :-)
One that got it right is the Hallmark Home Video production of Merlin, where the troops are wearing cast-off bits of Roman armor and Excalibur is a Celtic long sword.
longswords and two handed swords are most historical misplaced swords in cinema there are dozens of films sets in the 10th 11th 12th canturies with them
+scholagladiatoria the "Disney scimitars" seems to be of a piece with stuff like medieval European chroniclers depicting Classical Romans equipped with contemporary medieval equipment they were familiar with. So if they were told that Saracens used curved swords, they depicted that with the curved sword they were familiar with, the falchion, and it stuck.
Didn't Arabs of this period use straight swords much like the Europeans, though? I was under the impression that the curved swords of the Arab world were a later Turkic influence, and that the medieval artists gave Saracens falchions in their images because that way you could tell the Christians and Muslims apart by whether their swords were shaped like crosses or crescents.
Earlier Arab swords were certainly predominantly straight, but curved swords were popularised by Turkic troops from the 9th century or so, and by the time of the First Crusade at the end of the 11th, the Turkic Seljuks were the dominant force in the Middle East.
Sir, you told us about everything was wrong with William Wallace's sword as seen in "Braveheart." However- it would have been helpful to show us an actual sword or at least an historically accurate reproduction of that sword. Otherwise I enjoyed your presentation. Thank you.
Marshall in the movie Ironclad uses a pretty out of place Greatsword, and interestingly I recall him using techniques from a Spanish Montante treatise from several centuries later. It's been awhile since I've watched that movie, but iirc he kicks the end of the blade to raise it up and set it in his hands, which I've only over seen in Spanish Montante.
Timmy Turner Ditto. I named my practice zweihander Gram (because Gramr was already claimed by my Carolingian spatha). It's my best friend. Also, that impact... mmmmmm...
Greatswords are my favorite as well. I'm working on a fantasy series, one of my protagonists is a Landsknecht-inspired greatswordsman. A giant sword just suits his personality.
I would *love* to see a video where you actually speak to someone on the production design of the movies in question and get some idea why they went with certain weapons or armor instead of more historical examples.
Sure. But they would still fit within the general technology type of the time. In 1190 noblemen fought almost always with shields, so a two-handed sword doesn't make much sense.
Have you ever watched the movie 'LadyHawke'? It's hard to find a copy since the producing company went out of business and all the rights have been tied up for years but I managed to find a copy on DVD on Amazon. I'm curious about your opinion regarding Nevarre's family sword. It seems too fantasy but I could be wrong. I love the movie anyways
How could you possibly ignore the most famous sword in movie history? The Tri-sword from "The Sword and the Sorcerer." The product of years (okay maybe days) of meticulous research in historical swords - that had three blades, and which could fire off two of them with gas-powered jets of air - that blade is a true masterpiece of both film history and an accurate historical representation of swords ... with three blades. Naughty scholagladitoria, naughty.
for a fun fact :Spartans are believed to have fought compleatly naked down under to intimidate the enemy but they were wearing Breastplates, knee and arm braces and helmets of course. O and the sword of leonidas is a strange variation of an falcata wich is a historical greek weapon that existet before, the battle of the thermopylen, so it is plausible the he could have used one.
More likely he's circus performer and that's his stage prop, meant to imtimidate and slow down indy rather then efficient kill him. At the time (mid to late 1930s) arab thugs would probably use late 19th century single shot hunting rifles or (most likely british) WWI vintage weapons as those would probably commonly avaible in Egypt at the time.
Or an executioners sword. About the only time you see such large blades are ones designed for judicial beheading. Odd to have in Egypt since hanging had long since taken over under British influence but at least a real sword and not something cartoonish.
My sword is not the longest sword, but it is not a short sword. My sword is not an ancient blade, but it is not a new blade. My sword is not a famous blade, but it is not an infamous blade. It is my sword, and it is a good enough sword to take your freakin' block off...Kalevala, slightly paraphrased.
I am amazed by this video! It is not (only) about the swords: it is how you take seriously a subject, tell amazing stories about it and show us how it should be done, the thinking, the meticulous research and the analyzing! I must confess I'm not a sword fan. I don't care about swords (sorry). Yet I subscribed to your channel and, more than that, I am a fan. I don't watch your videos because of the swords. I watch them because how clever they are, how cleverly they put things into perspective, how brightly you put your astounding knowledge and understanding of a narrow field, and (unconsciously?) you teach how to deal with broader or other fields. I love you man : you always make me cleverer! And I bet I’m not the only one!
Most people haven't even heard about Colada, and they believe in Tizona's authenticity only inasmuch as they may have heard some factoid about it and taken it at face value.
tizona although it's hilt is modern the style is the same, el cid served both muslim and christian lord and Muslim swords at the time had the characteristic ''U' shape guard'
Some islamic swords of the period may have had a U shaped guard, but it was definitely not in the 15-16th century style of the iconic Tizona, although that style was definitely influenced by late nedieval islamic swords (jinetas).
Homo eructus yes that particular style the sword has its mozarabic and pretty popular in the 15th century, actually the tizona thats in display was given by ferdinand the king to a noble who helped him to get married with isabel, i forgot his name but apparently they kept the sword till recent times until it was bought and put on display in a castle
This was interesting, but I feel like I'd like to have seen some more suggestions or examples of the kind of swords that would have been in keeping for the time and place, rather than just "this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong". For example, I feel like I'd have a better grasp on why the Wallace sword was wrong if you'd told me what pommels _did_ look like on 13th century Scottish greatswords, rather than just saying "it's wrong". You did that pretty well in discussing the kopis for the 300 segment, I'd have loved to see more of that.
I've always understood the extremely curved swords supposedly from the ME weren't actually weapons but Executioners tools purpose built for decapitation. But MY personal candidate for most ridiculous movie sword(s) was from 1954's Prince Valiant. A movie so awful it's good. And OMG the swords and in particular Val's famous 'Singing Sword'.........
I was going to mention "Prince Valiant". Swords with huge blades, like four inches wide and only 30 inches long at MOST, that must've weighed a TON, with single-hand hilts! Another "what the...?" was the way the swords RANG during fight scenes. I'm a medieval re-enactor with a Viking persona; I own TRUE Viking style swords. The blades hardly weigh more than two pounds, and the widest one is, maybe, no more than 2 1/2 inches at the hilt. Anyone who's ever swung a REAL sword for more than five minutes knows why swords were made as light as possible!
Well Matt, you'll have to share the blame for opening the door to "fantasy" movie swords (The 300) and admit you should have included the sword from "The Sword and the Sorcerer" th-cam.com/video/-OU96za6czU/w-d-xo.html Hahahahahaha. I would love to see someone trying to wield a real version of that.
Literally every "buster sword" style thing. I think I'd rather see the BEST Final Fantasy swords, because so many of them are obviously (and admittedly) "style over practicality".
An interesting thing about the large Arab warrior with the large scimitar was the same actor played the large German soldier that Indy fought who ran into the prop. He was also in one of my favorite British TV shows, "The Avengers". He played the Cybernaut in 2 episodes in the 1960's.
14:10 "just about starting to appear in this sort of proportion..." Okay, so a powerful and wealthy nobleman, for example, Robin of Locksley's Father, at the time he would have acquired the sword, would have not been among the first to be able to acquire such a sword? I agree with you about the pommel. The whole point of it is, well, you know that better than I. Just, the whole "They were there just not common yet..." thing strike me as saying "You know, That Lovell character, that you saw in that fictional movie, what was it called, Hermes 7? No, Apollo something or other. Well, you know, at that time there were only a few vehicles like that ever. Even today there aren't many more than half a dozen. The likelyhood of some specific person being on board such a vehicle, more than once, in the early seventies, was nearly nil.... Lovell was on two of said vehicles. Count them. Because he was the guy who could land a washing machine if he had to. The vehicles were paid for by the government that would win the cold war a short while later. They wanted the guy who could land a washing machine, if needed, and they hired him. Apparently, twice. Said investment paid off. Odds and chances and everything statistical can be completely defenestrated once you are talking about specific people. Hell, I would have ended the argument at "Noble's son versus king's sheriff." No, your average spearchucker didn't have a sword like that, not that year but they did exist for certain people, your own admission. Who then? 0.003% of random spearchuckers? Hell no. All of said weapons would have been in the hand of people like Noble's son who happens to be a Great Warrior and the King's own fucking sheriff! Why is any of this even weird? If it even seems weird to you, you can fly your F-22 raptor straight to my house and drop the laser guided smartbombs you're armed with right on it. If you can't, then, yeah.
Very good video very well put together she has a lot of knowledge about the subject. I really was expecting some of the Absurd fantasy swords that you would see it movies swords that was so outlandish there's no way you could actually wield that effectively
A bit like the 3 parallel blades in the sword from the Sword and the Sorcerer. Then you add in the fact the two side blades can be launched as missiles. He did clarify in the title historically ridiculous rather than just plain ridiculous.
I think the sword that Aziz had, if I remember Robin Hood P.O.T., was supposed to be an executioner's sword only. That explained its heavy blade, because it was made for chopping off heads in a single blow, but it doesn't explain why he kept using it for battle after escaping to Europe, nor was that probably a type of sword used by executioners at the time. We also know that while the Middle East was much more advanced scientifically than Europe at this time (particularly in math, medicine, magnetism), Aziz' telescope wasn't invented for many centuries, in fact even well after the discovery of the New World.
Why is it impossible for swords, of important historical, to exist before the time they got popular? It takes time for something to spread and become standard.
Kylo Ren's flame-hilted lightsaber was far better suited for the Old Republic days, when fencing between Sith and Jedi was to be expected and a "tsuba" guard against the sliding lightsaber of your foe could mean the difference between winding up with two hands and one. That type of hilt was obsolete when forged after the fall of the Jedi. Seriously historically inaccurate there.
The without armor wouldn't be that big of a deal if the clothing was different. There is alot of parts in the movie and historically where he wouldn't have gone in wearing 13th century battle regalia.
There is so much wrong with Braveheart its hard to know where to begin. As a Scot its a shame there's very little media on Scotland that even tries to be authentic.
I'm gonna focus in on the lack of a helmet. Not everyone back then would wear much more than padded armour, the first things someone would buy in terms of protection would be a shield and a helmet. Silly.
The lack of armour isn’t the biggest problem. The kilt wasn’t a thing at that time period. Face paint would be from the Roman period. The movie plays fast and loose with fact. Go to a Highland games in the US and you will see plenty of people dressed like extras from the movie so it’s obviously skewed the public perception of what is truly historical.
William Wallace was of the noble class and head of army, he would have a full 13th set of armor but like Lewis said there is almost nothing historical authentic PS: i thought Scot loved Braveheart beacause during the 5 day i've been in Glasgow in three different pub the tv have it on
Another worse movie sword: The letter opener, sorry, sword of Godric Gryffindor in the Harry Potter movies. With Godric Gryffindor living in the end of the 10th century, his sword should have been a spatha, perhaps a broad sword, most likely an Oakeshott X.
I would’ve really appreciated period correct alternatives showing what we characters actually should’ve been using. Always love your videos, keep them coming.
In regards to the "Robin's Father"s sword's pommel being unbelievable, it's true that I've never seen an open suncross-shaped pommel, but there are Gallowglas swords that have an open wheel pommel, just not with a crossbeam to make it seem more suncross like. Even still then the open wheel pommel is probably late 15th/16th century, so your point about it being a complete anachronism still stands.
Spartans wearing no armor is actually historically accurate, any historical depictions of them wearing armor were pure propaganda by their enemies to make their soldiers think that Spartans were also just humans, which, thanks to fantastic historical documentaries like 300 we now know they were not.
Yes and no. Poor hoplites certainly wore little clothing if they couldn't afford armor. Wealthy men are heavily armored though. A general discarding of armor comes from the rise of peltasts and other light infantry in the wars against Athens and Thebes over the next century. Armor actually went from heavy to virtually nonexistent to medium between the Persian Wars and Alexander the Great. Hoplites start ditching everything except shields, grieves and helmet so they can chase peltasts, psiloi, etc after embarrassing incidents like the Battle of Sphacteria but armor comes back as combined arms warfare is developed and it was realized it was better to just have your own light troops and cavalry see off enemy light troops and cavalry rather than try to use unarmored hoplites against them.
Nice vid. I also would have mentioned that the proportions of Robin's father's sword are off, even for a 14th century piece. I'm also curious, Matt, when and where is the illustration at 11:32 from?
Awesome video. El Cid's sword especially gave me an idea: maybe you could do a video about transitional sword designs, especially the transition between arming sword and rapier, as well as the emergence of two-handed swords. I appreciate that it's impossible to pin down specifics and turning points, but I think it may make for an interesting video.
The Indiana Jones movies might be considered fantasy more then historical as is is a homage to the series matiné films of the 1930's. So the sword might be incorrect just to make it fit the feel of the the cliffhanger filled film era that is is inspirerad by.
Wasn't one of the characters in the Clive Owen King Arthur movie a samurai? It's been a very long time since I saw it, but I think a lot of it was not accurate for late Roman Empire at all. I'm sure Troy got a lot wrong about Bronze Age weapons (I only remember Brad Pitt decapitating a statue with his sword)
It wan’t a samurai, but the swords in King Arthut are indeed bad. The guy you’re thinking of is Tristan and he fights with a strange two handed chinese dao.
it looked to me like a kilij, which has roots in the Xiongu era (3rd century BC to 1st century AD invaders of China, often thought to be the same guys that were called "Huns" in Europe). Since they are Sarmatians (Central Asian Steppes people) in the 4th century AD both region and time check out, so Tristan's sword may actually be the most accurate in the movie. Then again most cavalry auxilia were outfitted by the Romans, so they'd use Spatha swords and chainmail.
No, it's clearly a dao. It has an oval disc guard and both the shape of the handle/pommel and that of the blade look like on a typical dao. And that's pretty anachronistic for 4th century Sarmatians. Tristan's sword: images.propstore.com/34966.jpg images.propstore.com/34964.jpg images.propstore.com/34965.jpg and a (18th century) dao for comparison: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Saber_with_Scabbard_and_Belt_Hook_%28%E6%B8%85_%E8%85%B0%E5%88%80%29_MET_DP-834-001.jpg
I don't remember which director or producer said it but I think it relevant when he stated "I'm making a movie not a documentary" or words to that effect.
8:40 I've had people argue that the Spartans actually dressed like this meanwhile in their own history a man was fined for not wearing armor in a battle. They were some of the most heavily armored Greeks
Not always
Yeah, not always. During the peloponesian war they're actually wear no body armor and prefer simple pilos helmet instead of older corinthian helmet. But 300 is set on late archaic and early classic period, so give king Leonidas a linothorax or bronze cuirass doesn't hurt.
@@assumjongkey1383 When not always? The Spartiates were hardly ever not heavy infantry - the Perioecci provided the light skirmishers and peltasts.
@@ianlowcock6913 every male free man was conscripted and not all have the money to have the heavy armor u are talking about
@@assumjongkey1383 Go back to your history books , and Xenophon and Thucydides. The Spartiates did not constitute "every free man". They were the upper class and drew on the States resources. '
Bruce Campbell's chainsaw hand in Army of Darkness. Totally out of place in the middle ages.
His car though, that fits in perfectly.
@@rocketcon , it was refit for use with coal and steam, so I'll let it slide.
...Boom Stick...
But looked way cool.
Yup. Totally +1 on the Boomstick.
In 200 years from now will Civil War movies have AK-47s?
M16s maybe.
Actually, Harry Turtledove has written a book which DOES feature AK47's being used during the Civil War. However, to be fair, his story begins with some South African White Supremacists using time travel to take the AK47s back to the American Civil War, but still.
OMG I definitely need to read that book
Guns of the South :)
And they still somehow lose. Kudos to Turtledove for mentioning how the idea of a fork lift changed many things in the logistics world.
I can forgive the Raiders of the Lost Ark due to the era of the film. Seeing as it was during the 1940's there is a good chance that it would be possible to get a sword from a different time and place. Also, considering international forces were moving through the region it makes this more possible.
Maybe he got it from the Arsenal of Alexandria! The setting took place in the 30's when the arsenal was discovered by Americans. Also, Alexandria isn't too far from Cairo! 😁
The sword that the Kurgan uses in Highlander would not fit any era, but I always found funny that Ramirez (an ancient Egyptian living as a Spaniard with a Scottish accent) used a katana. With a round, ivory handle.
Katana with carved bone tsuka are a real thing, they are almost always purely ornamental and didn't really come around until the 1800s. As for why an Egyptian Scotiard would have one, I guess he just gets around.
"Ramirez" claimed that his Japanese father-in-law was a genius; I guess he invented the katana millennia before anyone else, but had no surviving apprentices.
Yeah, always thought that part was silly. The Kurgan and his sword don't fit any culture at all. Frankly, forget the sequels-I want an explanation on what the hell is Ramirez's life was like!
Tareltonlives - The Chronicles of Ramirez.
King Leonidas in 300 has also a scottish accent. Maybe at some point in history there was a (now) forgotten scottish empire ?
Both of El Cid's swords were in fact re-hilted and gifted to nobles by Ferdinand II of Aragon. So we're left to assume they're renaissant and ornamental versions of the originals. And considering Tizona is probably the most replicated sword in history, I don't blame Samuel Bronston for using it as is.
Stroggoii thanks, very much
I agree, (cuddling my replica of Tizona) seriously though the history of that sword is messy
When I was a kid I had a toy sword with Tizona's hilt design.
You should have shown an appropriate historical sword you would have chosen for each character.
I would have been happy if he had pronounced king leonidus name correctly even though I may have it misspelled here
@Matthew Aldridge
He pronounces it more correctly than the usual way people pronounce it in English. It's almost completely like the original Greek except he uses a "d" instead of a "th" sound, which is understandable considering the spelling. The usual "Leo-nai-das" is mispronouncing it for the sake of convenience (since those letters, in that order, would be pronounced differently in an English name) and habit but if we're being pedantic about it, it's _far_ more wrong than how Matt pronounces it.
I don't particularly mind considering most names get mangled in translation understandably, no matter what languages you're talking about but it slightly irritates me when someone who clearly _doesn't_ know what the original pronunciation is expresses an opinion on the correctness of it. Especially when they can't even be bothered to check how it's even usually spelled in _English_, let alone Greek.
Considering I'm Greek, I think I have a bit better authority on the matter compared to someone who's only heard Americans and Brits speak a Greek name.
@@iviecarp but this video is talking about the movie, the fictional movie based on a fictional comic. Whether or not it was inspired by the actual historical figure, he should have pronounced it how it was pronounced in the movie, not his own completely unique version.
"_Should_" is a strong word. It's debatable. Some would say correctness to the original name is important since it's a historical name, even if it's based on a fictionalized version of semi-historical events. Others would say, like you, that it should be faithful to the subject material. I say it doesn't matter as long as everyone knows what we're talking about.
I was also not commenting on general correctness but specifically on the correctness of pronouncing this particular name. I hope I made it clear (though perhaps I have not), that I don't particularly care how it's pronounced. I was irritated by the fact that someone decided to comment on correctness when they clearly had no idea what they were talking about. _That_ was the point of my comment, not what pronunciation is strictly correct in my opinion. I couldn't care less either way, as long as it's clear which character he's talking about.
@@iviecarp yeah, I understand. I'm now used to Hollywood westernising things, even changing the laws of physics to make something look more spectacular. Even in 300, the amount of blood thrown around.....you'd think it was a Quentin Tarantino movie. It just makes me appreciate it more when a movie does it right. Haha. I'm mean Sean Connery played a British spy with a Scottish accent the entire time and no one seemed bothered by it.
The Ottoman conquers sword looks absolutely stunning!
Have you seen those warriors from Hammerfell? They have curved swords, curved...swords.
I was an adventurer like you, once. Until I took an arrow to the knee
The quote is "I used to be an adventurer like you...then I took an arrow in the knee". Misquoting Skyrim is tantamount to heresy. ;-D
Pffth... It's only Skyrim.
Which they apparently cut from bits of scrap metal without even sharpening them.
Hah! I´m thinking of starting new play with Redguard (Imperious). =)
Historian shouting at you here Matt:
The equipment generally worn in braveheart is as rubbish as the sword.
(also, as an aside, Richard Lionheart never returned home, he died in France)
He did return home, albeit briefly, but was not done swanning around on European battlefields and did indeed die in France during a battle
@@sksaddrakk5183 And he was waaay younger than the Connery-equivalent (or Patrick Stewart parody-equivalent, for Mel Brooks fans) age..
But France was his home... he was an Angevin.
True trivia: the reason Harrison Ford changed the fight scene with the swordsman was because he had contracted a tropical disease while filming and (I swear this is true) developed as one of his symptoms epic diarrhea. He didn’t want to embarrass himself while filming an elaborate fight scene and introduced some comic relief by just shooting the swordsman.
"Epic diarrhea"? I haven't heard that term before.
Levi Fontaine You havn't tasted enterotoxigenic E coli then. You should definetely try once.
Tl; dr He wasn't feeling well
I remember the conversation being something like "Steve, can't I just shoot the son of a bitch?"
Levi Fontaine feel free to use it, no charge
Indiana Jones also had Afrika Korps uniforms and panzerfausts about a decade before either actually existed, not to imagine a German army detachment running around and killing people and blowing stuff up in 1930s Egypt without the authorities taking any interest, so I think it's safe to assume that historical accuracy was not a concern for the filmmakers.
Plus, the German flying wing. I don't believe it was even designed by the Horton brothers until the 1940s.
It's set in a historical period, but of course the actual plot centered around the fictional characters never happened. I don't really take issue with them straining the plausibility of the specific plot elements. Yes, there are a few inaccuracies here and there if you really want to nitpick, but mostly it's broadly accurate to the appearance of the time period it's meant to take place in, if you don't focus too much on every little minutia and just judge it as what it's trying to be: a fantasy based on the style of pulp comics and serials of the 1930's and 1940's which weren't too concerned about accuracy or plausibility.
@Kali Southpaw No, no of course not...
@daAnder71 Well, Tanks like the Mark I from WWI were still in service until the 1930's in Canada I believe and it would not be far fetched to assume that a Turkish state is not up to scratch with the latest tank designs but kept some older designs in service
It was an RPG-7 pretending to be a Panzerfaust.
Since you said weapons, every John Wayne western features a Colt Single Action Army and a Winchester '92 rifle, regardless of the date of the story.
Even the one in Vietnam? EDIT: I meant Green Berets.
That wouldn't be a western.
A big loop '92. Anachronistic _and_ customized.
Yeah, firearms are often wrong in Westerns. As well as post-Civil War firearms ('73 Colts and Winchesters) being shown during or just after the Civil War, we also see cap'n'ball revolvers of the Civil War often being represented by blank cartridge-firing versions - in The Good, The Bad And The Ugly they even change from cap'n'ball to cartridge within scenes.
I blame the early cartridge variants generally being ugly as sin.
RIP Alan Rickman, a great English actor.
Have you seen these warriors from Hollywood?
They've got fantasy swords. Fantasy. Swords.
xSpiegelschattenx lolz, nice one
I find your wolfish grin unsettling
is that hair?... Growing from your ears?
LOL good one
Pss... hail Sithis
so what are the five best movie swords (Historical)
Gladius, Egyptian/Middle-eastern "Sickle" sword, Damascus Steel Scimitar, Japanese Katana, and Claymore. I could go to 8 or 10 because historically true swords come to us through history because they were good. The rubbish swords didn't last. Fantasy swords we see being made today have little combat value as they are embellished with things that won't change the outcome of a fight like serrations up towards the hilt. Cool looking and useless except maybe in camp to saw that odd stick or tent peg.
princess bride le miracle des loups rage
the first hignlander
and only one arm killed all them
Watch Ridley Scott’s The Duelists.
1. Polish Szalba Sabers in _The Deluge_ (1974)
2. Napoleonic Hussar Sabers and Dueling small swords in _The Duelists_
3. Roman Gladius in HBO's _Rome_
That's what I got for SPECIFIC swords in specific productions.
If I remember rightly Harrison Ford suggested just shooting the swordsman because he was suffering with diarrhoea and was only managing a couple of minutes in front of the camera at a time between toilet breaks on that day.
He wasn't the only one to experience digestive issues. John Rhys-Davies also suffered explosive "incidents" during shooting.
Must have been the local food or water.
To be fair Mat:
El Cid was made in a filmmaking period when historical accuracy wasnt a consideration when making an epic "history" romantic drama.
300 is meant to be a narrative told in the style of Homer by a survivor of the battle, so its full of drama and monsters like the Oddessy. Its meant to look like a fantasy film, as that is the style the a Greek storyteller / narrator would have used to tell the tale of the battle.
RotLA is a "Boys Own" type adevnture story, so the scimitar would be exaggerated and out of context as its like a live action comic strip. Again, not exactly a history film.
You make too much sense for TH-cam 🙂
Cheers mate. The 300 thing really bites me....no matter how many times its pointed out that the author himself clearly stated over and over again in interviews that its meant to be a story told by an ancient Greek storyteller in the same 'epic monsters and heroes' style that Homer used in the Illiad and Oddessy people keep saying "but its not historically accurate. Spartans wore armor, and there were more than 300 troops there, blah blah blah." I wonder what the hell they were thinking they were watching....did they miss the clues at the start and end, and the clues seeded through the film (like the slo-mo battle sequences with the 'heroes' striking poses straight off a Greek vase)? Seems Mat has to join Metatron, Shad and Lindy in the "missed the whole sodding point" club.
I share your frustration. I think it might just be a way to appease history fanboys and gain easy likes.
Actually, El Cid had Ramón Menéndez Pidal, the most reputed historian regarding Rodrigo Díaz, as consultant.
You should have added "The Thirteenth Warrior." The swords used by the Vikings in that movie look like crude, barely sharpened iron bars, like something made by people who might have learned how to smelt iron and forge blades out of it maybe last week. The swords look cruder than early Iron Age blades did. The swords weren't the only problem. One Viking, played by Clive Russell, is wearing helmet and armor that look vaguely 17th century, while another of the Vikings is wearing -- so help me -- a Roman gladiator's helmet!
Darren O'Connor Fantastic movie one of my favorites
The gladiator's helmet was passed down by his father, and ..., and the line of his people going back to the beginning.
You know, I never had any problem with the gladiator helmet. That could be just an eccentric warrior using an existing, if old style of helmet. Almost everything else was pretty bad though, no arguments there from me.
Yeah, I love that movie, but if a Viking could afford a sword, they had a GOOD sword!
Yeah, '13th Warrior' was not big on historical accuracy, what redeemed the movie, ( at least for me ) was the score. Phenomenal work from late Jerry Goldsmith.
"Why a spoon?" "Because it would hurt more!!"
Perfect
Its dull,you twit!! It'll hurt more
That Robin Hood sword looks awfully heavy at the crossguard and awfully light at the pommel. I can't imagine how it would feel to fight with it.
The sword in Conan the Barbarian is ridiculously overweight. EDIT: I mean Conan's sword.
That's why the two user of said sword got killed.😁
To me the robinhood sword seems to have a ridiculously thick, and completely round handle.
@Osmosis Jones: If you're talking about the sword Conan pulled off a skeleton, supposedly the Atlantean king it belonged to was something crazy like eight and a half feet tall. It's all from some old comic books. Hard to call it era appropriate when Conan isn't part of any particular era and is more of an alternate-earth setting.
When the sheriff had the sword it was a foot longer to make him look inept with it
"You can take our freedom, but you'll never take our movie merchandise!"
Also, William Wallace probably never wore a kilt.
Or face paint or fought on foot or sacked York or made grandiose speeches about freedom or porked Isabella of France (as if the She Wolf would choose some Scottish knight instead of the most powerful men in England) or had to be dragged from Falkirk instead of running for his life.
There are a million things wrong with Braveheart
I'm pretty sure if i had the time and will I'd sit down and prove that there's something incorrect in every shot of that bloody film,
It's an excellent film.
people always cite the historical inaccuracies as a reason to hate this film... and they are 100% correct... but the cinematography is also horrid... i can only assume that they found the slow motion button in the edit suite and got a bit carried away... 8.4 on imdb... 8.4... sigh...
My Dad was a Special Effects man, and I brought this exact subject up in a move we were working that had U.S. Marines. I was on active duty at the time and the equipment, uniforms, actions, employment of tactics, and the spoken words were absolutely in accurate. My Dads response was “We’re making a move, not a documentary”.
What movie?
Also in 300, I suppose the persian army are not composed off silver masked ninjas, and persian Kings don't go to battle in the buff. Celts maybe, but not Persians.
Asmin Siza hahaha the movie doesn't strife to be historically correct
300 is beyond historical analysis :P
Asmin Siza you leave bodicca out of this
I doubt they used gigantic rhinos with gold chains to charge the Spartan lines either. Come to think of it, I doubt They had dancing sitar playing goat headed men and deformed courtesans in their Kings tent either lol.
At least in the case of "300" it was meant to be the fantastical retelling of the battle by Dilios, to inspire the other Greek nations, and not a true representation.
Re: the Spartans, as much as they're depicted as a gay art students dream come true, they clearly took note of scholagladiatoria's insistence that "If you're only going to wear one piece of armor, wear a helmet!" (at least, they take that advice for the most part)
I heard they fought greased up and naked
@@iwantyourcookiesnow in peloponesian war? More likely. In greek persian war? Unlikely.
They also had leg armor and a big ass shield
They're naked on the pottery. That's a first hand source.
El Cid is a great movie, very underrated, I always recommend it to people who like Game of Thrones. Ivanhoe from the same period is also a great movie.
The same Ivanhoe who was the fictional basis for the fiction Robin Hood?
The Adventures of Quentin Durward is even better.
I think "El Cid" falls into the category where the entire setting in terms of clothes, props and stuff is shifted a couple of centuries off the mark.
Take for example the story of King Arthur, which historically can be placed to around 510-530 a.d. and is often depicted as taking place several centuries later.
Also most (Caribbean) pirate movies are set in 18th century surroundings while the pirates were most active in the 17th century.
What else would you expect from Hollywood?
They add in all that to make it extra entertaining
>swords
D E M O N E T I Z E D
Kahgro Kinda tired of youtubers whining about it.
Yeah, screw them for wanting an income.
Demonized.
> Apply for manual review
I N S T A N T L Y R E M O N E T I Z E D
DEAD BODY IN TITLE. SHOWS DEAD BODY IN VIDEO. MONETISED.
This is what people are complaining about
I've been selling replica swords for around 30 years, many of them I designed based on real swords from the period. It always bugs me when movie makers get the armour and weapons wrong for the period they're filming.
This was a cool idea for an episode Matt
15:45 I just watched Prince of Thieves again and the sword Morgan Freeman is carrying isn't for fighting, it is the sword they were using to cut off hands in the prison at the beginning. It seems well suited for that task.
On Indiana Jones: Harrison Ford was suffering from dysentery at the time, so he could only be available for minutes at a time before having to go. His sidekick had already soiled his pants days before, so they substituted a lengthy swordfight for a quick gunshot. 😁
Almost every member of the crew on that film suffered from dysentery. The only person who didn't was Steven Spielberg, as he only ate canned food that he brought with him from the States.
"Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his King Bonehead crown, I see we have an heir to the throne. I'm sure the word you were looking for was symbolism." -Agent Smecker
I believe the majority of the swords from the Robin Hood: Prince of thieves movie were made by Del-Tin.
Yep totally agree, they look just like Del Tin's.
Del-Tin made one of the swords used in the Highlander TV series too, Graham Ashe's Gothic Broadsword which MacLeod gives to Richie when his old Broad Rapier broke.
An interesting case is the movie "The Vikings" with Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis. The Vikings were portrayed reasonably accurately, but the English costumes, weapons, armor (not to mention castles and ships) seem to be more or less early 13th century. My guess is that this was a deliberate choice, because otherwise it would have been difficult to tell the two cultures apart on the screen, especially during battle sequences.
Not gonna talk about the whole sword grinding thing in The Thirteenth Warrior? No?
Drake Ensiferum "only an Arab would bring a dog to war" ...lol, love this movie!
When you die, can I give that to me daughter?
But Matt, you failed to mention that the Muslims in El Cid should not have had sabres of any kind, but straight double edged swords
Indeed, but I cannot cover everything in a video of this length :-)
I don't blame ya, it's not like "sword worn on hip of minor characters" fits the specific topic or format of the video, but it's fun to nitpick innit?
Good catch! The Muslim=saber myth is a relic of the Turkish empires in the last millennium AD. However, if you look at the Muslim warriors in Sudan fighting the British and Egyptians under the Mahdi, you'll see the Kaskara, a broadsword little changed from the days of the Prophet (who wore a Spatha)
Tareltonlives the prophet did not use a spatha but a saif
As Robin Hoods go I rather liked what they did in the 1980s British TV version of Nasir; dual wielding reasonably proportioned scimitars. They might not have been particularly historically accurate but at least they were functional weapons, unlike what they put into Morgan Freeman's hands.
Robin of sherwood is a great series, I watched the hell out of it on VHS when I was a kid.
Raaaaabin the hooded man
I own it on VHS and DVD. I love it.
Sir Wilhelm Steinway
Great music by Clannad :)
Very well done, but you have overlooked one small bit that was most well displayed in Highlander....Heroes forging their own specially designed swords. Movies being movies, this "poetic license" has to be taken into account, yes they do not "fit the standard mold" for the period, but in at least some cases (like Morgan Freeman's blade) it (sort of) makes sense, and the hand grip/pommel would need to be extra large for two distinct reasons...his HANDS are rather large and the need to offset the weight of the oversize blade. Keep in mind, for every day soldiers sword were pretty much one-size fits all, but royalty and the well to do often had swords made specifically to FIT them if they were larger or smaller than the norm. Great job on explanations BTW, don't think I have heard anyone else mention a falchion by name, almost like it has been lost to time. Would love to see you make a video on the development of some of these "off brand (lol)" swords...when and where made/used etc.
"Why are the Spartans so naked? (...) We'll leave that aside, this is a video about swords."
So...?
nice one
But hey, they are wearing helmets AND shields. Stuff Matt's normally complaining about when it's missing. So they got that going for them (and bullet proof beards, duh)...
Because the cuirass they would normally be wearing are styled after a man's cut abs. So they went straight to the cut abs. It's simple. I know so many historians that do NOT get the point of The 300. It has nothing to do with history. It has to do with the power of myth, of story. It is a film length St. Cripin's day speech. Told from the point of view of Dilios from the very start, it is a story to rouse the morale of men facing death. It is a gorgeous movie, beautifully shot and conceived and is one of my favorites.
But we in it shall be rememberèd-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
Because both movie and graphic novel pretty much bases its visuals on ancient greek concept of "kalos kagatos" (not sure if I spelled it right). It basically means that looks are expression of a person soul. If a person is good and noble than he looks beautifully (hence why spartans are this fabulous, godlike, perfect-bodied demigods) and if he is evil than he will loom ugly (hence why persians and ephialtes are so grotesque and twisted).
I actually found many of the Persians quite beautiful. Peter Mensah? He was magnificent. pbs.twimg.com/media/CqLSQjzW8AAgFOw.jpg
The guy's Scimitar in that famous Indy Jones scene being this fanciful, exaggerated "fantasy" sword just makes that scene even better for me.
It's funny how medieval filmmakers love the 15th and 16th centuries so much they put them in the 11th-13th century. And why does Hollywood have such a problem making sabers? They look more like West African machete-style swords than anything used by a Muslim warrior.
I hate Braveheart, Prince of Thieves and 300 in general, but that's just me.
This makes me realize that hundreds of years from now, there will be movies about the Napoleonic era with AR15s in them.
The suits of armour used in El Cid would later go on to be used as part of Angela Lansbury's magic assault against a Nazi raiding group in Bedknobs And Broomsticks!
That's right, and I think they were used in Camelot also.
I’m sorry what
Well then, I'll just happily assume Arnold's Conan got it right.
I’ve often wondered why the forward curving recurve style of sword seems to have disappeared from Europe before the middle ages. Any theories on that Matt?
It just fell out of fashion? Dunno. It's weird, since it was designed specifically to get around your opponents shield.
GOAT Straight swords fare better against armor, and thus became the most iconic of a knight's sidearms because the most iconic battles were against other equally armored knights. Sabers, messers, and other curved swords didn't completely disappear, but they didn't become more popular until swords were once again facing lots of unarmored opponents.
See, I've heard that theory put forth before, but I'm sort of skeptical, mainly because there are medieval European swords that are honestly even worse at thrusting than a falcata for example.
The other thing is that as far as I've been able to work out, the height of early medieval armor was mail, which had been around for ages before that.
GOAT I'm embarrassed to say that I missed the detail about *forward* facing blades. My mistake. I'll sidestep and allow someone with more knowledge to help.
GOAT Do you have examples for european swords that were worse at trusting than a falcata?
This would have been a million times better if you would have shown an example of period correct arms for each movie. Great video though.
One I would like to add: in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, they repeatedly refer to Godric Gryffindor as having existed, "a thousand years ago", so his sword would have been made somewhere around end-10th Century/beginning of the 11th Century. Yet, the Gryffindor Sword as it appears in the films, is an arming sword with a disc pommel, narrow blade, no fuller, and almost no edge. As far as I know, that is highly anachronistic.
Matthew St. Cyr Well, it's a fantasy setting. Maybe the wizards were ahead of their time
Except it is an Urban Fantasy, taking place on Earth, in the 20th/21st Century.
Maybe the wizards were ahead of their time, but it would be by quite an amount, and the point of the video is simply pointing out swords that historically don't make sense in the setting and context. Regardless of what technology 11th Century wizards had in Harry Potter, that sword would still be out of place in the 11th Century.
I mean, it was made by goblins in the setting. The sword in the movie looks like one of those Freemason style swords.
I'm just saying that, regardless of any in-story justifications, it would still be out of place in the 11th Century. 11th Century Europeans would look at his sword and say, "Wow; that's a... strange sword. Can it even cut?" Regardless of fantasy elements, it is still an anachronistic sword. That is the point.
If Rowling decided to publish a novel about Godric Gryffindor, I would suggest to her that Godric have a bit of introspection upon receiving the sword, that's along the lines of this:
"It was an... interesting design. The pommel was a disc, and the thick blade was narrow, and tapered to a point; a far cry from the blades of human muggles, which were primarily meant to cut. It would certainly stand out, even if it sat in its scabbard to the end of its days. But that didn't matter; what mattered was it would never rust, tarnish or lose its edge. It will only ever take in that which will make it stronger."
The clothing of the portraits of the founders is anachronistic as well. I can only imagine that wizards have modified the sword throughout history.
I enjoyed this very much.
Over many years I have collected replica swords (as well as non-firing guns & period costume pieces). I'm an actor in LA, so I do a lot of low/no-budget theater. My hobby has become a useful sideline. So I am extremely guilty of fudging periods. I once outfitted a production of HENRY V & tried to stick as close as possible to the 1415 period with what I had, but I have to admit that a couple Viking & Celtic swords made their way into the mix (it's a big cast). When the theater I'm a member of recently did THE LION IN WINTER (one of my favorites) they didn't consult me at all. When I saw the show I started grinding my teeth as soon as the lights went up. All the men were wearing that weird sparkly knitted stuff that's supposed to look like chainmail but just looks like weird sparkly knitted stuff. Then, in the final scene, when everyone starts pulling knives, & Richard Coeur de Lion came up with a stag handled Bowie knife, I nearly bit through my tongue. I was, of course, polite when I saw everyone after the show, but I was pissed. Oh, did mention I really wanted to play Henry. So there's that.
What's my point? None. I just wanted to vent, & this seemed an appropriate place.
But I still really loved the video
If you allow for a little diversity in craftmanship through the ages, Morgan Freeman's " moorish" sword is actually not too bad. It looks a lot like the widely used talwar, more specifically the zulfikar variant with it's twin points. In the movie those points are obviously somewhat stumped, though this is something easily explained by it's use as an executioners sword in the beginning of the movie. This still presents us with a problem though, since the talwar is from about 1300 at it's earliest - and hails from India :-)
One that got it right is the Hallmark Home Video production of Merlin, where the troops are wearing cast-off bits of Roman armor and Excalibur is a Celtic long sword.
longswords and two handed swords are most historical misplaced swords in cinema
there are dozens of films sets in the 10th 11th 12th canturies with them
+scholagladiatoria the "Disney scimitars" seems to be of a piece with stuff like medieval European chroniclers depicting Classical Romans equipped with contemporary medieval equipment they were familiar with. So if they were told that Saracens used curved swords, they depicted that with the curved sword they were familiar with, the falchion, and it stuck.
So they got curved swords? Curved. Swords.
Didn't Arabs of this period use straight swords much like the Europeans, though? I was under the impression that the curved swords of the Arab world were a later Turkic influence, and that the medieval artists gave Saracens falchions in their images because that way you could tell the Christians and Muslims apart by whether their swords were shaped like crosses or crescents.
Earlier Arab swords were certainly predominantly straight, but curved swords were popularised by Turkic troops from the 9th century or so, and by the time of the First Crusade at the end of the 11th, the Turkic Seljuks were the dominant force in the Middle East.
Sir, you told us about everything was wrong with William Wallace's sword as seen in "Braveheart." However- it would have been helpful to show us an actual sword or at least an historically accurate reproduction of that sword. Otherwise I enjoyed your presentation. Thank you.
Fascinating and well produced. Kudos.
Marshall in the movie Ironclad uses a pretty out of place Greatsword, and interestingly I recall him using techniques from a Spanish Montante treatise from several centuries later. It's been awhile since I've watched that movie, but iirc he kicks the end of the blade to raise it up and set it in his hands, which I've only over seen in Spanish Montante.
Cody Weaver I love the montante or greatswords in general
Timmy Turner
Ditto.
I named my practice zweihander Gram (because Gramr was already claimed by my Carolingian spatha). It's my best friend. Also, that impact... mmmmmm...
Greatswords are my favorite as well. I'm working on a fantasy series, one of my protagonists is a Landsknecht-inspired greatswordsman. A giant sword just suits his personality.
th-cam.com/video/bA4TxBZEOR8/w-d-xo.html
I would *love* to see a video where you actually speak to someone on the production design of the movies in question and get some idea why they went with certain weapons or armor instead of more historical examples.
Is it possible that some wealthy noblemen had custom swords made to their specs and designs?
Sure. But they would still fit within the general technology type of the time. In 1190 noblemen fought almost always with shields, so a two-handed sword doesn't make much sense.
Have you ever watched the movie 'LadyHawke'? It's hard to find a copy since the producing company went out of business and all the rights have been tied up for years but I managed to find a copy on DVD on Amazon. I'm curious about your opinion regarding Nevarre's family sword. It seems too fantasy but I could be wrong. I love the movie anyways
How could you possibly ignore the most famous sword in movie history? The Tri-sword from "The Sword and the Sorcerer."
The product of years (okay maybe days) of meticulous research in historical swords - that had three blades, and which could fire off two of them with gas-powered jets of air - that blade is a true masterpiece of both film history and an accurate historical representation of swords ... with three blades.
Naughty scholagladitoria, naughty.
Is the Sword & The Sorcerer a historical movie?
Well, it was made in 1982, that makes it historical for a lot of people. Lol.
for a fun fact :Spartans are believed to have fought compleatly naked down under to intimidate the enemy but they were wearing Breastplates, knee and arm braces and helmets of course. O and the sword of leonidas is a strange variation of an falcata wich is a historical greek weapon that existet before, the battle of the thermopylen, so it is plausible the he could have used one.
For the Indiana jones swordsman, he COULD be using an antique medieval falchion that his ancestors got off a dead crusader......
must have been one giant crusader to use that thing in one hand
Yes, that was my first thought...or he runs a Mall Ninja knife shop at the local Bazaar and grabbed the most intimidating sword to go against Jones.
More likely he's circus performer and that's his stage prop, meant to imtimidate and slow down indy rather then efficient kill him. At the time (mid to late 1930s) arab thugs would probably use late 19th century single shot hunting rifles or (most likely british) WWI vintage weapons as those would probably commonly avaible in Egypt at the time.
Arabs at Indiana Jones era using thin curved sword, the Saif, like most Arabs use today.
Or an executioners sword. About the only time you see such large blades are ones designed for judicial beheading. Odd to have in Egypt since hanging had long since taken over under British influence but at least a real sword and not something cartoonish.
My sword is not the longest sword, but it is not a short sword. My sword is not an ancient blade, but it is not a new blade. My sword is not a famous blade, but it is not an infamous blade. It is my sword, and it is a good enough sword to take your freakin' block off...Kalevala, slightly paraphrased.
Did you know that the sword from Braveheart was actually made by Del Tin a smith in Maniago-Italy?
I am amazed by this video! It is not (only) about the swords: it is how you take seriously a subject, tell amazing stories about it and show us how it should be done, the thinking, the meticulous research and the analyzing! I must confess I'm not a sword fan. I don't care about swords (sorry). Yet I subscribed to your channel and, more than that, I am a fan. I don't watch your videos because of the swords. I watch them because how clever they are, how cleverly they put things into perspective, how brightly you put your astounding knowledge and understanding of a narrow field, and (unconsciously?) you teach how to deal with broader or other fields.
I love you man : you always make me cleverer! And I bet I’m not the only one!
In Spain Tizona and Colada are prety important in popular culture, and many people believe in their autenticity.
Yeah it's only recently that someone's pointed out that the blade has been placed on a 15th century hilt.
Most people haven't even heard about Colada, and they believe in Tizona's authenticity only inasmuch as they may have heard some factoid about it and taken it at face value.
tizona although it's hilt is modern the style is the same, el cid served both muslim and christian lord and Muslim swords at the time had the characteristic ''U' shape guard'
Some islamic swords of the period may have had a U shaped guard, but it was definitely not in the 15-16th century style of the iconic Tizona, although that style was definitely influenced by late nedieval islamic swords (jinetas).
Homo eructus yes that particular style the sword has its mozarabic and pretty popular in the 15th century, actually the tizona thats in display was given by ferdinand the king to a noble who helped him to get married with isabel, i forgot his name but apparently they kept the sword till recent times until it was bought and put on display in a castle
This was interesting, but I feel like I'd like to have seen some more suggestions or examples of the kind of swords that would have been in keeping for the time and place, rather than just "this is wrong, this is wrong, this is wrong". For example, I feel like I'd have a better grasp on why the Wallace sword was wrong if you'd told me what pommels _did_ look like on 13th century Scottish greatswords, rather than just saying "it's wrong". You did that pretty well in discussing the kopis for the 300 segment, I'd have loved to see more of that.
I've always understood the extremely curved swords supposedly from the ME weren't actually weapons but Executioners tools purpose built for decapitation. But MY personal candidate for most ridiculous movie sword(s) was from 1954's Prince Valiant. A movie so awful it's good. And OMG the swords and in particular Val's famous 'Singing Sword'.........
I was going to mention "Prince Valiant". Swords with huge blades, like four inches wide and only 30 inches long at MOST, that must've weighed a TON, with single-hand hilts! Another "what the...?" was the way the swords RANG during fight scenes. I'm a medieval re-enactor with a Viking persona; I own TRUE Viking style swords. The blades hardly weigh more than two pounds, and the widest one is, maybe, no more than 2 1/2 inches at the hilt. Anyone who's ever swung a REAL sword for more than five minutes knows why swords were made as light as possible!
It's a fantasy movie, never intended to be historical correct.
(similar like "300", or "Conan the Barbarian" for example)
Prince Valiant was a Sunday comic-strip....
I have one singing axe, that stuff exists. Good stunt actions with horses et al.
There are no claymores in history? No two-handed swords? What!?
Well Matt, you'll have to share the blame for opening the door to "fantasy" movie swords (The 300) and admit you should have included the sword from "The Sword and the Sorcerer" th-cam.com/video/-OU96za6czU/w-d-xo.html
Hahahahahaha. I would love to see someone trying to wield a real version of that.
Oh god, THAT sword. Useless in both fencing AND as a projectile
That was literally the first movie sword I thought of when I read this video title... so bad
It's a sword... that shoots out more swords!! : O
That's hilarious. 😄 :D
Clearly he must`ve gotten it from Prince Valiant... th-cam.com/video/6kuq-6QnM4U/w-d-xo.html
Actually Ford was sick on the day that scene was filmed and he didn't want to prolong the scene so he impressived and pulled out his revolver.
Can you do the 5 worst swords in Final Fantasy next please.
Literally every "buster sword" style thing. I think I'd rather see the BEST Final Fantasy swords, because so many of them are obviously (and admittedly) "style over practicality".
An interesting thing about the large Arab warrior with the large scimitar was the same actor played the large German soldier that Indy fought who ran into the prop. He was also in one of my favorite British TV shows, "The Avengers". He played the Cybernaut in 2 episodes in the 1960's.
BACKSCABARD!!!!!!!
Robert L That leaf is wrong
BERSERKER!
VIKINGS!!
BUTTSCRATCHER! GET YOUR BUTTSCRATCHERS!
14:10 "just about starting to appear in this sort of proportion..." Okay, so a powerful and wealthy nobleman, for example, Robin of Locksley's Father, at the time he would have acquired the sword, would have not been among the first to be able to acquire such a sword? I agree with you about the pommel. The whole point of it is, well, you know that better than I.
Just, the whole "They were there just not common yet..." thing strike me as saying "You know, That Lovell character, that you saw in that fictional movie, what was it called, Hermes 7? No, Apollo something or other. Well, you know, at that time there were only a few vehicles like that ever. Even today there aren't many more than half a dozen. The likelyhood of some specific person being on board such a vehicle, more than once, in the early seventies, was nearly nil.... Lovell was on two of said vehicles. Count them. Because he was the guy who could land a washing machine if he had to. The vehicles were paid for by the government that would win the cold war a short while later. They wanted the guy who could land a washing machine, if needed, and they hired him. Apparently, twice. Said investment paid off.
Odds and chances and everything statistical can be completely defenestrated once you are talking about specific people. Hell, I would have ended the argument at "Noble's son versus king's sheriff." No, your average spearchucker didn't have a sword like that, not that year but they did exist for certain people, your own admission. Who then? 0.003% of random spearchuckers? Hell no. All of said weapons would have been in the hand of people like Noble's son who happens to be a Great Warrior and the King's own fucking sheriff! Why is any of this even weird? If it even seems weird to you, you can fly your F-22 raptor straight to my house and drop the laser guided smartbombs you're armed with right on it. If you can't, then, yeah.
10:48
the way he says scimitar is just great.
Very good video very well put together she has a lot of knowledge about the subject. I really was expecting some of the Absurd fantasy swords that you would see it movies swords that was so outlandish there's no way you could actually wield that effectively
A bit like the 3 parallel blades in the sword from the Sword and the Sorcerer. Then you add in the fact the two side blades can be launched as missiles. He did clarify in the title historically ridiculous rather than just plain ridiculous.
8:27 But Matt, you said that the most important pieces of armour are the helmet and the shield, they're fine.
Well those are basically correct at least. It does leave a lot of their body unprotected though.
I think the sword that Aziz had, if I remember Robin Hood P.O.T., was supposed to be an executioner's sword only. That explained its heavy blade, because it was made for chopping off heads in a single blow, but it doesn't explain why he kept using it for battle after escaping to Europe, nor was that probably a type of sword used by executioners at the time. We also know that while the Middle East was much more advanced scientifically than Europe at this time (particularly in math, medicine, magnetism), Aziz' telescope wasn't invented for many centuries, in fact even well after the discovery of the New World.
"Symbology? I think the word you're looking for is symbolism. Sssssymbolism."
^^^^^ most highly-underrated comment
I was thinking it too, had to look for a comment that said it halaha I know that was in a movie but I can't remember what....
Bob Smith Boondock Saints
“Ssssssymmmbolismmmm”
@@spartanlawrence4480 oh yes thank you!
I had to go back and made sure I actually heard Symbology
Thank you for the commentary on movie scimitars vs there real world ecquivalent. This is a long standing point of discussion.
Why is it impossible for swords, of important historical, to exist before the time they got popular? It takes time for something to spread and become standard.
Kylo Ren's flame-hilted lightsaber was far better suited for the Old Republic days, when fencing between Sith and Jedi was to be expected and a "tsuba" guard against the sliding lightsaber of your foe could mean the difference between winding up with two hands and one. That type of hilt was obsolete when forged after the fall of the Jedi. Seriously historically inaccurate there.
Does it bother you more to see William Wallace with a two-handed sword or without armour?
The without armor wouldn't be that big of a deal if the clothing was different. There is alot of parts in the movie and historically where he wouldn't have gone in wearing 13th century battle regalia.
There is so much wrong with Braveheart its hard to know where to begin. As a Scot its a shame there's very little media on Scotland that even tries to be authentic.
I'm gonna focus in on the lack of a helmet. Not everyone back then would wear much more than padded armour, the first things someone would buy in terms of protection would be a shield and a helmet. Silly.
The lack of armour isn’t the biggest problem. The kilt wasn’t a thing at that time period. Face paint would be from the Roman period. The movie plays fast and loose with fact. Go to a Highland games in the US and you will see plenty of people dressed like extras from the movie so it’s obviously skewed the public perception of what is truly historical.
William Wallace was of the noble class and head of army, he would have a full 13th set of armor
but like Lewis said there is almost nothing historical authentic
PS: i thought Scot loved Braveheart beacause during the 5 day i've been in Glasgow in three different pub the tv have it on
Another worse movie sword: The letter opener, sorry, sword of Godric Gryffindor in the Harry Potter movies. With Godric Gryffindor living in the end of the 10th century, his sword should have been a spatha, perhaps a broad sword, most likely an Oakeshott X.
To be fair, our dog could find historical inaccuracies in brave heart.
And not just historical, but ethno-musical. What are Irish pipes doing in Scotland?
If you notice, the Braveheart sword seems constructed to evoke a Christian Cross when held with one hand upside down for the movie poster.
My favorite is Conan sword
He-man sword is cooler hueuheuhe
Funnily enough, the sword in the movie (Arnie version) is comically overweight. It looks rad tho.
He's Conan, it's just the right weight for him.
Well, Atlantean smiths used Krell steel to create far lighter and stronger swords
I would’ve really appreciated period correct alternatives showing what we characters actually should’ve been using. Always love your videos, keep them coming.
Wow... I thought scimitars looked like that. I stand corrected.
In regards to the "Robin's Father"s sword's pommel being unbelievable, it's true that I've never seen an open suncross-shaped pommel, but there are Gallowglas swords that have an open wheel pommel, just not with a crossbeam to make it seem more suncross like. Even still then the open wheel pommel is probably late 15th/16th century, so your point about it being a complete anachronism still stands.
Spartans wearing no armor is actually historically accurate, any historical depictions of them wearing armor were pure propaganda by their enemies to make their soldiers think that Spartans were also just humans, which, thanks to fantastic historical documentaries like 300 we now know they were not.
They did wear bronze corslets and Corinthian helmets during the Persian wars. The armor was not dropped until some decades later.
When the shitpost is just right.
Yes and no. Poor hoplites certainly wore little clothing if they couldn't afford armor. Wealthy men are heavily armored though. A general discarding of armor comes from the rise of peltasts and other light infantry in the wars against Athens and Thebes over the next century. Armor actually went from heavy to virtually nonexistent to medium between the Persian Wars and Alexander the Great. Hoplites start ditching everything except shields, grieves and helmet so they can chase peltasts, psiloi, etc after embarrassing incidents like the Battle of Sphacteria but armor comes back as combined arms warfare is developed and it was realized it was better to just have your own light troops and cavalry see off enemy light troops and cavalry rather than try to use unarmored hoplites against them.
Nice vid. I also would have mentioned that the proportions of Robin's father's sword are off, even for a 14th century piece. I'm also curious, Matt, when and where is the illustration at 11:32 from?
But azims sword comes with a bottleopener, very handy
Awesome video. El Cid's sword especially gave me an idea: maybe you could do a video about transitional sword designs, especially the transition between arming sword and rapier, as well as the emergence of two-handed swords. I appreciate that it's impossible to pin down specifics and turning points, but I think it may make for an interesting video.
The blame for the shape of Leonidas's sword has to land with Frank Miller. The film renders it exactly as Miller drew it in the graphic novel.
The Indiana Jones movies might be considered fantasy more then historical as is is a homage to the series matiné films of the 1930's. So the sword might be incorrect just to make it fit the feel of the the cliffhanger filled film era that is is inspirerad by.
Wasn't one of the characters in the Clive Owen King Arthur movie a samurai? It's been a very long time since I saw it, but I think a lot of it was not accurate for late Roman Empire at all. I'm sure Troy got a lot wrong about Bronze Age weapons (I only remember Brad Pitt decapitating a statue with his sword)
It wan’t a samurai, but the swords in King Arthut are indeed bad. The guy you’re thinking of is Tristan and he fights with a strange two handed chinese dao.
it looked to me like a kilij, which has roots in the Xiongu era (3rd century BC to 1st century AD invaders of China, often thought to be the same guys that were called "Huns" in Europe). Since they are Sarmatians (Central Asian Steppes people) in the 4th century AD both region and time check out, so Tristan's sword may actually be the most accurate in the movie. Then again most cavalry auxilia were outfitted by the Romans, so they'd use Spatha swords and chainmail.
No, it's clearly a dao. It has an oval disc guard and both the shape of the handle/pommel and that of the blade look like on a typical dao.
And that's pretty anachronistic for 4th century Sarmatians.
Tristan's sword:
images.propstore.com/34966.jpg
images.propstore.com/34964.jpg
images.propstore.com/34965.jpg
and a (18th century) dao for comparison: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3e/Saber_with_Scabbard_and_Belt_Hook_%28%E6%B8%85_%E8%85%B0%E5%88%80%29_MET_DP-834-001.jpg
I don't remember which director or producer said it but I think it relevant when he stated "I'm making a movie not a documentary" or words to that effect.