Well consider how we already glamorise and create a spectecal from modern combat. In movies we see Jujitsu with guns where any surface hidden behind is bullet proof and magazines carry 800 rounds. I imagine it wouldn't be too different.
It actually is to some extent, if you're talking about his duel with the green knight beforehand; one can see half-swording, pommel bashing, armour working (the helmets at least) and an underhand sword throw.
@american cheese Greg nelson did; the original commenter just said, "the Black Knight duel in Monty Python and the Holy Grail" which could refer to either the Black Knight fighting King Arthur or fighting the Green Knight. I knew which one they were referring to; I just wanted to point out that the Black Knight's duel with the Green Knight actually has a lot of good stuff in it.
Most folks assume that martial arts were strictly an Eastern tradition, but every culture had some form of fighting art. Vikings were very skilled wrestlers and striking someone with your hand was considered an insult or an unskilled way of fighting. A strike with the hand was "a blow meant for dogs and slaves." So, if you hit someone with your hand you were saying they were "less" than you. They used wrestling as a means of solving (even friendly) disputes, if both of your knees or back touched the ground, you lost (provided you survived). It was actually a brutal style of locks, throws, breaks etc. and could easily kill when necessary. For example, the German Suplex (seen commonly in pro-wrestling today) was intended to break the opponent's neck on the ground. This move originated from Northern European Wrestling and was a defense against a head-lock, which was a very common (and potentially lethal) attack (see Carlos Newton vs. Pat Miletich). You can pretty much guarantee that any culture that survived had a system of fighting that was taught to it's younger warriors.
Literally every European culture has their own martial arts, for example in the UK you have Cornish wrestling and the West country styles, Lancashire wrestling and the North country styles (and all the different types of regional wrestling) Collar-and-elbow from Ireland, English boxing etc. In France you have Savate kickboxing, Germany and Scandinavia you have war wrestling and so on and so on...
In kurdish ways also they do that kind of wrestling with no technic no knee garple no pushing just matter of strength and patience untill one of them gets tired wich is crazy sometimes 1 match could go until half hour
let me spare the other 150ish countries out there, every country has a wrestling tradition. Yes ALL of them. IDK if this was always true or if they blended over time, but rules aside, they are all very very similar too. Moves like the above mentioned Ushiro goshi, oops I mean German suplex (which even in Europe apparently wasn't invented by Germans) is the same move in Judo, BJJ and Sumo. I have seen it used by free style, Indian, Turkish, Greco-Roman, and Senegalese grapplers in fact There are mosaics depicting Romans using it. The truth is all these wrestling styles use all the same basic moves. Like maybe all of them don't have 64 Throws (like Judo) maybe they have idk, 54 throws and 10 extra joint locks. Its Just an example but not a ridiculous one. Maybe they try to submit one another, or pin them, or push them out of circle, but a hip throw is a hip toss is an Ogoshi it's all the same.
True. But, one thing the Eastern Martial Arts, especially the Japanese, has accomplished, not the Westerners: The overly hyped Abilitys of a Katana. The Hollywood-Depictions come from the Japanese and Chinese Shadow Theatre where the Figures die "Tarantino-esqe" to use another wrongly dircted Trope (Tarantino adapted this Style from Japanese and other Asian Filmmakers). The other Way comes from - as in Europe - the Theatre Stage. If you are interested in the more theatrical/fancy Side and View of Combat, Armor and how to incorporate it into Stories (so general a more creative approach), I recommend Jill Bearups Channel. th-cam.com/users/JillBearup
But the most games have the "healthbar-problem"... for example: if you hit the unprotected head, then the HP goes only to 50%, maybe a bit more, instead of insta-kill. It also differs by genre, at hack'n'slay you will only lose maybe 5%? xD A realistc medieval simulator video game would so fucking hardcore... much more as each dark souls game. xD
I think it's safe to say that the distribution of skilled combatants has never been a homogeneous one. There have always been poseurs and clueless idiots when it comes to the fighting arts. Even among the trained there is always going to be a wide gradation of skill level and understanding of the mechanisms involved. There may not be any singularly ultimate martial thesis, but there are only so many ways that a human body can move and act with combat effectiveness. There are good reasons why we see many of the same technique and weapon concepts being independently developed across time and distance. We all share largely the same physiology, and there are a finite number of efficient ways to use that physiology in attack and defense.
I agree and usually the complex stuff fails miserably in any kind of pressure testing. Whether it's in full contact unarmed fighting, or HEMA tournaments, you can see that most of the time it's just the basics being employed intelligently that ends up being most effective.
I think this is what that one dude meant by the Art of the sword. Finding the raw, basic fundamentals of killing the other man as quickly as possible, with the least risk to yourself.
@@MrBottlecapBill For sure. Bruce Lee understood this concept well as far as martial arts application goes. There's a famous quote from him (it's semi-relevant here)-- "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
@@JaguarFiend I believe Musashi also talks about it in his writings. Warning about how it's dangerous to delve too far into one school because they're trying to give you what you want and that's it's better to learn the basics of all schools to find what truly works. I could be wrong though, it's been a while. Clearly he was successful by NOT following the crowd.
I think battlefield combat was much less technical regarding individual weapon handling. I base this on battlefield combat of modern times. Yes it is important to practice with a rifle in a very technical manner (shooting at targets at long range. Trying to get tight groupings etc.) But in an actual battle situation, when the bullets start flying, it becomes increasingly difficult for soldiers to perform those technical shots. The absolut majority of rounds fired do not hit their target. Most of the time they aren't even intended to hit their target (like in the case of suppressive fire). The focus shifts more towards teamwork, smart manouvering of units and trying to place as many men in the most beneficial positions that you can where they get the best visibility for themselves while not being too exposed to the enemy and granting them the best opportunities. I see no reason why combat in medieval or ancient times should be any different. The finesse and technique lies more with the commanders and their orders and decisions rather than the fighting skill of individual men.
Seven Proxies I think our knowledge of 1700s musket fights will tell us what medieval fighting is like. Rows of men in formations or groups and then bloody chaos erupts. Just replace the muskets with polearms, bludgeons and swords, and remove the artillery altogether. The infantry take the beatings, and the cavalry are vulnerable and powerful, etc.
I mean look at even MOBAs like League of Legends. At pro level its more about positioning and the mastery of the map than fighting really. One team tries to get better position and if the does the other (weaker team) doesnt even try to fight as they dont wanna fight a lost fight. Individual skill (NA and EU was until 2018 defeated massively by the strategic plays that without any conflict put enemy behind which was practiced by KR and CN.) So its not only medieval or nowadays combat but its even in high end e-sports.
Theres a lot thats changed since then though. Like people being less willing to kill today. Vs you being right in the enemy's face back then. Or that the knights were usually trained from a young age to fight.
I think the biggest changes are logistics. Being a soldier was a profession unless your homeland was under attack, like in America. Unlike in America, Knights and archers had their own guilds, bootcamps, rules and policies, and were expensive to hire, or took a long time to raise loyal to your barony (soldiers were your rent to the king for your land rights). Bowmen and arbalists needed training and had to be very close to penetrate steel armor, no matter how accurate. With a bunch of muskets next to the archers, the mercenaries and knights could penetrate any armor that could be made at the time. The armor just slowed you down. Then with muskets (and the cheap, 3-week-trained soldiers you pulled out the country to go fight the [insert European threat here]), the skill of archery died despite armor vanishing and making it usable again. (I think this is how the Star Wars universe forgot about rifles) Then all the way past end of Vietnam the soldier was a cheap, expendible killing tool. TL;DR soldiers got cheaper while material got more expensive.
The peasant way of fighting? Hit or stab them in whatever way you can until they stop moving, then if you're still alive, continue with the next foe. Repeat as needed. I doubt they received much instructions beyond that. It would take AGES to train them all (which is why I think the British way of going for mass archers and incorporating archery into holidays was rather clever).
They wouldn't have the time to think about the best way to stab someone, but considering that, if they did train, someone must have came up with something very clever. Also, martial arts, even modern ones are more often instructed from person to person, than being documented, so doesn't it make sense more would have simply been lost to time?
@@curseofgladstone4981 Actually it still requires a lot of skill, since you need to get the distance right. And since they competed with each other, there was incentive to be accurate.
@@williambarnes274 Not as big a concern in the middle ages, since kings and lords owned the game. You could take some birds, I believe, but I don't think that translates well into battlefield archery.
"Those that were written down can be assumed to be amongst the best" I hope you realize that you just accidentally said that 'End Him Rightly' is amongst the higher echelons of medieval combat as an art
Bashing someone so hard that they, and the horse they are sitting on, are smashed into the ground while their heart explodes is definitely the way to end someone rightly.
But Samurai were the greatest, most skilled and the most disciplined soldiers and the katana was the most superior weapon of all time maybe up to the invention of the nuclear bomb. Some say that the Americans managed to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki only because there were none of the katana wielding Samurais in those cities who could have easily cut those bombs in half and repel the attack.
Come on! Everyone know's that a real and capable samurai would just throw a genki-dama to the bomb and annihilated USA and the allies with one beam (not counting all the mechas they get from nazi-friendly aliens).
If only they had maintained the Tokugawa shogunate! They would've been completely impervious to invasions from other countries! (Perry doesn't count, he used the dishounorable element of suprise, which no real warrior would ever stoop to)
Exactly. History would have been very different if the Japanese military leaders of the time hadn't reformed the army to use ordinary guns instead of Katanas because they feared the might of the invincible Samurai. But then, true Samurai *would* indeed have overthrown their leaders, as the rulers of that era would not have been seen as honorable enough to live up to the "Bukkake" ethos - the ancient way of the warrior in Japanese tradition.
I read a history book that is very old (around the 1930s) and they believed that bandits were actually extremely rare due to the fact that most of them would be executed if captured and severely tortured as an example and the government often had small units stationed around. Both for actual protection and to keep the population in check
It probably depended rather heavily on the area and times. If you have a lot of poverty, you're going to have a lot of bandits, punishments or no. If only because people are too desperate to do anything else.
from all i know "Bandits" were mostly mercenarys roaming around and looting villages when they were unemployed. And it mostly happened in "weakened" regions. But fulltime bandits living in caves and ambushing travellers were rare.
To paraphrase a wise man "there is no eastern way of fighting or western way of fighting, i don't believe in styles. There is only a human way of fighting..." -Bruce Lee
In Portugal we still have our traditional stick fighting which is more closely connected to the common people. I had a distant relative (great great grandfather if i recall correctly) who used this technique to "sweep" regional fairs whenever there was trouble amongst merchants and/or customers... It's called "jogo do pau" which literally translates to "game of the stick" . there's quite a lot of videos of it on youtube.
@F Doesn't mean that it's less practical. Being flashy can often throw your enemy's focus off if you know how to bait them by flashy stuff properly. Combat Kung Fu and Wu Shu can deffinetly teach that.
@@danielantony1882 it usually is, because Kung Fu hasn't really side widescale use in combat in over a century. Same goes for most old school martial Arts. They may have been practical once upon a time. But they've shifted over to a more sport oriented setting, and are more geared towards duels in a ring, with specific rules and constraints.
@@piranhaplantX I'm not talking about the current Sporting Kung Fu and Wu Shu. I'm talking about Combat Wu shu and stuff. If i remember correctly, Kung Fu was intended for protection. Unless i watched too many Chinese movies with Jet Lee, i don't know. I'm pretty sure that Wu Shu was one of the main combat techniques when Melee weapons were still being used. Much like... Kendo, Kenjutsu and the lost arts of Iaijutsu, a.k.a. Iaido. So you're not helping. You're just stating the obvious, mr. Genius.
i think you are right beanladen. it is mentioned in history that chuck was born in the mountains of tibet in a cabin he built himself, so yes, he could have been around in those times.actually now that i think about it he was here since ever cause there is an account of him and god before humans existed.apparently when god said "let it be light" he watch chuck who was sitting beside him , and chuck approved and only after that we had light.so yea, i also think he may have been chuck norris himself.
@@jakobradus7410 imagine how cool it would be if there was a show thats all about busting myths...or confirming them. Or, if not sure, declare them as plausible. That would be awesome 💪
That's interesting. The Polish stick fighting 'palcaty' mentioned by @Skallagrim at about 12:51 (albeit the pronunciation was skewed beyond recognition) is so much forgotten that it was the first reference to it I've ever encountered. I've managed to find some articles about it though - and it seems that it was not so much a fighting style by itself, but rather an ubiquitous form of fencing training, in which wooden sticks were used instead of sabers. It was extremely popular among youth - to an extent that they formed bands in which the hierarchy was defined by a series of duels, and then they accosted passer-byes in the city and forced them dueling. It even happened that master fencers pretended to be newbies, only to be accosted to show the kids their place. It was an interesting tradition, which was prohibited, discouraged and ultimately forgotten in 19th century, when Poland was partitioned and under foreign rules (Russian, Prussian and Austrian), as the occupants did not want to deal with masses skilled in martial arts. "Masses" - because in Poland nobility accounted for as much as ~10% of the population. The picture displayed at 12:52 is actually a small fragment of Martino Altomonte's painting "Election of King August II in 1697", kolekcja.zamek-krolewski.pl/en/obiekt/kolekcja/Paintings/query/altomonte/id/ZKW_1533_ab Thank you, Skallagrim.
>prohibited, discouraged and ultimately forgotten in 19th century >so much forgotten that it was the first reference to it I've ever encountered So as it turns out, you can in fact digest Poland.
It's worth noting that in Musashi's Five Rings he says many of the same things (that for true swordplay there is really only one art, that it is learned through experience more than rote teaching, and that a true fighter does not use any flourishes or other showy techniques but makes every cut with the intention to kill as efficiently as possible).
when i was in the army the majority of my time was devoted to honing martial skills like hand to hand, small arms, crew serve weapons, battle drills and my niche fire support. I know people from other units that didnt spend 1/2 the time i had to on training. It was a shock to me when we would train with or go on operations with other units how just bad they were ar the things that keep them alive
I thought he made some new discovery that would throw off all of the videos so far, but it's just basic knowledge for people who watched his channel for more than 2 videos :/
I'm assuming this is for those who are new, and wanted to learn more, but couldn't be bothered to watch each individual video. OR There's some secret message in this video. Time to do some futile research.
I’ve seen the video with two guys in plate armor demonstrating medieval fighting techniques. They were quick, efficient, and brutal. Definitely sent chills down my spine.
How I always thought of historical combat since finding this channel is "Every move, feint and step is a trap for the unwary", it was all about situational awareness, not being tripped, sniped or cornered while being mindful of your opponents, because against skilled foes, your first mistake could be your last.
+WIKIPEDIA So you think it is a good idea to be legally bound to a single person that has to do nothing to earn your loyalty but is just given it because they crawled out of the right vagina? I'll take feminism over feudalism any day of the week. I'd much rather not be able to get married than live in a society where random strangers can rape my wife and nobody can do shit because they are royalty.
A martial arts instructor I used to know said to me "eventually its all fried rice". His meaning was exactly what you said, no matter the art you're in, if you do and understand it long enough, eventually you find out what really works, because anatomy and physiology has set limitations and weaknesses.
I'm pretty sure the battlefield was a case of plans not surviving first contact. You could be all kinds of skilled, but still have to face a two or three on one, or be completely unskilled and functionally up against no one. Or suddenly realize someone's coming from the side and have to use a bad block to stop a swing. And I could see where someone dropping both man and horse at once would be a massive intimidation factor (although I'm betting it was more an example historical rule of awesome than factual accounting). Honestly, a seemingly savage combatant might survive longer than expected simply because people wouldn't want to fight him.
The thing I learned in blacksmithing is that those big two handed swords... usually only weighed like 1-2 pounds. The swords were surprisingly thin, AND STRONG. The big swords, sure had some strength involved but it was more about it's ability to absolutely maim or completely remove appendages and do so tactfully. It was very possible to change directions of the sword in mid swing.
“It is a delusion to think there are all sorts of ways of cutting people down. In reality there’s only slashing and stabbing, the point is killing.”-Miyamoto Musashi
In the Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi, there are tips on swordfighting as well as military strategy, all based on the Buddhist concept of Zen, which isn't about retreating or numbing yourself, it's more like you defeat your stress at the source by refusing to frame the situation you are in. In other words, going into battle with a fixed mindset like "this situation demands skill" or "this situation calls for brute force" (or even "this is a battle") only weakens you.
@@reptiloidmitglied2930 Could be... :D He says... one man could defeat ten, ten could defeat hundred, hundred could defeat thousand and thousand men could defeat ten thousand enemies.
More like, Musashi is basically saying there's a distinct difference between "God dammit, we're outnumbered and should retreat to fight another day" and say... "We should retreat to a more tactically advantageous area, where we can use our smaller numbers to greater effect." Saying the same thing, but with a vastly different mindset. And that inevitably changes how the flow of a fight or battle plays out.
I've read both The Art of War and The Book of Five Rings, and they (in terms of what you guys are talking about) say the same thing, although I enjoy Sun Tzu's reference of water best. Saying that to win you have to know yourself and your opponent and "be like water" in the way you need to know how you will face every possible scenario
@@carl8752 well, it depends what you define as cool. I prefer "rough, gritty, realistic" over "impractical and ridicolously exaggareted for scenic reasons" any day.
@@carl8752 ok, I can understand God of War, but Skyrim? Maybe it is because I do not like that game much, but the fighting in it always seemed clunky to me. But everybody as they like.
Interesting, my taijiquan teacher basically said the same thing: there're several aspect of fighting we've learned throughout history, what martial arts do is training us to enhance some reflections and instincts which meet those aspect while suppress those that don't.
Although video game and movie fighting is often unrealistic, I still enjoy it for the exact reason that was mentioned in the manuscript: the entertainment value. Although I know that’s nobody who’s properly trained would fight like that, I still love to imagine myself as Aragorn or Ezio Auditore
I can't be the only one who is really really curious as to what a big battle with hundreds of trained swordsmen would actually look like right? The fact that there isn't a lot of information about it really bums me out
Take a look at how riot police fight against a crowd that fights back with melee weapons. It's a lot of posturing, moving back and forth, and short bursts of violence with long pauses in between. I imagine that's similar to how it was back then, as the human will has a tendency to try to stay out of harms way as much as possible (which is very different to what you see in movies/games). Some examples: /watch?v=CLEjNpux5PY /watch?v=_KgX-hb1amo
Probably wouldn't be hundreds of swordsmen. Spearmen, pikemen, or halberdiers with archers supporting maybe, but not swordsmen. Swords are convenient-to-carry sidearms and status symbols, but vastly inferior battlefield weapons.
Strength always overcomes cleverness Hmm... sounds less smart, than the other way around Could also lead to the guy throwing away the book and do some exercise Don't know why, this reminds me of a GoT scene, where Littlefinger says to queen Cersei "knowledge is power", then she suddenly orders her soldiers to arrest him and cut his throat, but only to scare him and replies with contempt: "power is power"
I am glad that you mentioned that underlying principles of combat are always the same and that the style or context of how these principles are applied differs. This is a really important idea. Not understanding this idea is why so many people have a misunderstanding about martial arts.
I practice competitive sport fencing. I have a very acrobatic style and use absence of blade a lot. I use wide flashy movements. It’s hard to counter something you can’t predict and it can be done efficiently.
@@michaelortiz1732 lol! Yeah, he should, because soldiers tend to use only what they are issued as that's what they know and are allowed to use. Personal preferences doesn't count and is exclusive to video games.
always very reasonable and ponderate arguments and very interesting and humorous píece of research! keep up the good work, Skall. cheers from a HEMA enthusiast from Brasil.
Very good video. In fact, many Asian martial arts as we know them (such as karate or Shaolin gongfu) were designed by and for the needs of non-warrior people self-defense. Thus, it could be reasonable to think that medieval European commoners also had their system of self-defense. The French Savate is a good illustration of what street fighting used to be in French coastal cities of the early 19th century.
When I served in the US Army, i took my firearms training VERY SERIOUSLY. I was not happy unless I could get near perfect scoring and as such got to Eagle Eye Marksmen, being able to hit 40/40 shots and being able to hit targets at 350 yards with only iron sights, both static and pop up targets. I also worked very hard in becoming trained and we'll versed in every weapon that I could. I knew I would one day go to Iraq and be in a position where I may very well have to defend myself or my friends and therefore took my ability to do so to heart. So that's what I did during my 6 years in active duty, I took every chance I had to become better and more proficient with my weapons. And even today, whenever I have the chance I still brush up on my skills to keep myself from forgetting. I like to joke with my friends, that if 40 people took off running from me, with a rifle and just iron sights I could kill at least 39 of them before they could get further then 350 yards and get away...lol.
I can't stop laughing at 0:30 The tone you use, the look on your face, and your motions are insta-murder. It's like in 5 seconds you're re-living every comment saying "BUT the Katana requires so much art and technique because it can cut your legs off if you're not careful!", that one video where you talk about a katana, start with "I'm not really impressed by katana" and then in another video you talk about how you have a bias against Japanese swords because a comment said "You really go out of your way to say Katana don't impress you". And use your arms in a theatrical fashion when you say "high refined skill of the samurai", then finish with that little smirk like "I heard this many times all right" that just fucking kills me every time.
Reminds me of the hand to hand combat my dad taught me. He survived getting his position overrun in Vietnam, and had to fight hand to hand in the dead of night in the jungle. He taught me only to fight if I intend to kill, as the techniques used to survive in war is not the same as if you're fighting in an MMA tournament. Real combat is quick, direct, and brutal with only one goal; be the survivor. Roundhouse kicks and all that are just showy fluff. Real combat can be as quick and brutal as a chop to the Adam's apple with your forearm to stun your opponent followed by gripping the base of his skull and jaw, then twisting his head in one decisive stroke to snap his neck. It's not flashy or elegant, but when the only light is battlefield flares and muzzle flare, who's watching? You need to kill your opponent before he or his buddies kill you, so the faster you kill, the better the odds you survive. I imagine medieval warfare was similar, in that running your sword through a man's back or flank was the best way to kill, and when fighting head on, you were relying on your comrades to run him through while he's preoccupied with you. Warfare is a team effort. There's an old observation in aerial combat that if you get on a guy's 6 and the shot seems too perfect, his wing man is probably on your 6 and about to shoot you. Teamwork is likely what truly separates combat in war vs dueling.
I've always gotten pissed off when I watch shows and movies, where the characters drag out a fight scene for like 1-2 minutes because they suddenly forgot how to actually fight lol. Swinging their arms around and making it easy for their enemies to avoid them lmao. In reality, you would go straight for the kill or at the very least, avoid letting the enemy grab your arm/weapon lol.
It's weird, I was just thinking about this today on the way to work. I wondered how different the techniques of knights and samurai would seem if they went up against each other just training wise
Watching it again, great, great video. I did both a lot of, my fair share of reading, and some martial arts training - both "eastern" and western historical HEMA style (with some real competent Dudes, chief among them.was former archeologist and sports sabre guy) long ago. And that is exactly how I would think about it- and more. Thank you for this video, really good one
Humans are humans, not robots...so despite all this being true...you can guarantee that bravado and showmanship was always part of fighting. I'm sure that often led to the death of the one using fancy moves...but in spite of that, i guarantee it was still done. Humans can be emotional, arrogant, and just flat out stupid. Think of the David and Goliath myth. I'm sure from the dawn of man "Goliaths" have been getting killed for being cocky...yet that didn't stop future Goliaths from doing the same thing. And of course...that's every era and every culture...its not as if Eastern fighters were immune to it.
We probably all are. There's just not enough surviving manuals, so we have to fill in the gaps. Not to mention the record we do have is unreliable. ("Ending him rightly.") So, we have to assume, some of us are more Educated, but History is Written by the Victor. We're talking about War here, so there's lots of Propaganda, and Saint George totally slew a Dragon.
I've probably got a lot wrong about Historical swordmaking, too. (I'm not a fighter.) However, I have made swords, with a fuller beaten into a stump, and some guys taking turns fanning the fire with shields. That's where I got most of my assumptions from. They did forge swords, with forges, and anvils. However, they May have also forged steel with nothing but a couple fullers, wood, stone, and manpower. I at least proved that it's possible, the historical accounts just didn't mention bringing a full forge along with them on the march. Only weapons being broken in battle.
Saint George, who was only a disguise of our *GLORIUS* God Emperor, defeatd the Void Dragon, a C'Tan who had been freed from his previous prison, and imprisoned it on Mars, saving the galaxy from its certain doom and once again showing those pointy eared assholes how much we are superior.
The reason why his saying struck home so well could also have something to do with the fact that in those times possibly the theatres etc that displayed fights for entertainment when they were portraying for example Hercules were just as Hollywood as well, Hollywood.
Oh thank you so much I don't have an actual TH-cam channel I don't put up videos but I'm glad that somebody finally pointed out that sword fighting is not what everybody thinks it is
Egill (around 10:20) had a whole family tradition of "being like an animal". His grandfather was called "Kveld-Úlfur" (Evening-Wolf) because he was a bit of a shapeshifter. Apparently. And Egill (according to my granddad, our ancestor) did some other bestial things in his saga. As a kid, he lost a game of something like ice hockey (or maybe was just bullied by a boy on the other team) - and then he went and killed that kid. Later on, as a guest of some farmer in Norway, he felt that his host had insulted him. So, he got up, pinned the guy against a wall, gouged out his eye and then vomited in the guy's face. So Egill shouldn't be taken as a good fighter. Better go for someone like Gunnar, who, when fighting with his sword "it seemed as if three swords were in the air".
I love that you call it the Walpurgis. I think it sounds so much better now that it isnt technically I33 since it was recataloged haha. Also, just a generally well said description of a LOT of information. Nice work!
How skilled could you get if you were biologically immortal? This question pertains to fantasy in particular, where you have some races; usually like elves, who either live forever or very long. Let's take swordfighting. Controlling for all other variables, such as health, motivation etc; How big would the difference be between a master who's trained for 40 yrs vs another who's trained for 80yrs, and one who has trained for 200yrs? Will a dedicated practitioner eventually meet a plateau where they wouldn't be able to further increase their skills to any significant degree, a cap/ceiling if you will? And if so, how soon would they reach it? The reason I ask this is usually because some media tends to portray people with centuries or more of experience as almost gods of combat, yet in real life; some of our most elite units, like Navy SEALs and SAS are trained within just a few years, let alone even a decade.
SinerAthin Even if this question seems "absurd" or "irrelevant", I believe it's a good exercise of the brain. I'm just a "dirty peasant" so I don't have many direct evidences of the theory but...logic is logic, here or in the books. Well, we have a limited mind, a limited "file storage", we can't remember everything we see if we don't practice it every time of our life, that's why soldiers train as often as professional atheletes. That being said, I believe it is impossible to be a "god" of swordsmanship if some of the "fancy moves" we hear about are used once every 7 or 8 fights. What actually makes a swordsman good is practice the "META" Most Effective Tactic Available, just as our "SWAT" does with Martial Arts. However, for the sake of debate, let's say that the "ageless" master of the swordsmanship doesn't sleep, drink or eat and 24/7 shakes a sword around along with some imortal sparring mate, I think that he wouldn't be able to even remember some of the forms he studied, just like lawyers have to study the law even after being accepted in the bar exam, if not, it's very likely that they'll lose the case. And that I justify because some defensive forms and attacks are most common than other hypothetical fancy attack that you can also "fancily" parry as well, making you naturally better at those most "common" forms than the others (if some swordsman who have mastered the sword have trouble winning every duel, imagine someone who doesn't train that as hard as them because they are worried with some absurd move that no sane fighter will do). My humble conclusion...The ageless master who knows every form would lose because he didn't train what he SHOULD be training and focus more on be half-baked in every useless fighting style in the book. A rebuttal (for the sake of the debate) would be appreciated ps: I'm from brazil sooo...forgive any wrong words.
Luuk de Wijse In that case I think the master would also be incapable of using the "swordstunt" he practice as easy as a normal move, because those normal moves are used much more in combat and the brain synapsis would fix them better in the brain, leaving the other moves behind in the "body memory". I believe is the same principle behind "why boxing is more easy and effective than Wing Chun", because boxing has less moves to train and the few ones can be used in almost all situations, same with "fancy" swordsmanship I guess.
I think the skill increase after decades and decades of experience would boil down to reading opponent movements and battle situations to maximize survivability and minimize injury. I'm sure there comes a point after 100 or so years of combat experience where you couldn't realistically increase your actual combat skill any further.
I don't really understand the kind of ignorance required to come up with the sort of idea that middle age combat was something of a clumsy sturdy nature, when in reality history is full of techniques and strategies for different kind of weapons, combat situations and context, as well as environments.
Ramón Velásquez maybe for single combat, but armies have always been lines marching at each other and breaking holes to overwhelm. Even by today’s standards, that’s essentially all it is on a larger scale.
@@widdershins5383 That's a simple way to explain it. You also can explain chess the same way, saying that you only need to capture the king but that doesn't mean it's easy or simple to do it.
Yes and no... If well is true that weapons like maces existed because those required less training and technique, there were swords that had a particular shape and were used to pierce through the unprotected parts of an armor. Besides, full plated armor wasn't always used, only in certain period and not every combatant had one. Those were actually very expensive and only nobles and a certain group of soldiers from the kingdom could afford or be given one, these were like the tanks of the time. The rest of people had riveted mail.
Someone trying to sell you lessons isn't likely to mention that a really strong opponent may be going to be able to smash through the guard he is teaching you. I used to spar with a judoka and I asked him "If you use your opponent's strength against him, why are you so strong that you can bench-press a Chevy."
You are right I can tell you from personal experience playing a certain multiplayer team based online game for years, morale and cohesion is the number 1 most important factor most of the time.
Question: Did they actually drill soldiers in medieval times? If you had a levied army of some sorts, or later maybe some kind of mercenary force, who were those guys trained? I know drill and practice was a thing in ancient times and then later in musket warfare, but I have hardly any idea what a medieval soldier would have to show for himself apart from the knights and maybe the british longbowmen.
Levies were expected to learn how to fight themselves. Death is a great incentive to learn. As for mercenaries, you want to hire them because they are professional soldiers, they already know how to fight. Thus why many rich countries tend to hire a bunch of them instead of gathering Levy.
poiuytrewq11422 But how DID the mercenaries become professional? There´s something they had to do to get their experience, right? And how did those levies teach themself if that was expected from them? What did they do? Was it all personal training or was there also some sort of basic organised drill, sparring, mock battles, marching... idk. nythign like that?
Don Kanaille Don´t know if it´s universal, but a common way of doing it was for portions of veteran armies to just leave and hire themelves out after a war. Examples are the English and French soldiers after every phase of the 100 Years War teaming up into "free companies" and going to Italy. Many of the Hussites did the same after they eventually lost the conflict, formed mercenary companies.
fact of the matter. YOU are probably wrong aswell, i don't believe for a single second that looking in manuals only (which is the only option today) can anyway nearly give a fair representation of medieval weapon martial arts. We are all wrong, some more, some less.
This no BS no Showmanship philosophy reminds me of Krav Maga. Sure, it looks different around the world because there is no unified doctrine and as a result its often fouled with heavy choreagraphed moves turning it into "bullshito", especially in the US. But at its core true Krav Maga is just about relatively simple techniques that has a high chance to work in real life situations. As it turns out, it doesnt look very cool and thats a bit hard to sell in the US.
kittehdrawrs They weren’t really useless. England during the Hundred Years’ War did actually train the peasants. They had to drill for multiple hours a day for months to years on end with longbows. They were a huge factor in the English victories at the Battles of Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. They were the reason Agincourt was won at all. They shot at the French forces until they ran out of arrows, then attacked the opposing knights by dragging them from their horses and beating them with hammers. Longbows could punch through mail, leather, and gambeson, and take down horses. The draw weight averaged 160 lbs, and skeletal analysis shows that medieval archers had permanent changes in the bone structure to accommodate for the stress.
incinerator950 incinerator950 Estimations of the draw weights of English longbows do vary drastically. I drew my 160 lb average from Robert Hardy’s analysis of longbows found on board the wreckage of the Mary Rose. His concluded that while most of the longbows found were between 150-160 lbs, the total range found was between 100 to 185 lbs. An account from Hugh Latimer stated that the training method was to begin very young, increase the draw weight and bow size gradually, and train with the longbow constantly. Because of this, skeletons of English archers did have enlarged left arms and bone spurs on their left wrists, fingers, and hands (drawn from Dr. A.J. Stirling).
incinerator950 incinerator950 I apologize for including the Battle of Crécy in my earlier response, I intended it more as an early instance during the Hundred Years’ War that the longbow was both prominent at and a contributor to the victory. I think I did a pretty poor job of conveying that though, lol. I definitely did not mean to imply it was as significant it was at Agincourt or Poitiers. I agree that the early English victories were won in part by poor French tactics, but the longbow did contribute to English victory. Also, imho, the English lost the Hundred Years’ War because their later Kings weren’t very competent and were very polarizing, the nobility was divided into factions (which blossomed into the War of the Roses), the English lost more skilled commanders than they gained, and because the War was ridiculously expensive. They also didn’t have France’s home field advantage.
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face." Real combat is and was much more ruthless and messy than in any shitty manual. HEMA isn't real historical combat either. Ist auch lustig, dass du dich über deutsch aufregst aber ständig irgendwelche alten deutschen Schwertmeister zitierst. ; )
Ever done boxing? The trained always beat out the untrained. Muscle-memory takes over, and plan or know, if your muscles know what to do better than the other guy, you win.
About war-preparing historical sports: in Florence (the Italian one of course) there’s a thing called “Calcio Storico Fiorentino” (Florentian Historical Football). It consists in two teams, 27 players each, that have to toss a spherical ball into a sort of net/canister on the opponent’s side of the field. It’s a mix of american football, soccer, rugby and various fistfighting styles. Now, there is no limitation to what the players can do to reach the goal or stop the opponent, except for these: no biting, no “low hits” and only one vs one fights. This means this sport is pretty violent and spectacular. Like really violent and reinassance-looking spectacular. The roots of this tradition can be traced back to the french siege of Florence in1530 (Even if the sport is older), when the people of the city started to play this game to mock the enemy, like:”Look, we ain’t afraid of you, we’re even playing”. With the progression of the Modern Age il Calcio Storico stopped being played, until 1902, when it was reextabilished as an annual event that still exists today. So, if you happen to visit Firenze in May, be sure to check when the next match is programmed ;)
Hello Skal, A long term fan here (we actually met on occasion). Regarding a Polish game for kids: It was usually called ‘patyczki’ (approx. pron. pah-teach-quee), meaning [little] sticks. Main aim was simple - disarm the opponent from their stick. Hence, main target was the hand/forearm. Effects of that can be seen for example during battles like Trzciana (Honigfelde), where even cornets as formation failed... and many firearms were found after the battle, unfired along with the hands that held them. A very useful game to improve ones instincts I testify ;)
Fantastic video, this really helped for some of the sports games for my medieval inspired fantasy world for my video games and graphic novels so thank you and the martial arts and the fighting schools. One of your best most insightful videos you've done.
Love it when you post stuff like this Skal. Your channel has made me want to become a blacksmith and actually make swords and polearms. Seems polearms would be a fantastic market, as actual quality polearms that are affordable seem lacking.
poiuytrewq11422 Hah, it will be awhile. I don't even know HOW tp blacksmith, but I really want to get into it. My time in the Army is coming to a close, and throughout my time watching skal, I've come to appreciate sword and medieval weapon design. I'd like to make my own stuff, but ALSO I see where there is some money to be made, if someone were willing to learn the skills. My plan is to talk to a blacksmith that my wife's family knows, see if I can basically get an apprenticeship type thing going. Once I know what I'm doing, I'll start small. Daggers, maybe short swords. Work my way up. Polearms shouldn't be TOO bad, it seems most of the weapon is the wooden haft, not the head itself. Once I get the skillset I need, if I find I'm any good at it, I'll definitely put it out there.
I remember in my training, that we were told that the systems of fighting were the basics for us to build on. They could not cover every situation, but they gave you the tools to respond to different situations. I would imagine that in the early years, most of the masters would have taught the same way. If you knew how to use your weapon, then you could adjust to almost any situation you might become in.
Great Video. This is something that i constantly am trying to tell people. For example, Kingdom Come Deliverance has a very realistic, at least for a video game, combat system, but people often complain that it isn't a good system just because they aren't jumping and flipping over the opponents.
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Interesting video, but it's a bit rude to stand in the middle of the road the entire time
DiseasedMoss fr smh
Hehehe...
Well I didn't see a lot of traffic on it.
@@zackgeorgly5099 because its a one way. If he turned the camera around, you'd see the dozens of commuters just trying to get home
LMAO
Im only 90 seconds in and I cant stop wondering what misconceptions people in the middle ages had about ancient combat
Someone will be saying the same thing about us in 1000 years.
probably that they fought dragons and giants and the like.
Probably similsr to what Skall covered from about 10:00
"Of course if you were well educated in archaic guns and firearms, you would know that the secret to Napoleon's victories were the FAMAS!"
Well consider how we already glamorise and create a spectecal from modern combat. In movies we see Jujitsu with guns where any surface hidden behind is bullet proof and magazines carry 800 rounds. I imagine it wouldn't be too different.
The Black knight duel in Monty Python and the Holy grail is extremely accurate.
True, exactly historical!!
It actually is to some extent, if you're talking about his duel with the green knight beforehand; one can see half-swording, pommel bashing, armour working (the helmets at least) and an underhand sword throw.
@@matthewmuir8884
They literally said exactly which fight they were talking about
@american cheese Greg nelson did; the original commenter just said, "the Black Knight duel in Monty Python and the Holy Grail" which could refer to either the Black Knight fighting King Arthur or fighting the Green Knight. I knew which one they were referring to; I just wanted to point out that the Black Knight's duel with the Green Knight actually has a lot of good stuff in it.
@@matthewmuir8884
"The *BLACK KNIGHT DUEL*
"The best techniques are passed on by the survivors" - Gaiden Shinji 1E 946
Oblivion!!!!!
That quote is so annoying I always saw that quote from an old dos game I used to play it’s something elder scrolls
@@brig.gen.georgiiisserson7226 the elder scrolls arena. The first one.
Luciano Pivetta Yeah that’s it
This quote is on every TES game
"Every knight hath a plan until they get sthabbed in the fathe" - Sir Michael of the house of Tyson
Underrated comment.
Hahahahahahahahaha😂😂
Nice.
HEMA TYSON... Someone in HEMA has to invite Iron Mike in!!!
Mike Tyson in chain mail, vambraces and greaves wielding sword and shield. Ima bounce now.
Most folks assume that martial arts were strictly an Eastern tradition, but every culture had some form of fighting art. Vikings were very skilled wrestlers and striking someone with your hand was considered an insult or an unskilled way of fighting. A strike with the hand was "a blow meant for dogs and slaves." So, if you hit someone with your hand you were saying they were "less" than you. They used wrestling as a means of solving (even friendly) disputes, if both of your knees or back touched the ground, you lost (provided you survived). It was actually a brutal style of locks, throws, breaks etc. and could easily kill when necessary. For example, the German Suplex (seen commonly in pro-wrestling today) was intended to break the opponent's neck on the ground. This move originated from Northern European Wrestling and was a defense against a head-lock, which was a very common (and potentially lethal) attack (see Carlos Newton vs. Pat Miletich). You can pretty much guarantee that any culture that survived had a system of fighting that was taught to it's younger warriors.
Scandinavian fighting culture was named "glìma". That manages from axes and knives to grappling and diverse hits.
Literally every European culture has their own martial arts, for example in the UK you have Cornish wrestling and the West country styles, Lancashire wrestling and the North country styles (and all the different types of regional wrestling) Collar-and-elbow from Ireland, English boxing etc. In France you have Savate kickboxing, Germany and Scandinavia you have war wrestling and so on and so on...
In kurdish ways also they do that kind of wrestling with no technic no knee garple no pushing just matter of strength and patience untill one of them gets tired wich is crazy sometimes 1 match could go until half hour
let me spare the other 150ish countries out there, every country has a wrestling tradition. Yes ALL of them. IDK if this was always true or if they blended over time, but rules aside, they are all very very similar too. Moves like the above mentioned Ushiro goshi, oops I mean German suplex (which even in Europe apparently wasn't invented by Germans) is the same move in Judo, BJJ and Sumo. I have seen it used by free style, Indian, Turkish, Greco-Roman, and Senegalese grapplers in fact There are mosaics depicting Romans using it. The truth is all these wrestling styles use all the same basic moves. Like maybe all of them don't have 64 Throws (like Judo) maybe they have idk, 54 throws and 10 extra joint locks. Its Just an example but not a ridiculous one. Maybe they try to submit one another, or pin them, or push them out of circle, but a hip throw is a hip toss is an Ogoshi it's all the same.
True. But, one thing the Eastern Martial Arts, especially the Japanese, has accomplished, not the Westerners: The overly hyped Abilitys of a Katana.
The Hollywood-Depictions come from the Japanese and Chinese Shadow Theatre where the Figures die "Tarantino-esqe" to use another wrongly dircted Trope (Tarantino adapted this Style from Japanese and other Asian Filmmakers).
The other Way comes from - as in Europe - the Theatre Stage.
If you are interested in the more theatrical/fancy Side and View of Combat, Armor and how to incorporate it into Stories (so general a more creative approach), I recommend Jill Bearups Channel. th-cam.com/users/JillBearup
Plot twist: The historic fighting manuals were ACTUALLY manuals for medieval video games...
Then I want in on that. Sounds like they had awesome games, unlike the casual light attack - heavy attack - block shit we have now.
Basically a more advanced version of vr games lol
But the most games have the "healthbar-problem"... for example: if you hit the unprotected head, then the HP goes only to 50%, maybe a bit more, instead of insta-kill.
It also differs by genre, at hack'n'slay you will only lose maybe 5%? xD
A realistc medieval simulator video game would so fucking hardcore... much more as each dark souls game. xD
Ye Olde Darke Souls
Dark ages Lazer tag
"Skill of the Samurai, for example." The amount of sheer frustration almost perfectly hidden in those words is truly remarkable.
I think it's safe to say that the distribution of skilled combatants has never been a homogeneous one. There have always been poseurs and clueless idiots when it comes to the fighting arts. Even among the trained there is always going to be a wide gradation of skill level and understanding of the mechanisms involved. There may not be any singularly ultimate martial thesis, but there are only so many ways that a human body can move and act with combat effectiveness. There are good reasons why we see many of the same technique and weapon concepts being independently developed across time and distance. We all share largely the same physiology, and there are a finite number of efficient ways to use that physiology in attack and defense.
I agree and usually the complex stuff fails miserably in any kind of pressure testing. Whether it's in full contact unarmed fighting, or HEMA tournaments, you can see that most of the time it's just the basics being employed intelligently that ends up being most effective.
I think this is what that one dude meant by the Art of the sword. Finding the raw, basic fundamentals of killing the other man as quickly as possible, with the least risk to yourself.
@@MrBottlecapBill For sure. Bruce Lee understood this concept well as far as martial arts application goes. There's a famous quote from him (it's semi-relevant here)-- "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times."
@@JaguarFiend I believe Musashi also talks about it in his writings. Warning about how it's dangerous to delve too far into one school because they're trying to give you what you want and that's it's better to learn the basics of all schools to find what truly works. I could be wrong though, it's been a while. Clearly he was successful by NOT following the crowd.
I think battlefield combat was much less technical regarding individual weapon handling. I base this on battlefield combat of modern times.
Yes it is important to practice with a rifle in a very technical manner (shooting at targets at long range. Trying to get tight groupings etc.) But in an actual battle situation, when the bullets start flying, it becomes increasingly difficult for soldiers to perform those technical shots. The absolut majority of rounds fired do not hit their target. Most of the time they aren't even intended to hit their target (like in the case of suppressive fire). The focus shifts more towards teamwork, smart manouvering of units and trying to place as many men in the most beneficial positions that you can where they get the best visibility for themselves while not being too exposed to the enemy and granting them the best opportunities.
I see no reason why combat in medieval or ancient times should be any different. The finesse and technique lies more with the commanders and their orders and decisions rather than the fighting skill of individual men.
Seven Proxies I think our knowledge of 1700s musket fights will tell us what medieval fighting is like. Rows of men in formations or groups and then bloody chaos erupts. Just replace the muskets with polearms, bludgeons and swords, and remove the artillery altogether. The infantry take the beatings, and the cavalry are vulnerable and powerful, etc.
Training kicks in on the battlefield...at least from my experience. You just keep what works and do away with what doesn't.
I mean look at even MOBAs like League of Legends. At pro level its more about positioning and the mastery of the map than fighting really. One team tries to get better position and if the does the other (weaker team) doesnt even try to fight as they dont wanna fight a lost fight. Individual skill (NA and EU was until 2018 defeated massively by the strategic plays that without any conflict put enemy behind which was practiced by KR and CN.)
So its not only medieval or nowadays combat but its even in high end e-sports.
Theres a lot thats changed since then though. Like people being less willing to kill today. Vs you being right in the enemy's face back then. Or that the knights were usually trained from a young age to fight.
I think the biggest changes are logistics. Being a soldier was a profession unless your homeland was under attack, like in America.
Unlike in America, Knights and archers had their own guilds, bootcamps, rules and policies, and were expensive to hire, or took a long time to raise loyal to your barony (soldiers were your rent to the king for your land rights). Bowmen and arbalists needed training and had to be very close to penetrate steel armor, no matter how accurate.
With a bunch of muskets next to the archers, the mercenaries and knights could penetrate any armor that could be made at the time. The armor just slowed you down.
Then with muskets (and the cheap, 3-week-trained soldiers you pulled out the country to go fight the [insert European threat here]), the skill of archery died despite armor vanishing and making it usable again. (I think this is how the Star Wars universe forgot about rifles)
Then all the way past end of Vietnam the soldier was a cheap, expendible killing tool.
TL;DR soldiers got cheaper while material got more expensive.
The peasant way of fighting?
Hit or stab them in whatever way you can until they stop moving, then if you're still alive, continue with the next foe.
Repeat as needed.
I doubt they received much instructions beyond that. It would take AGES to train them all (which is why I think the British way of going for mass archers and incorporating archery into holidays was rather clever).
Agreed. Particularly in the sense that nearly every person had a knowledge of archery. Simply due to the necessity of feeding ones self or family.
@@williambarnes274
Yeah. With archers it doesn't matter if their aim isn't great. When your firing into a croud of thousands it's hard to miss
They wouldn't have the time to think about the best way to stab someone, but considering that, if they did train, someone must have came up with something very clever. Also, martial arts, even modern ones are more often instructed from person to person, than being documented, so doesn't it make sense more would have simply been lost to time?
@@curseofgladstone4981 Actually it still requires a lot of skill, since you need to get the distance right. And since they competed with each other, there was incentive to be accurate.
@@williambarnes274 Not as big a concern in the middle ages, since kings and lords owned the game. You could take some birds, I believe, but I don't think that translates well into battlefield archery.
"Those that were written down can be assumed to be amongst the best"
I hope you realize that you just accidentally said that 'End Him Rightly' is amongst the higher echelons of medieval combat as an art
And slaying dragons
If your about to execute an opponent you can do whatever you want.
Is it not?
And killing snails
Bashing someone so hard that they, and the horse they are sitting on, are smashed into the ground while their heart explodes is definitely the way to end someone rightly.
Science
So artillery
Then you bash them again, just in case.
Thank you for your words, dear leader.
But Samurai were the greatest, most skilled and the most disciplined soldiers and the katana was the most superior weapon of all time maybe up to the invention of the nuclear bomb. Some say that the Americans managed to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki only because there were none of the katana wielding Samurais in those cities who could have easily cut those bombs in half and repel the attack.
A sad attempt to get likes...
I like it.
th-cam.com/video/13aATKh-Fv0/w-d-xo.html
Come on! Everyone know's that a real and capable samurai would just throw a genki-dama to the bomb and annihilated USA and the allies with one beam (not counting all the mechas they get from nazi-friendly aliens).
If only they had maintained the Tokugawa shogunate! They would've been completely impervious to invasions from other countries!
(Perry doesn't count, he used the dishounorable element of suprise, which no real warrior would ever stoop to)
Exactly. History would have been very different if the Japanese military leaders of the time hadn't reformed the army to use ordinary guns instead of Katanas because they feared the might of the invincible Samurai.
But then, true Samurai *would* indeed have overthrown their leaders, as the rulers of that era would not have been seen as honorable enough to live up to the "Bukkake" ethos - the ancient way of the warrior in Japanese tradition.
#Suggestion idk if you'd be interested in this, but I kinda want to see a video about how common bandits were in ancient and medieval times
bulletspammingpatriot _
If Skyrim has taught me anything, it’s that Bandits make up at least 80% of the populace. :P
I'd like to see something about that as well.
I read a history book that is very old (around the 1930s) and they believed that bandits were actually extremely rare due to the fact that most of them would be executed if captured and severely tortured as an example and the government often had small units stationed around. Both for actual protection and to keep the population in check
It probably depended rather heavily on the area and times.
If you have a lot of poverty, you're going to have a lot of bandits, punishments or no. If only because people are too desperate to do anything else.
from all i know "Bandits" were mostly mercenarys roaming around and looting villages when they were unemployed. And it mostly happened in "weakened" regions. But fulltime bandits living in caves and ambushing travellers were rare.
To paraphrase a wise man "there is no eastern way of fighting or western way of fighting, i don't believe in styles. There is only a human way of fighting..."
-Bruce Lee
I know that medieval europe had highly skilled combatants.... i studied what happens when peasants revolted.
Bruce lee also wasn't a midevil warrior
@robert20351 i pictured Keanu Reeves saying this lol
@@TheBelrick hippity hoppity of with your head is what happened
Bruce Lee was stabbed by a gang of youths, turns out he didn't count of humans ganging up on a superior opponent.
In Portugal we still have our traditional stick fighting which is more closely connected to the common people. I had a distant relative (great great grandfather if i recall correctly) who used this technique to "sweep" regional fairs whenever there was trouble amongst merchants and/or customers... It's called "jogo do pau" which literally translates to "game of the stick" . there's quite a lot of videos of it on youtube.
I found this documentary but it is in German... anyway you can see the combat itself and the training. th-cam.com/video/i2--e31NXN0/w-d-xo.html
Interesting. I’ll have to ask my dad about it. He portuguese
I've seen the videos and it looks awesome and legit AF
También lo tienen en las Islas Canarias. ¡Un saludo!
Next thing you know the Chinese Kung-fu movies are not historically accurate
Impossibru!
@F Doesn't mean that it's less practical. Being flashy can often throw your enemy's focus off if you know how to bait them by flashy stuff properly. Combat Kung Fu and Wu Shu can deffinetly teach that.
Everyone knows putting your finger up the enemy's asshole is instant death for the enemy.
@@danielantony1882 it usually is, because Kung Fu hasn't really side widescale use in combat in over a century. Same goes for most old school martial Arts. They may have been practical once upon a time. But they've shifted over to a more sport oriented setting, and are more geared towards duels in a ring, with specific rules and constraints.
@@piranhaplantX I'm not talking about the current Sporting Kung Fu and Wu Shu. I'm talking about Combat Wu shu and stuff. If i remember correctly, Kung Fu was intended for protection. Unless i watched too many Chinese movies with Jet Lee, i don't know. I'm pretty sure that Wu Shu was one of the main combat techniques when Melee weapons were still being used. Much like... Kendo, Kenjutsu and the lost arts of Iaijutsu, a.k.a. Iaido. So you're not helping. You're just stating the obvious, mr. Genius.
Thing is he wasn't medieval Chuck Norris, he WAS Chuck Norris. He just used a different name.
Stop ousting immortals
i think you are right beanladen. it is mentioned in history that chuck was born in the mountains of tibet in a cabin he built himself, so yes, he could have been around in those times.actually now that i think about it he was here since ever cause there is an account of him and god before humans existed.apparently when god said "let it be light" he watch chuck who was sitting beside him , and chuck approved and only after that we had light.so yea, i also think he may have been chuck norris himself.
Charles of Norriston
The Norse people came from Norris.
The Norse people came from Norris.
this was really cool, thanks for digging up the historical quotes too, those were super interesting.
Damn, I would watch this kind of content on TV.
False myths and perceptions debunked!
Could you say that those myths... get busted?
@@jakobradus7410 imagine how cool it would be if there was a show thats all about busting myths...or confirming them. Or, if not sure, declare them as plausible.
That would be awesome 💪
That's interesting. The Polish stick fighting 'palcaty' mentioned by @Skallagrim at about 12:51 (albeit the pronunciation was skewed beyond recognition) is so much forgotten that it was the first reference to it I've ever encountered. I've managed to find some articles about it though - and it seems that it was not so much a fighting style by itself, but rather an ubiquitous form of fencing training, in which wooden sticks were used instead of sabers. It was extremely popular among youth - to an extent that they formed bands in which the hierarchy was defined by a series of duels, and then they accosted passer-byes in the city and forced them dueling. It even happened that master fencers pretended to be newbies, only to be accosted to show the kids their place. It was an interesting tradition, which was prohibited, discouraged and ultimately forgotten in 19th century, when Poland was partitioned and under foreign rules (Russian, Prussian and Austrian), as the occupants did not want to deal with masses skilled in martial arts. "Masses" - because in Poland nobility accounted for as much as ~10% of the population.
The picture displayed at 12:52 is actually a small fragment of Martino Altomonte's painting "Election of King August II in 1697", kolekcja.zamek-krolewski.pl/en/obiekt/kolekcja/Paintings/query/altomonte/id/ZKW_1533_ab
Thank you, Skallagrim.
>prohibited, discouraged and ultimately forgotten in 19th century
>so much forgotten that it was the first reference to it I've ever encountered
So as it turns out, you can in fact digest Poland.
"Ok class, our lesson today will be the proper technique of 'throat biting'. Pair up now."
Love the incite and honesty, you dont have all the answers but have enough to piece together a full picture for us thank you!!!!
It's worth noting that in Musashi's Five Rings he says many of the same things (that for true swordplay there is really only one art, that it is learned through experience more than rote teaching, and that a true fighter does not use any flourishes or other showy techniques but makes every cut with the intention to kill as efficiently as possible).
when i was in the army the majority of my time was devoted to honing martial skills like hand to hand, small arms, crew serve weapons, battle drills and my niche fire support. I know people from other units that didnt spend 1/2 the time i had to on training. It was a shock to me when we would train with or go on operations with other units how just bad they were ar the things that keep them alive
I think that we can all agree that as warfare changes over the centuries, most methods with which it is executed gets lost.
"what you didn't know about historical combat: some people were good, some people were bad"
...o...ok
I thought he made some new discovery that would throw off all of the videos so far, but it's just basic knowledge for people who watched his channel for more than 2 videos :/
Yeah I didnt learn anything and thats always sad. Well the title was quite the clickbait so i can blame myself for it.
I'm assuming this is for those who are new, and wanted to learn more, but couldn't be bothered to watch each individual video.
OR There's some secret message in this video.
Time to do some futile research.
It is for people that live in a fantasy .
I’ve seen the video with two guys in plate armor demonstrating medieval fighting techniques. They were quick, efficient, and brutal. Definitely sent chills down my spine.
I love the derpy smiles on everyone in the ancient manuscripts :)
How I always thought of historical combat since finding this channel is "Every move, feint and step is a trap for the unwary", it was all about situational awareness, not being tripped, sniped or cornered while being mindful of your opponents, because against skilled foes, your first mistake could be your last.
"The Old Norris Sagas"
hehehehe
Jeeeez, the background is a french village called Autoire, my father used to live there for a year or so. You got my like and sub Skallagrim :D
People in the medieval era: “I hope our teachings will carry on to everyone, even past the 2000s”
People now: “Lets just use guns.”
People now: “Omega no shinderu”.
US marines: "But I love my cute little saber! I'M NOT GIVING IT UP! \:O"
But you always run out of bullets.
@@widdershins5383 but you can also get more.
+WIKIPEDIA
So you think it is a good idea to be legally bound to a single person that has to do nothing to earn your loyalty but is just given it because they crawled out of the right vagina?
I'll take feminism over feudalism any day of the week.
I'd much rather not be able to get married than live in a society where random strangers can rape my wife and nobody can do shit because they are royalty.
I have to admit I really do have a soft spot for the flashy videogame fighting. I know it's not realistic but it's just crazy awesome.
"Serious fighting moves simply and directly". Sound like something I heard from a Krav Maga instructor.
A martial arts instructor I used to know said to me "eventually its all fried rice". His meaning was exactly what you said, no matter the art you're in, if you do and understand it long enough, eventually you find out what really works, because anatomy and physiology has set limitations and weaknesses.
I'm pretty sure the battlefield was a case of plans not surviving first contact. You could be all kinds of skilled, but still have to face a two or three on one, or be completely unskilled and functionally up against no one. Or suddenly realize someone's coming from the side and have to use a bad block to stop a swing. And I could see where someone dropping both man and horse at once would be a massive intimidation factor (although I'm betting it was more an example historical rule of awesome than factual accounting). Honestly, a seemingly savage combatant might survive longer than expected simply because people wouldn't want to fight him.
The thing I learned in blacksmithing is that those big two handed swords... usually only weighed like 1-2 pounds. The swords were surprisingly thin, AND STRONG. The big swords, sure had some strength involved but it was more about it's ability to absolutely maim or completely remove appendages and do so tactfully. It was very possible to change directions of the sword in mid swing.
As a German I have to applaud your pronunciation of Büffel. Nicely done with the Umlaut.
“It is a delusion to think there are all sorts of ways of cutting people down. In reality there’s only slashing and stabbing, the point is killing.”-Miyamoto Musashi
8:45 oh look it's vernon roche!
My boy Vernon got teleported to medieval Europe. Damn I hate portals.
@@Pumciusz I didn't know he is a real person
In the Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi, there are tips on swordfighting as well as military strategy, all based on the Buddhist concept of Zen, which isn't about retreating or numbing yourself, it's more like you defeat your stress at the source by refusing to frame the situation you are in. In other words, going into battle with a fixed mindset like "this situation demands skill" or "this situation calls for brute force" (or even "this is a battle") only weakens you.
handsomebrick So thinking "God dammit, we're outnumbered and should retreat to fight another day" would be considered as negative mindset? :D
@@reptiloidmitglied2930 Could be... :D He says... one man could defeat ten, ten could defeat hundred, hundred could defeat thousand and thousand men could defeat ten thousand enemies.
More like, Musashi is basically saying there's a distinct difference between "God dammit, we're outnumbered and should retreat to fight another day" and say...
"We should retreat to a more tactically advantageous area, where we can use our smaller numbers to greater effect."
Saying the same thing, but with a vastly different mindset. And that inevitably changes how the flow of a fight or battle plays out.
That was big in Chinese, even Sun Tzu says every battle is like water, conforming to each unique scenario.
I've read both The Art of War and The Book of Five Rings, and they (in terms of what you guys are talking about) say the same thing, although I enjoy Sun Tzu's reference of water best. Saying that to win you have to know yourself and your opponent and "be like water" in the way you need to know how you will face every possible scenario
It's pretty interesting to see how much of this can still translate to modern gun play and modern firearms instruction. Awesome video as usual!
Great video Skall. It's good to remind ourselves that we don't have all the information, and that we need to draw conclusions carefully.
For honor is still fun tho :\
Knights are better than samurai confirmed
DEUS VULT
@@unintelligiblepeate8885 so much better
Laughs in kensei
DaRkSouL *laughs in warden*
*Cries in lawbro*
"This has been around for a long time. Therefore it must be the best!"
Bruce Lee: "Hold my beer..."
Yea but Video game sword fighting looks cool as shit.
Does it though
@@paulenan9636 Looks better than what Skall likes to show
@@carl8752 well, it depends what you define as cool. I prefer "rough, gritty, realistic" over "impractical and ridicolously exaggareted for scenic reasons" any day.
@@paulenan9636 I prefer me some God of War shit and some Skyrim style sword fighting
@@carl8752 ok, I can understand God of War, but Skyrim? Maybe it is because I do not like that game much, but the fighting in it always seemed clunky to me. But everybody as they like.
Interesting, my taijiquan teacher basically said the same thing: there're several aspect of fighting we've learned throughout history, what martial arts do is training us to enhance some reflections and instincts which meet those aspect while suppress those that don't.
Although video game and movie fighting is often unrealistic, I still enjoy it for the exact reason that was mentioned in the manuscript: the entertainment value. Although I know that’s nobody who’s properly trained would fight like that, I still love to imagine myself as Aragorn or Ezio Auditore
I can't be the only one who is really really curious as to what a big battle with hundreds of trained swordsmen would actually look like right? The fact that there isn't a lot of information about it really bums me out
Cheesy Child I guess the skill of the single warriors doesn't matter. If a skirmish becomes chaotic, it's pure luck who survives and who dies.
Take a look at how riot police fight against a crowd that fights back with melee weapons. It's a lot of posturing, moving back and forth, and short bursts of violence with long pauses in between. I imagine that's similar to how it was back then, as the human will has a tendency to try to stay out of harms way as much as possible (which is very different to what you see in movies/games).
Some examples:
/watch?v=CLEjNpux5PY
/watch?v=_KgX-hb1amo
Shield walls and lines. Duels only work for small groups or single combat.
Probably wouldn't be hundreds of swordsmen. Spearmen, pikemen, or halberdiers with archers supporting maybe, but not swordsmen. Swords are convenient-to-carry sidearms and status symbols, but vastly inferior battlefield weapons.
+Austyn Singletary You probably would see swords or maces on the flanks intended for envelopment raather than formation fighting.
Strength always overcomes cleverness
Hmm... sounds less smart, than the other way around
Could also lead to the guy throwing away the book and do some exercise
Don't know why, this reminds me of a GoT scene, where Littlefinger says to queen Cersei "knowledge is power", then she suddenly orders her soldiers to arrest him and cut his throat, but only to scare him and replies with contempt: "power is power"
Historical combat is polearms and range weapons
I am glad that you mentioned that underlying principles of combat are always the same and that the style or context of how these principles are applied differs. This is a really important idea. Not understanding this idea is why so many people have a misunderstanding about martial arts.
I practice competitive sport fencing. I have a very acrobatic style and use absence of blade a lot. I use wide flashy movements. It’s hard to counter something you can’t predict and it can be done efficiently.
A lot of skilled warrior don't even have a scar.
A lot of them prefer AR-15 or M14.
They’d be dead.
Doge 420 so either a civilian rifle or Vietnam era rifle? I should learn more about what soldiers use...
C7-A2 mate, or Id even take an Ak74u in a pinch.
Hk417 all day everyday lol
@@michaelortiz1732 lol!
Yeah, he should, because soldiers tend to use only what they are issued as that's what they know and are allowed to use. Personal preferences doesn't count and is exclusive to video games.
having nonexistent WiFi connection issues three minutes. already liked your video per normal. Finally got notifications back.
You mean Guts swinging the dragonslayer isn’t historically accurate?
LOL
The video is good and informative. But I didn't get enough sleep last night, and your calm soothing voice really put me to sleep!
always very reasonable and ponderate arguments and very interesting and humorous píece of research! keep up the good work, Skall. cheers from a HEMA enthusiast from Brasil.
Pommel Throwing 101
Very good video.
In fact, many Asian martial arts as we know them (such as karate or Shaolin gongfu) were designed by and for the needs of non-warrior people self-defense.
Thus, it could be reasonable to think that medieval European commoners also had their system of self-defense.
The French Savate is a good illustration of what street fighting used to be in French coastal cities of the early 19th century.
When I served in the US Army, i took my firearms training VERY SERIOUSLY. I was not happy unless I could get near perfect scoring and as such got to Eagle Eye Marksmen, being able to hit 40/40 shots and being able to hit targets at 350 yards with only iron sights, both static and pop up targets. I also worked very hard in becoming trained and we'll versed in every weapon that I could. I knew I would one day go to Iraq and be in a position where I may very well have to defend myself or my friends and therefore took my ability to do so to heart. So that's what I did during my 6 years in active duty, I took every chance I had to become better and more proficient with my weapons. And even today, whenever I have the chance I still brush up on my skills to keep myself from forgetting. I like to joke with my friends, that if 40 people took off running from me, with a rifle and just iron sights I could kill at least 39 of them before they could get further then 350 yards and get away...lol.
This was fantastically put together, with calm and clear delivery. Thank you!
I love the historical explanations and references in this video! I think you’re at your best when you merge your points with history
I can't stop laughing at 0:30
The tone you use, the look on your face, and your motions are insta-murder. It's like in 5 seconds you're re-living every comment saying "BUT the Katana requires so much art and technique because it can cut your legs off if you're not careful!", that one video where you talk about a katana, start with "I'm not really impressed by katana" and then in another video you talk about how you have a bias against Japanese swords because a comment said "You really go out of your way to say Katana don't impress you". And use your arms in a theatrical fashion when you say "high refined skill of the samurai", then finish with that little smirk like "I heard this many times all right" that just fucking kills me every time.
Reminds me of the hand to hand combat my dad taught me. He survived getting his position overrun in Vietnam, and had to fight hand to hand in the dead of night in the jungle. He taught me only to fight if I intend to kill, as the techniques used to survive in war is not the same as if you're fighting in an MMA tournament. Real combat is quick, direct, and brutal with only one goal; be the survivor. Roundhouse kicks and all that are just showy fluff. Real combat can be as quick and brutal as a chop to the Adam's apple with your forearm to stun your opponent followed by gripping the base of his skull and jaw, then twisting his head in one decisive stroke to snap his neck. It's not flashy or elegant, but when the only light is battlefield flares and muzzle flare, who's watching? You need to kill your opponent before he or his buddies kill you, so the faster you kill, the better the odds you survive.
I imagine medieval warfare was similar, in that running your sword through a man's back or flank was the best way to kill, and when fighting head on, you were relying on your comrades to run him through while he's preoccupied with you.
Warfare is a team effort. There's an old observation in aerial combat that if you get on a guy's 6 and the shot seems too perfect, his wing man is probably on your 6 and about to shoot you. Teamwork is likely what truly separates combat in war vs dueling.
Goattacular lol that snapping a neck is as simple as that! Who’s watching movies now?
Ozram Blue breaking a neck is fairly easy.
Mad 300Mac lol!
I've always gotten pissed off when I watch shows and movies, where the characters drag out a fight scene for like 1-2 minutes because they suddenly forgot how to actually fight lol. Swinging their arms around and making it easy for their enemies to avoid them lmao. In reality, you would go straight for the kill or at the very least, avoid letting the enemy grab your arm/weapon lol.
It's weird, I was just thinking about this today on the way to work. I wondered how different the techniques of knights and samurai would seem if they went up against each other just training wise
Watching it again, great, great video. I did both a lot of, my fair share of reading, and some martial arts training - both "eastern" and western historical HEMA style (with some real competent Dudes, chief among them.was former archeologist and sports sabre guy) long ago. And that is exactly how I would think about it- and more. Thank you for this video, really good one
You're welcome, and thanks for the positive feedback.
Humans are humans, not robots...so despite all this being true...you can guarantee that bravado and showmanship was always part of fighting.
I'm sure that often led to the death of the one using fancy moves...but in spite of that, i guarantee it was still done.
Humans can be emotional, arrogant, and just flat out stupid.
Think of the David and Goliath myth. I'm sure from the dawn of man "Goliaths" have been getting killed for being cocky...yet that didn't stop future Goliaths from doing the same thing.
And of course...that's every era and every culture...its not as if Eastern fighters were immune to it.
Those fighting manuals were of course written ages ago with thought of For Honor PC masters - not some dirty console peasants. :P
We probably all are. There's just not enough surviving manuals, so we have to fill in the gaps. Not to mention the record we do have is unreliable. ("Ending him rightly.") So, we have to assume, some of us are more Educated, but History is Written by the Victor. We're talking about War here, so there's lots of Propaganda, and Saint George totally slew a Dragon.
I've probably got a lot wrong about Historical swordmaking, too. (I'm not a fighter.) However, I have made swords, with a fuller beaten into a stump, and some guys taking turns fanning the fire with shields. That's where I got most of my assumptions from. They did forge swords, with forges, and anvils. However, they May have also forged steel with nothing but a couple fullers, wood, stone, and manpower. I at least proved that it's possible, the historical accounts just didn't mention bringing a full forge along with them on the march. Only weapons being broken in battle.
Psiberzerker
Don't diss my homie Saint George.
Are you insinuating Saint George didn't slay a dragon? How dare you
Saint George, who was only a disguise of our *GLORIUS* God Emperor, defeatd the Void Dragon, a C'Tan who had been freed from his previous prison, and imprisoned it on Mars, saving the galaxy from its certain doom and once again showing those pointy eared assholes how much we are superior.
There are dragons. they were never gone, they just fly really high and tehy are really quiet :P
The reason why his saying struck home so well could also have something to do with the fact that in those times possibly the theatres etc that displayed fights for entertainment when they were portraying for example Hercules were just as Hollywood as well, Hollywood.
Oh thank you so much I don't have an actual TH-cam channel I don't put up videos but I'm glad that somebody finally pointed out that sword fighting is not what everybody thinks it is
Egill (around 10:20) had a whole family tradition of "being like an animal". His grandfather was called "Kveld-Úlfur" (Evening-Wolf) because he was a bit of a shapeshifter. Apparently. And Egill (according to my granddad, our ancestor) did some other bestial things in his saga. As a kid, he lost a game of something like ice hockey (or maybe was just bullied by a boy on the other team) - and then he went and killed that kid. Later on, as a guest of some farmer in Norway, he felt that his host had insulted him. So, he got up, pinned the guy against a wall, gouged out his eye and then vomited in the guy's face.
So Egill shouldn't be taken as a good fighter. Better go for someone like Gunnar, who, when fighting with his sword "it seemed as if three swords were in the air".
9:59
Omae wa mou shindeiru
Stay off shad
Alfatazer _ NANI??
Arturia Pendragon FBI is coming for you..
b-b-bakana!
Delete this
Just wanted to say that your pronouncuation of german names is really nice, you dont see that often in the anglo Community, as far as I know.
I believe he’s Norwegian, and I’ve read that German is his “second language” - so take that as you will. :)
I love that you call it the Walpurgis. I think it sounds so much better now that it isnt technically I33 since it was recataloged haha. Also, just a generally well said description of a LOT of information. Nice work!
7:28 I love how they look so happy!
How skilled could you get if you were biologically immortal?
This question pertains to fantasy in particular, where you have some races; usually like elves, who either live forever or very long.
Let's take swordfighting.
Controlling for all other variables, such as health, motivation etc; How big would the difference be between a master who's trained for 40 yrs vs another who's trained for 80yrs, and one who has trained for 200yrs?
Will a dedicated practitioner eventually meet a plateau where they wouldn't be able to further increase their skills to any significant degree, a cap/ceiling if you will? And if so, how soon would they reach it?
The reason I ask this is usually because some media tends to portray people with centuries or more of experience as almost gods of combat, yet in real life; some of our most elite units, like Navy SEALs and SAS are trained within just a few years, let alone even a decade.
SinerAthin Even if this question seems "absurd" or "irrelevant", I believe it's a good exercise of the brain. I'm just a "dirty peasant" so I don't have many direct evidences of the theory but...logic is logic, here or in the books.
Well, we have a limited mind, a limited "file storage", we can't remember everything we see if we don't practice it every time of our life, that's why soldiers train as often as professional atheletes. That being said, I believe it is impossible to be a "god" of swordsmanship if some of the "fancy moves" we hear about are used once every 7 or 8 fights.
What actually makes a swordsman good is practice the "META" Most Effective Tactic Available, just as our "SWAT" does with Martial Arts.
However, for the sake of debate, let's say that the "ageless" master of the swordsmanship doesn't sleep, drink or eat and 24/7 shakes a sword around along with some imortal sparring mate, I think that he wouldn't be able to even remember some of the forms he studied, just like lawyers have to study the law even after being accepted in the bar exam, if not, it's very likely that they'll lose the case. And that I justify because some defensive forms and attacks are most common than other hypothetical fancy attack that you can also "fancily" parry as well, making you naturally better at those most "common" forms than the others (if some swordsman who have mastered the sword have trouble winning every duel, imagine someone who doesn't train that as hard as them because they are worried with some absurd move that no sane fighter will do).
My humble conclusion...The ageless master who knows every form would lose because he didn't train what he SHOULD be training and focus more on be half-baked in every useless fighting style in the book.
A rebuttal (for the sake of the debate) would be appreciated
ps: I'm from brazil sooo...forgive any wrong words.
@@Palatinus-Z he could also have the experience of surviving battles for so long
Luuk de Wijse In that case I think the master would also be incapable of using the "swordstunt" he practice as easy as a normal move, because those normal moves are used much more in combat and the brain synapsis would fix them better in the brain, leaving the other moves behind in the "body memory".
I believe is the same principle behind "why boxing is more easy and effective than Wing Chun", because boxing has less moves to train and the few ones can be used in almost all situations, same with "fancy" swordsmanship I guess.
I think the skill increase after decades and decades of experience would boil down to reading opponent movements and battle situations to maximize survivability and minimize injury.
I'm sure there comes a point after 100 or so years of combat experience where you couldn't realistically increase your actual combat skill any further.
I don't really understand the kind of ignorance required to come up with the sort of idea that middle age combat was something of a clumsy sturdy nature, when in reality history is full of techniques and strategies for different kind of weapons, combat situations and context, as well as environments.
Ramón Velásquez maybe for single combat, but armies have always been lines marching at each other and breaking holes to overwhelm. Even by today’s standards, that’s essentially all it is on a larger scale.
@@widdershins5383 That's a simple way to explain it. You also can explain chess the same way, saying that you only need to capture the king but that doesn't mean it's easy or simple to do it.
If you are in full plate, you basically just swing a piece of metal (hammer/mace) at your opponent as hard as you can. Technique be damed.
Yes and no... If well is true that weapons like maces existed because those required less training and technique, there were swords that had a particular shape and were used to pierce through the unprotected parts of an armor. Besides, full plated armor wasn't always used, only in certain period and not every combatant had one. Those were actually very expensive and only nobles and a certain group of soldiers from the kingdom could afford or be given one, these were like the tanks of the time. The rest of people had riveted mail.
@@Fankas2000 Also if your enemy was in full plate armour swinging a mace with your full force is probably the best way to take him out.
Someone trying to sell you lessons isn't likely to mention that a really strong opponent may be going to be able to smash through the guard he is teaching you. I used to spar with a judoka and I asked him "If you use your opponent's strength against him, why are you so strong that you can bench-press a Chevy."
LMAO!
"Not very technical." As a new viewer I thoroughly enjoy your delivery style sir.
You are right I can tell you from personal experience playing a certain multiplayer team based online game for years, morale and cohesion is the number 1 most important factor most of the time.
Question: Did they actually drill soldiers in medieval times? If you had a levied army of some sorts, or later maybe some kind of mercenary force, who were those guys trained? I know drill and practice was a thing in ancient times and then later in musket warfare, but I have hardly any idea what a medieval soldier would have to show for himself apart from the knights and maybe the british longbowmen.
Levies were expected to learn how to fight themselves. Death is a great incentive to learn. As for mercenaries, you want to hire them because they are professional soldiers, they already know how to fight. Thus why many rich countries tend to hire a bunch of them instead of gathering Levy.
poiuytrewq11422 But how DID the mercenaries become professional? There´s something they had to do to get their experience, right? And how did those levies teach themself if that was expected from them? What did they do? Was it all personal training or was there also some sort of basic organised drill, sparring, mock battles, marching... idk. nythign like that?
Don Kanaille Don´t know if it´s universal, but a common way of doing it was for portions of veteran armies to just leave and hire themelves out after a war. Examples are the English and French soldiers after every phase of the 100 Years War teaming up into "free companies" and going to Italy. Many of the Hussites did the same after they eventually lost the conflict, formed mercenary companies.
Maybe learning basics on the march, but most conscripts were just used as cannon fodder to tire the enemy
So the only real training would then be getting into a war and surviving it.
fact of the matter. YOU are probably wrong aswell, i don't believe for a single second that looking in manuals only (which is the only option today) can anyway nearly give a fair representation of medieval weapon martial arts. We are all wrong, some more, some less.
This no BS no Showmanship philosophy reminds me of Krav Maga. Sure, it looks different around the world because there is no unified doctrine and as a result its often fouled with heavy choreagraphed moves turning it into "bullshito", especially in the US. But at its core true Krav Maga is just about relatively simple techniques that has a high chance to work in real life situations. As it turns out, it doesnt look very cool and thats a bit hard to sell in the US.
+ you speak english so clearly that I understand every single word, makes me improve my english level. Thx (french)
One of your most impressive videos to date, it shows how much you've grown.
I wish you the best of luck and success in the futur.
Those "samurai" at 0:31 are holding their swords incorrectly.
Yeah I see that. They also carry the scabbard in the wrong way.
most probably western reenactors.
@@FinALIEN93 its clearly just silhouette artwork overlayed on a photographic background.
those "knights" were too
I think people need to realize that 98% of an army back then was made up of levies, so basically peasants with pointy sticks and bows
kittehdrawrs They weren’t really useless. England during the Hundred Years’ War did actually train the peasants. They had to drill for multiple hours a day for months to years on end with longbows. They were a huge factor in the English victories at the Battles of Crécy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. They were the reason Agincourt was won at all. They shot at the French forces until they ran out of arrows, then attacked the opposing knights by dragging them from their horses and beating them with hammers. Longbows could punch through mail, leather, and gambeson, and take down horses. The draw weight averaged 160 lbs, and skeletal analysis shows that medieval archers had permanent changes in the bone structure to accommodate for the stress.
LOL nope
Armies mostly consisted of knights, mercenaries and semi-professionals.
incinerator950 incinerator950 Estimations of the draw weights of English longbows do vary drastically. I drew my 160 lb average from Robert Hardy’s analysis of longbows found on board the wreckage of the Mary Rose. His concluded that while most of the longbows found were between 150-160 lbs, the total range found was between 100 to 185 lbs. An account from Hugh Latimer stated that the training method was to begin very young, increase the draw weight and bow size gradually, and train with the longbow constantly. Because of this, skeletons of English archers did have enlarged left arms and bone spurs on their left wrists, fingers, and hands (drawn from Dr. A.J. Stirling).
incinerator950 incinerator950 I apologize for including the Battle of Crécy in my earlier response, I intended it more as an early instance during the Hundred Years’ War that the longbow was both prominent at and a contributor to the victory. I think I did a pretty poor job of conveying that though, lol. I definitely did not mean to imply it was as significant it was at Agincourt or Poitiers. I agree that the early English victories were won in part by poor French tactics, but the longbow did contribute to English victory. Also, imho, the English lost the Hundred Years’ War because their later Kings weren’t very competent and were very polarizing, the nobility was divided into factions (which blossomed into the War of the Roses), the English lost more skilled commanders than they gained, and because the War was ridiculously expensive. They also didn’t have France’s home field advantage.
Do not underestimate the effectivness of peasants with pointy sticks. Those pointy sticks have won wars.
"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face."
Real combat is and was much more ruthless and messy than in any shitty manual. HEMA isn't real historical combat either.
Ist auch lustig, dass du dich über deutsch aufregst aber ständig irgendwelche alten deutschen Schwertmeister zitierst. ; )
hdf
It's so true. Things change quickly in any fight, as soon as someone finds an opening it all goes to shit.
Just as water forms itself to its surroundings, every battle is a unique scenario. Paraphrased but always true.
Ever done boxing? The trained always beat out the untrained. Muscle-memory takes over, and plan or know, if your muscles know what to do better than the other guy, you win.
Everyone has a plan, but usually only one of em works out.
About war-preparing historical sports: in Florence (the Italian one of course) there’s a thing called “Calcio Storico Fiorentino” (Florentian Historical Football). It consists in two teams, 27 players each, that have to toss a spherical ball into a sort of net/canister on the opponent’s side of the field. It’s a mix of american football, soccer, rugby and various fistfighting styles. Now, there is no limitation to what the players can do to reach the goal or stop the opponent, except for these: no biting, no “low hits” and only one vs one fights. This means this sport is pretty violent and spectacular. Like really violent and reinassance-looking spectacular. The roots of this tradition can be traced back to the french siege of Florence in1530 (Even if the sport is older), when the people of the city started to play this game to mock the enemy, like:”Look, we ain’t afraid of you, we’re even playing”. With the progression of the Modern Age il Calcio Storico stopped being played, until 1902, when it was reextabilished as an annual event that still exists today. So, if you happen to visit Firenze in May, be sure to check when the next match is programmed ;)
Hello Skal,
A long term fan here (we actually met on occasion).
Regarding a Polish game for kids:
It was usually called ‘patyczki’ (approx. pron. pah-teach-quee), meaning [little] sticks. Main aim was simple - disarm the opponent from their stick. Hence, main target was the hand/forearm. Effects of that can be seen for example during battles like Trzciana (Honigfelde), where even cornets as formation failed... and many firearms were found after the battle, unfired along with the hands that held them. A very useful game to improve ones instincts I testify ;)
Fantastic video, this really helped for some of the sports games for my medieval inspired fantasy world for my video games and graphic novels so thank you and the martial arts and the fighting schools. One of your best most insightful videos you've done.
Awesome mini-lecture. One of the best things you've ever done. Congratulations!
Love it when you post stuff like this Skal. Your channel has made me want to become a blacksmith and actually make swords and polearms. Seems polearms would be a fantastic market, as actual quality polearms that are affordable seem lacking.
They most certainly are. If you got a website or something I'd defiently be interesting in browsing
poiuytrewq11422 Hah, it will be awhile. I don't even know HOW tp blacksmith, but I really want to get into it. My time in the Army is coming to a close, and throughout my time watching skal, I've come to appreciate sword and medieval weapon design. I'd like to make my own stuff, but ALSO I see where there is some money to be made, if someone were willing to learn the skills.
My plan is to talk to a blacksmith that my wife's family knows, see if I can basically get an apprenticeship type thing going. Once I know what I'm doing, I'll start small. Daggers, maybe short swords. Work my way up. Polearms shouldn't be TOO bad, it seems most of the weapon is the wooden haft, not the head itself.
Once I get the skillset I need, if I find I'm any good at it, I'll definitely put it out there.
I remember in my training, that we were told that the systems of fighting were the basics for us to build on. They could not cover every situation, but they gave you the tools to respond to different situations. I would imagine that in the early years, most of the masters would have taught the same way. If you knew how to use your weapon, then you could adjust to almost any situation you might become in.
Great Video. This is something that i constantly am trying to tell people. For example, Kingdom Come Deliverance has a very realistic, at least for a video game, combat system, but people often complain that it isn't a good system just because they aren't jumping and flipping over the opponents.