The Scots had bucklers and daggers both, but that's only because we're so thrifty and cheap that we used the dagger to eat with and the targe as a plate.
Its good that u mention it but yes bucklers / helms were also used as plates and waterjug from time to time. Some soldiers even ate the leather off their shields when they were starving. They stripped the leather straps, boiled them and ate them.
Begs a question, actually -- when I see most bucklers (and reproductions) they appear, to me, to be a variation on the boss of a regular shield. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_boss It makes terrific sense to abandon the weight of a round wooden shield if the most significant protection was always the metal boss. And, we know from archeological evidence that shields have been arrived at in parallel by many cultures. Cross-cultural contact between groups such as the Romans spanned quite an impressive section of Earth's geography, including Scotland, Africa, the near and middle East, Asia Minor and all of Europe. I don't find it hard to imagine a gladiator using a sword and buckler. That's how common the concept would have been, in its own historical time, since all spectators (regardless of class distinction) are getting some form of intelligence from watching the proceedings. I'm also reminded a little of Herbert's "Dune" with its fascination on personal defense shields, and personal defense daggers.
Excellent sideburns are a better upgrade than a puffy shirt. #ItsAFact *EPIC* Sideburns are also possible, but they only randomly spawn with approximate odds against approaching one in several billions. It wasn't that rare in the 16th and 17th centuries, though. Surgeons and Barbers are frequently employed in the same art.
I think one reason dagger is more popular with rapier is the fact that rapier is very useless if you get too close, and dagger is perfect off hand weapon to help with that weakness.
The rapier isn't useless up close, it can still be retracted quite a bit but it is more clumsy in extreme ranges than a katana would be. That's why rapiers were commonly used with parrying daggers. Because the dagger in the offhand provides the ability to counter offend easily if the opponent makes it past the rapier, and also functions well in a defensive capacity. Other times a cloak buckler shield or other rapier was favored, and a free hand is also useful, especially one wrapped in a gauntlet
Hmm, it seems that you two guys don't agree if sword&buckler is better or worse that rapier&dagger. If only there was a way to settle this argument. Round 1. Fight!
@@lanaz375 It happens at my club sometimes. Usually the two don't have equal skill, but it's hard to say if one system is better than the other. I think it's more likely that one system is better for certain individuals
I just automatically read that in Harry Hill's voice (like on Harry Hill's TV Burp when they have the comedy fights) and it made your comment even better lol.
In rapier fencing I find it easier to parry with my dagger than with my buckler. Thrusts tend to slip off the buckler. With the dagger all it takes is a flick of the wrist to deflect a thrust while delivering a single tempo counter attack. However, against a heavy cutting sword I'd want a solid buckler. or even better, a rotella.
Regarding Silver and Salviolo: after reading their treatises I think the reason Silver is revered as a 'first' for English fencing treatises is not that his was the first published but that it is the earliest example we have of the English style, the earliest examples of the contrasts of martial traditions of England against the rising Italian. For example, the English for years preferred the sword and buckler, which gave them a defensive advantage over the rapier and poniard (Silver's evidence for this is an account of the death of Salviolo's associate Jeronimo), where as Salviolo remarked that the English style often retreated to avoid an attack, which he deems as a sign of inherent cowardice in the style. Silver also recounted that many English fencing teachers forbid their students to use the thrust in combat, where as he advocates for it... but simultaneously he does not advocate for the use of the lunge. Silver's whole focus is on defending yourself first, and claims that the rapier does not offer adequate defensive qualities... Matt also mentioned di Grassi, but I haven't read anything by him yet.
Fun facts: Rapier comes from the Spanish word Ropera, which means you carry this sword with normal clothes (ropa). Right to bear arms was invented in 16th century Spain. So were human rights. Makes sense when considering that they were the first to rise to global power and precisely during the 16th century. Sad I had to learn this independently because these facts are really obscured in mainstream history.
great vid :) One thing that occurs to me is when the rapier and dagger became fashionable most people would have some kind of knife or dagger on them anyway. I'd imagine that having one less thing to carry around would be considered a big plus of the new style.
scholagladiatoria I'm not sure about all of this argument. The daggers I've seen used with rapiers - which may be a very distorted sample - look like dedicated weapons with little use outside of a fight. They're an easier to carry replacement for a buckler, but possibly not something you'd carry anyway - eg as an eating knife. I think other factors to consider are that a dagger is faster that a buckler, creates an extra threat to throw the opponent off balance, and is potentially decisive if the fight gets too close for the rapiers to be used.
Yea, love your show but I agree with the sword and buckler comments vs Rapier vs Dagger. I used one 44 year ago. It was my fighting style and there was so many advantages over a sword and dagger that I saw in an open area. What this man is using is a 9" buckler and it was more of an offensive weapon compared to a 15 inch buckler. The 12" version was the balance of the two. I used both the 12" and 15" versions of the Buckler and the 15" version of the Targe. From there I went to Naginatajutsu. Because a 4'10 Japanese woman beat the crap out of me even though I was fully armed/armored and I was used to fighting against pole arm type of weapons. That was fun then and I finally ended with Krav Maga and Eskrima before retiring from all of that. It makes me smile that I was doing this before Matt was just a gleam in his Daddy's eyes.
Your videos are really helping me out. I briefly studied with a group in Seattle here in the States from primarily Fiore and Silver, but I've moved to an area where the opportunities are extremely sparse between LARP, SCA, and modern sport fencing. I'm trying to start my own group up and get in as much self-training as possible, and you have aided me immensely. Thank you.
ZiePe Thank you, Zie. I honestly don't know much beyond what I found with some short google searching. I heard about the estoc from a piece of fiction. It's been on my mind for a while now and I'm really interested in hearing what someone with actual weapons knowledge has to say about it/them. I'm also wondering now if Matt means that estoc means different weapons by the way that the French called it an Estoc while the English called it a tuck, and even the Germans had something similar. Or if he meant something else entirely?
This is really interesting. A few points I think that were not mentioned or weren't discussed in enough detail: 1) If I.33 is any indication, bucklers came in primarily as a tool for defending the sword hand with cruciform swords. It stands to reason then that with the development of complex hilts, it would have lost one of its primary functions. This is not to say that it wouldn't still be useful, as it clearly held on for a long time, but clearly this aspect of its utility would have been made redundant. Corollary to this is that the thrust and dominant-hand lead became more prevalent and as hand guards became more and more protective, there is a sense in which the blocking and parrying abilities of the buckler could effectively be offloaded to the sword itself. If you think of a "cone of defense" with a buckler held out in front of you and a sword with a basket hilt held out in front of you there would seem to be a lot of functional overlap just by way of geometry. 2) Convenience of carry was addressed briefly, but these points stick out to me: a) a dagger worn horizontally at the back of the waist would not be at all inconvenient to wear while a buckler hung over the sword would increase the bulk of metal about the waist, which would be more inconvenient to work around in daily living. The extra weight, however slight could also make the belt sag on one side which might be uncomfortable, while a sword and dagger on opposite sides or at different points on the belt might not make it slouch as much. b) The buckler also wouldn't be as securely fastened and would thus be more likely to fall off or get lost. c) Especially as complex hilts developed it might get progressively more difficult to hook a buckler over the handle of a sword and d) the bulk about the waist and arm would presumably be even bulkier. e) While the dagger would be drawn independently of the sword, a buckler slung over a sword with a cord or strap might tangle in the guard, which could be problematic in close quarters street defense. Granted, some of these issues could be mitigated if you had a hook on your belt specifically for the buckler or if you had a good lanyard (not too long but long enough, decently thick so it's less likely to tangle, etc.), but it is something to consider. f) If the buckler makes noise as you walk with it hooked over your sword, then aside from that being an annoyance in daily living that could be a serious tactical problem in street defense. If you are trying to pass a gang of ruffians in a dark alley without attracting attention, or trying to escape from them through dark alleys, it would be best to carry weapons that could be carried silently. 3) Daggers are debatably more attractive than bucklers, but after heavy use in combat, it is easy to imagine that a bucker would be scratched and battered, presenting all the signs of wear and tear hanging from a belt, while a dagger would presumably bear any signs of use far more discreetly and be easier to prettify. 4) On that aesthetic note, I would speculate that there are other fashion elements to consider. . .like codpieces. I don't know if this has any merit, but consider that the 1530's to the 1590's was, from a cursory internet search, the heyday of the codpiece in male fashion. George Silver's "Paradoxes of Defense" was published in 1599. I don't know how long codpieces stuck around, but it makes sense that if you were a fashionable gentleman of the mid to late 1500s, a buckler hanging from your waist might deemphasize and distract from your codpiece. . .and who wants that? Ha Ha. Not to mention how distracting it could be to the wearer if his buckler is constantly bumping his codpiece or knocking it to one side as he walks and sits. This is pure speculation, but I haven't seen anyone talk about this and it strikes me as potentially significant. 5) So many things can be used as a buckler instead of a buckler. If you are in open spaces or on country roads, then there might not be a lot of stray objects at hand. If you get into a bar brawl however, things like pewter mugs or chairs could easily be used as bucklers and discarded. That is a rather specific case, but even without stray objects like these, a sufficiently robust glove, a hat, or famously a cloak wrapped around the arm could be used effectively. Significantly, a sturdy glove or a cloak would still allow you to grip a dagger, while a buckler--being a small hand-held shield, unlike the strapped on targe--would make it more difficult to use WITH a dagger as well. This point is reinforced I think if one considers the earlier idea that the functions of a buckler could be offloaded to a robust and protective guard on the sword. If you have a swept hilt, pappenheimer hilt, basket hilt, or cup hilt, in one hand and a cloak wrapped around the other, then you practically have two bucklers, all without having to carry one. Hold your dagger in the hand covered by your cloak, and your defensive capability is only increased. A hefty cutting sword in your opponent's hands might be enough to overwhelm the padding provided by your cloak, but the length of your rapier might diminish that problem significantly by keeping the opponent from getting close enough to deliver a committed chop to your rearmost arm. All in all, I think these are the primary reasons why the buckler was phased out as a civilian sidearm. It is a testament to the effectiveness of the buckler however that it was useful enough to hold out in light of all these factors. I think the main reason it did was the prevalence of the sidesword. The likelier it is that you are going to fight against a heftier cutter, the more likely it is that you will want a metal plate between it and your offhand. If rapiers are the primary weapon you are likely to encounter and sideswords themselves start getting more rapier-like (in terms of balance, point of percussion, width of blade etc.), then it is less and less likely that you would want to carry a buckler around, especially if you can easily use more convenient things to approximate what they do if and as necessary. Just some thoughts. Contention and/or correction would be much appreciated. :)
The fork, especially the two times variety is great for stopping attacks at dining when the dagger is the assault weapon. We know how the Scots just love to brawl. After all I also learned a martial art move, I should say, secret martial art move from Brave, the Scottish Titty tweek. I couldn't stop laughing. Reminded me of martial arts class, " do an unexpected move was the challenge, the next thing I know pain on my chest brought tears to my eyes. Anyway, good animated movie, full of hidden technique.
Also a dagger has a sheath and is easy to carry. Drop it in the sheath and you're good to go. Good point about you can cut your meat and eat with the dagger. Also the fork apparently did not become common in northern Europe until the 18th century, so you could use it to pick up your food and deliver it to your mouth. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork
You touched on something here, mentioning "gentlemen" and "fashion" and The Age of Reason, but did not expand on it. And that is class. The sword and buckler is very much a working class combination, and in an age when a lot of common citizens were or had been soldiers, this is what they would be happy with and be able to afford. Rapier and dagger however, is less instinctive and requires more extensive - and expensive - instruction, not to mention the cost of the weapons themselves. As the Renaissance approached I think perhaps the rapier and dagger became the weapons of the aristocracy, for duelling and showing off, while the sword and buckler were left to the common man.
Good video. I do wonder how common broadsword/side sword +dagger was. It certainly appears in many manuals and there are cut-fencing treatises that pop up in the 17th century. Even Marozzo was reprinted in the 17th century (1615 I believe) and cutting swords were still in use across Europe. For someone armed with a schiavona or side-sword, perhaps a dagger could also provide more protection against the rapier's particular advantages.
For the Musashi conversation... It is stated in the Book of Five Rings that the point of using two swords was to strengthen your arms and unity for when wielding one sword. However, he used two swords in his duel against Shishido Baiken and his Kasuri-gama. He was able to use his wakazashi to block and catch the chain while he went in for the kill. There's another version that said he actually threw his wakazashi but I think combat wise that's not entirely realistic. Now to the point. The wakazashi is longer or tends to be longer than a dirk, not always, but usually. With the secondary weapons reach advantage and some of the dual handed techniques such as the second defends and parries while the primary attacks would be very difficult to deal with for a shorter secondary weapon such as a dirk and a more or less single purpose sword such as the rapier. Now I'm not a katana fan but I do respect the sword art of the two swords technique. With a rapier you know that the wielded has to stab to inflict serious damage. Knowing that the katana can significantly cut and stab gives the wielding an advantage in versatility and being a bit more unpredictable .
There are a few sources that place Musashi as not having used a katana/wakizashi combination, but rather a katana/katana combination. This may be a confusion in translations, however given his argument toward having a unity of strength in both arms, I think katana/katana would more appropriately fulfill that element. The wakizashi itself was generally more of a status symbol as it was the wakizashi that separated samurai from commoners. Even commoners were allowed a katana given the feudal nature of Japan. However the wakizashi was a symbol of status that wasn't really in common use until the Edo period where etiquette required the removal of a katana when entering houses or the like while still being able to retain the wakizashi.
Hi Matt. Really liked this one. You mentioned that sword and dagger wasn't mentioned in any treatises before the sixteenth century. I'm wondering if the dagger and other off hand weapons began to become popular after hilts started to offer more hand protection. One thing a dagger would not be good at would be protecting your sword hand, while bucklers are great for that. After basket hilts and other complex hilts were developed, you could rely on the hilt more and that would open up options for what to use with your off hand. Just a thought.
Hi James - I think that makes sense, logically speaking, but it isn't necessarily backed by history unfortunately, as the dagger appears to have become popular to use with the sword in about 1500-1530, at which time most sword hilts were still pretty basic, with finger rings and a knucklebow at most - see Achille Marozzo (1536) for example. His swords are pretty much late-15th century arming swords with finger rings, but he has a whole section on the sword and dagger. I think the main factor is that after 1500 it became much more common for civilians to go around towns and cities with swords.
I've seen people use a sword or rapier in the right hand and a buckler with a knife of some variation in the same hand as the buckler. In civilian use it was probably just too much to carry a sword, dagger and a buckler or small shield. Also, if your main hand weapon is disarmed, you still will have the dagger for offense and defense.
Could you talk a little bit about different kind of fencing school, especially for rapier fights... like the French, the Italian, The Spanish, the German Schools ?
I've tried both, but only studied sword and dagger, i'd say that with bolognese school S&D did not feel that superior to S&B, it felt harder to implement though, but still, i am a noob so maybe when i study both well i will have a better opinion.
Good video. Nice comparison of the two styles. IIRC It wasn't illegal to carry swords that were Messer in English cities /burghs due to them being single-edged, going off the laws of the day. The law was put into place to keep broadswords and double-edged weapons out during the Wars of the Roses I believe, but allow for people with normal weaponry for everyday use to carry (eating daggers, falchions, knives etc).
16:05 -- "... A Partisan ..." -- My single favorite "throwaway" line in all of Shakespeare is found early, in Hamlet. When the Ghost is spotted by the guards, one of them says, "Shall I strike it with my partisan?" and I've always found that charming, in a 20th century deconstructive manner. In much the same way that "computers" were once people and then became mechanical devices, partisans have become synonymous with political operatives, frequently of a paramilitary nature but not exclusively so. From a tool, to many types of people, with the single most virtuous thing in all of Political Existence being "a genuine bipartisan" anything; the inverse of the computer.
Just a thought about sword length: As far as I know, within buildings a long sword can be a disadvantage. If I remember correctely, a samurai would use the wakizashi instead of the katana in a building (and a katana is not a very long sword). One could think: The longer the sword and the more urban the lifestyle (and therefore more cramped fighting situations: within buildings, but also a crowded marked place,...) the more the need for a close range weapon. I guess this is a major difference: A dagger can function as a stand-alone weapon to compensate the disadvantiges of a very long sword.
Matt, it is not just to mention the longer reach of the rapier when to comparing buckler vs dagger. Your are not comparing swords, but the left hand opions. How do buckler and dagger compare when using the same type of sword?
I love your videos!! I've noticed that you reference a lot of manuals in this video. would it be possible for you to post links in your video description if they are available online? If not to the manuals themselves, then to a good place to purchase them?
I would say an unspoken, but simple answer would be this: If you were to ask any person what the best weapon for you is, an experienced person would most likely say, "The one you are most comfortable with." Since Rapier and Dagger were seen as a more high status weapon (for upper class) it set the tone of popularity because, well, that's what the "influencers" of the day were. So the common person may try to raise a lot of money, get a high value rapier, they learn it, practice it, get comfortable with it. Now fast forward in the military, if a soldier in his common wear and day wore his rapier because it was popular, he became comfortable with it. Thus, when going to war, if offered a different sword, they may be uncomfortable and thus would lose. So over the course of time, the age old "use what is most comfortable" dominates the weapon you use. (This being the case in terms of sword and buckler. If you went to war with full plate, then they would use a weapon-Like a spear, to pierce, and then your signature sword was with you if you lost your primary military weapon)
You should do a sparring session and see how it goes! Learn rapier Matt! ahah just kidding ;) although I would love to see such a duel, that would be pretty informative about the true strengths and weaknesses in a one on one fight. Although it's pretty hard to find two people roughly equal in terms of ability and technique. Great video as always, very interesting. Thanks for all the work you put into this, really appreciated.
I find that bucklers really shine when you are limited to simple crossguards for hand protection and could use the extra defense. When you got a complex hilt/basket hilt, you could get away with less protection from your off hand
The dagger only became popular because of the adoption of the basket hilt. The purpose of the buckler was always to protect the hand but with the basket hilt guard you could now place the sword hand in the lead and gain even more reach, this is why the basket hilted broadsword evolved into the rapier. Because the sword hand was in the lead the thrust became much more efficient then the cut and the broadsword became longer, narrower and stiffer, all things which suited the thrust. This all occurred because of the development of the basket hilt! The dagger simply gives the hand relieved of the buckler something to do: which is to parry the other rapier thrust or trap blades with also the ability of a surprise attack while you are stuck in a sword bind with opponent. Plus you no longer have to hear the annoying klinking of the buckler. On a sidenote, it is my opinion that nothing beats an oval shield (thureos) and broadsword in unarmoured single combat. You can knockout any man with a boxing like jab from the large oval shield, this is why they strengthened the ends with metal. You can also constantly jab at the opponent shield to keep him unbalanced or jab to set up a trap to draw his attack. Want to win a sword fight unscathed then set up traps and counterattack.
I've recent acquired a talhoffer buckler. 12'' wide by 18" tall in a curved rose leaf pattern with spikes surrounding a substantial 5" rosebud buss. I haven't found much good info about this style and was hoping you could elaborate someday. Thanks!
It's a question of distance. Slashing blows are closer, thrusts are farther away... that's just where the point is... farther away from the body. The longer point of the rapier provides the cover that would have otherwise been provided by the buckler. sincer the thrust takes longer to pull back into guard the dagger provides the guard in passing.
From what I understand, the sword was often refered to as a swash, and since the rapier was a civilian weapon and often used by yuong rowndies and rogues and traveled around in groups. The buckler was worn at one's side, with the word and buckler often on the same side. The young rowdy would often bang his swash and buckler together to be intimadating. They became known as swashbucklers. Anyway that's what I read.
Yes i think it's because of the length of the rapier or any sword really to use a dagger. Like you said once you thrust into someone. But there's more, the style of swordfighting changed. There's less swinging around, you start to point the sword between you and the opponent. Once that get's out of the way to any side, the opponent can step in and at that point you could only cut with your rapier. A longer sword has an advantage aslong you can keep the distance. These distances maybe a good reason to create smallswords, but i've no knowledge about that.
This video reminds me of an odd phenomenon I have noticed in History. Perhaps one should consider a video addressing why the shield has continually shrunk in size and prominence in European warfare since ancient times? In the year 400BC, the Greeks made the Mediterranean tremble with their phalanx of shield and spear. In 0AD, the Legions of Rome crushed nearly all, protected by large, almost man-sized, shields. In the early Medieval era, the great warriors of the age wielded big shields, be it the Viking with his round shield or the Norman knight with his lengthy kite-like shield. In 1400, the wise warrior kept a nice torso-sized shield between him and his foes. In 1500, we have this tiny little buckler despite the majority of soldiers still wielding melee weapons. In 1600, we have virtually no use of shields, despite the continued use of swords and pikes.
Eustace Stritchers Well we have many factors of aesthetics, style, certain ideas originating from somewhere, focuses on military arms, etc. The Ancient Greek's you mentioned, actually didn't equip their phalanxes that heavily in arms and armor. Sure, they had one or two greaves and the arm equivalent, but that didn't provide a lot of protection, much like their small circular shields that were better than not having one. Mainly the sarissa existed as both an offensive weapon primarily, with its defensive value in keeping opposing formations, especially shock troops and other pike forces away by like eight-feet. So the theory of shields shrinking throughout the progressing ages doesn't apply to Classical times, whereas the Classical times were so beautiful, precisely because there were so many different cultures that used so many different weapons and styles, or variations of another combined with their own. Such as the Germanic tribes, Celtic, Phoenician's, and some others involving pikes and sarissas. But don't let it fool you, the Greek city-states, and Greek Hellenistic States, including Macedon fell not because the Roman's exclusively used heavy infantry and superior leadership most of the time, but due to those Hellenistic entities wearied down by incessant fighting between each other, and geographical disadvantages exploited by Roman commander's. The Roman's in many ways, were lucky due in part not to their vast advantages which won them the day yes, but due mainly to incorrect thinking and the inability of their foes. Whether it was Hannibal denied reinforcements from Carthage, or the Ptolemaic's not listening to one of the major Phoenician characters to aide them in the uprising Roman threat that came to be. When you truly think about it, the Scutum was an oddity in the history of shields, for nothing else exists of an item covering essentially the entire shield. And before the Scutum was the Hoplitai Aspis that the Roman's wielded regularly before it, so its purpose was to create an even heavier foot soldier obviously. With the decline of Rome came the further usage and mainstay of cavalry, although already present in parts of the world, more so in central and western Europe. Now its not to say that the Roman's on better terms could've crushed and repented the emigrating Germanic tribes and Hun's, but the declination of Rome meant that fielding professional, experienced Roman legions just wouldn't be the case any longer, and the Comitatus and further Eastern Roman forces began using rounded shields again. I'm no historian, simply a fan of all this, but between that, and cavalry wanting to use light, rounded shields and their eminence rising, its obvious why shields shrank to accommodate the new military philosophies becoming established after the 2nd or 3rd AD centuries. The Eastern Roman's needed much more flexible and lighter armies being fielded in response to the more asymmetrical enemies it fought in the Balkans, Anatolia, and Asia Minor. The Viking would've had no benefit from flogging around in Scutum's, traveling quickly over land and sea from longships with over-sized rectangular shields. The Roman's reliance on sheer heavy infantry fighting with the cavalry and even auxiliaries sometimes delegated to non-Roman populations says much of their thought process. In the 1500's, the rise of antique arquebuses
I don't think shields shrunk during classical times (e.g. 500 BC to 500 AD). Rather they reflected the military tactics used. The rectangular Roman _Scutum_ came after the smaller (but still relatively large) Greek _Hoplon_ but was preceded by the even smaller Macedonian _"Telamon shield"_ used by their phalangites. During medieval times the evolution of better armour and the advent of sword guards (cross, then finger, then basket-hilts) to protect the hands reduced the need for large shields.
Something I have always wondered about the buckler. Why didn't they aver add knobs or rings on the edge? If you put four small knobs, one at top, bottom, left and right on the front facing out A sword would not be able to slide off. I looks like if you blocked with a buckler a sword could just slide off still cut of not chop into the defender. I'm sure there is a reason. But I've always wondered.
Right!! Where do I get lessons for duel wielding, or weapon use (swords and knives). Seriously! This something I have been looking for, for such a long time, and also too, to learn the history regarding weaponry. I'm in Wellington NZ, please contact me :)
part of the decline of the sword and buckler could be the rise of firearms in battle. I can imagine most who carried sword and buckler were soldiers or wanna-be soldiers and as battlefields changed, so did soldiers. smaller swords were more practical since most combat was done at a distance and buckler all but useless. rapier and dagger stayed becasue it was independent of the battle field and they really only left when firearms became more advanced for civilians to carry. this is just my thought.
Can you make a videos about different sources and compare them? For example I33 and Opera Nova both have sections about sword and buckler, but they are used differently. Cimparing snd contrating sources seems more productive than comparing different types of sword
Just a thought, couldn't the dagger be there to grant more options at a closer range, as I'd imagine to some degree you can get into a position where they are to close for a rapier to fight effectively much like a spear. I am no expert but may be something to consider?
Yeah, he mentions something like this when he talks about running an opponent through to the hilt of the rapier, grappling, and then using the dagger to continue fighting up close while grappling.
I have a question. Are there any baskethilted daggers and how would they act together with a baskethilted sworg or cutlas? OK I know that My question smells a bit like something from a Pirate movie, but then I am really qurious :-)
hello! I go by tiberious and I am a larper in both belegarth and amtgard community. I have lyphoma in my left axilla thus making my left arm almost useless. now ive practiced fencing for many years and in fact used most of that in belegarth. however im finding a problem fighting against a shieldman. I can hold my own (and again yes this is larp however as far as belegarth is concerned we do use martial arts) against a spear,flail,staff or even flourentine fighter. its the.various shueld users I have an issue with. perhaps you could do a video on rapier or maybe a couple single style swords against the shield? I would absolutly love it if you could. thank you for your time to read this and god bless.
I love both combinations but personally I'm more of a longsword and shield or longsword and dagger because though it does have heft to it the longsword is great for both thrusting and cutting where the rapier is not as good at cutting simply because I lacks mass, I have seen razor sharp rapiers but the only reason I would prefer a longsword and buckler/dagger/shield combination is because my personal preference is versatility over specialty
The first time I used a parrying dagger along with a sword was when I was LARP fighting at Coastcon in Biloxi, MS. I've never even learned how to use the dagger, but I blocked some of my opponent's sword strikes. Was that being an amateur?
I don't think Rapier and dagger took over because it was necessarily more effective as a weapon set, but rather because it was more fashionable and "gentlemanly". Because the buckler is a direct weapon of war, I can only imagine that the more genteel classes of people would view the buckler as boorish and unrefined, whereas a dagger could be seen as a more elegant solution. Literally a matter of aesthetics; a choice of form over function. As a defensive implement, buckler requires less overall effort to defend with, leaving the user better able to concentrate on their own lines of attack. Whereas with a dagger, you would have to actually concentrate on each parry by turning the blade accurately to avoid losing a finger or your hand. Compare to a buckler where you can simply put it out to block and parry without worrying about being hit through a minimal cross guard.
The buckler could be concealed as if it were a sun hat, then could be used together with a dagger as a defensive weapon, like the indian fighting style. Later the buckler was used by the British military during the Wars; the helmet in one hand and a bayonet in the other, against the samurais troops with his katanas ;)
+IceBlade1000 you comment on him saying u could use it as a hat but didnt sway anything about british military fighting a war using their helmets as bucklers and bayonettes in their main hand against SAMURAIS and their KATANAS.................... WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS
+yomauser I have read briefly about Japan opening up by foreign powers and never have I actually heard of British forces fighting Japanese troops directly on land. Can you please explain when and where exactly? Better yet the name of the battle/incident/encounter would be helpful. I would like to read in to this subject.
What about a bowl* hilted dagger? Wouldn't it be like a buckler with a blade? *I mean, like a completely closed basket hilt (I don't know how to say it).
I imagine carrying a buckler in everyday life would have been looked at similar to how we might look at someone who wears a ballistic vest in everyday life. Neither has any purpose other than protection in a violent situation.
the american guy seemed very uncomfortable on camera. props to him for doing this, speaking in front of lots of people is horrible if its not something you enjoy.
I think the parrying dagger is superior to a buckler, just from personal experience, the dagger traps and binds a blade better, makes it easier to control the enemy weapon. A buckler is risky and can deflect the hits onto you a lot. I've been hit more trying to defend with a buckler than I have trying to defend with a dagger. I honestly would always prefer the dagger over the buckler in my off hand.
Sword & Dagger is better due to close range thrusting. Ending the fight as quickly as possible. One major fact is the ability to be able to use your weapons effectively. So it's more about the man wielding the tool and understanding how to maximise it's use.
Where did they guy with the buckler get his sword? And what is the name of that style of sword? I have fought with both styles and find that with a dagger the learning curve isn't as steep compared with the buckler for one on one dueling.
As a completely objective, fair and balanced, and neutral observer who has no bias whatsoever in the "sword & Buckler vs. rapier & dagger" discussion, all I can say is: "rapier & dagger make sucky movies; sword & buckler make histories!" Hahahahahahahaha
***** The poleaxe is relatively short in comparison to other polearms, and is really specifically designed for fighting with and against armour, so it depends on context. If you are fighting without armour and in formation then pikes would probably the the "ultimate" weapon for hand to hand combat. if fighting individually with limited armour then a halberd or spear may be a better choice and on horseback lances are pretty effective etc.
***** they are in the sense that they are a long stick with a pointy piece of metal on the end, but there is a very big difference in terms of weight, handling and use between a short 2 foot spear like an assegai, a 5-7 foot cut and thrust polearm like a halberd, a 9-14 foot medieval cavalry lance and a pike, which could be over 20 feet long and weigh more than 10lb. Enough difference that they need to be treated as different weapons in the way that they are used. It's a bit like saying that a knife, scimitar, rapier and zweihander are all essentially the same weapon.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
I spent the whole video eagerly awaiting "And now to demonstrate, we're going to fight to the death"
XDXDXDXD
Whizzard lmao i wish matt said that for at least lolz
*LULZ* well maybe not to the death, but sparring without choreography would have been instructive, yeah.
I was just hoping that guy would say more than three words and grunt
"somebody carve the turkey already we're starving!!"
It is a well known fact that if a man loses a duel his side burns are shaved in shame, these two are clearly master duelists.
😆
The Scots had bucklers and daggers both, but that's only because we're so thrifty and cheap that we used the dagger to eat with and the targe as a plate.
I know you like authenticity, up here we say targe as in barge.
And the spike is oh-so-handy for stopping your lunch sliding off the "plate"
Its good that u mention it but yes bucklers / helms were also used as plates and waterjug from time to time. Some soldiers even ate the leather off their shields when they were starving. They stripped the leather straps, boiled them and ate them.
Begs a question, actually -- when I see most bucklers (and reproductions) they appear, to me, to be a variation on the boss of a regular shield. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shield_boss
It makes terrific sense to abandon the weight of a round wooden shield if the most significant protection was always the metal boss. And, we know from archeological evidence that shields have been arrived at in parallel by many cultures. Cross-cultural contact between groups such as the Romans spanned quite an impressive section of Earth's geography, including Scotland, Africa, the near and middle East, Asia Minor and all of Europe.
I don't find it hard to imagine a gladiator using a sword and buckler. That's how common the concept would have been, in its own historical time, since all spectators (regardless of class distinction) are getting some form of intelligence from watching the proceedings. I'm also reminded a little of Herbert's "Dune" with its fascination on personal defense shields, and personal defense daggers.
How barbaric, to have multifunctional for ones weapons of war!
That is what can be called civilised. Two Gentlemen having a discussion, armed to the teeth and yet in harmony!
I have a question - do excellent sideburns make one a better swordsman?
Not only that but also a better human in general
Excellent sideburns are a better upgrade than a puffy shirt. #ItsAFact
*EPIC* Sideburns are also possible, but they only randomly spawn with approximate odds against approaching one in several billions. It wasn't that rare in the 16th and 17th centuries, though. Surgeons and Barbers are frequently employed in the same art.
cheemers
Well they are distracting wouldn't you say?
Opponent looks at sideburns and thinks what the hell...........looks down and thinks.....bugger.
Proper sideburns can deflect a sword cut.
I would imagine.
I think one reason dagger is more popular with rapier is the fact that rapier is very useless if you get too close, and dagger is perfect off hand weapon to help with that weakness.
@@justafloridamanfromthe75thRR blink for a really long time against someone who doesn't have a rapier
The rapier isn't useless up close, it can still be retracted quite a bit but it is more clumsy in extreme ranges than a katana would be. That's why rapiers were commonly used with parrying daggers. Because the dagger in the offhand provides the ability to counter offend easily if the opponent makes it past the rapier, and also functions well in a defensive capacity. Other times a cloak buckler shield or other rapier was favored, and a free hand is also useful, especially one wrapped in a gauntlet
Or the dagger was just more swag
Hmm, it seems that you two guys don't agree if sword&buckler is better or worse that rapier&dagger. If only there was a way to settle this argument.
Round 1. Fight!
Did this ever happen?
@@lanaz375 It happens at my club sometimes. Usually the two don't have equal skill, but it's hard to say if one system is better than the other.
I think it's more likely that one system is better for certain individuals
I just automatically read that in Harry Hill's voice (like on Harry Hill's TV Burp when they have the comedy fights) and it made your comment even better lol.
In rapier fencing I find it easier to parry with my dagger than with my buckler. Thrusts tend to slip off the buckler. With the dagger all it takes is a flick of the wrist to deflect a thrust while delivering a single tempo counter attack. However, against a heavy cutting sword I'd want a solid buckler. or even better, a rotella.
Regarding Silver and Salviolo: after reading their treatises I think the reason Silver is revered as a 'first' for English fencing treatises is not that his was the first published but that it is the earliest example we have of the English style, the earliest examples of the contrasts of martial traditions of England against the rising Italian. For example, the English for years preferred the sword and buckler, which gave them a defensive advantage over the rapier and poniard (Silver's evidence for this is an account of the death of Salviolo's associate Jeronimo), where as Salviolo remarked that the English style often retreated to avoid an attack, which he deems as a sign of inherent cowardice in the style. Silver also recounted that many English fencing teachers forbid their students to use the thrust in combat, where as he advocates for it... but simultaneously he does not advocate for the use of the lunge. Silver's whole focus is on defending yourself first, and claims that the rapier does not offer adequate defensive qualities... Matt also mentioned di Grassi, but I haven't read anything by him yet.
Sword & Buckler wins.
Why?
SIDEBURNS! ;)
Great video, Matt!
How have I not seen this video until now? Thanks Matt, great subject.
This guy just wants to get in close and hack Matt to pieces.
Is it sad that I'm still amused by the idea of learning how to fight from bolognaise sauces? :P
Fun facts: Rapier comes from the Spanish word Ropera, which means you carry this sword with normal clothes (ropa). Right to bear arms was invented in 16th century Spain. So were human rights. Makes sense when considering that they were the first to rise to global power and precisely during the 16th century. Sad I had to learn this independently because these facts are really obscured in mainstream history.
Pretty sure Ireland had that also before that.
Probably because they aren't facts.
great vid :) One thing that occurs to me is when the rapier and dagger became fashionable most people would have some kind of knife or dagger on them anyway. I'd imagine that having one less thing to carry around would be considered a big plus of the new style.
Yes, I think that was an important factor and I did mention this in the video :-)
Ah must of missed that bit, guess I wasn't paying as much attention as I thought I was :)
scholagladiatoria I'm not sure about all of this argument. The daggers I've seen used with rapiers - which may be a very distorted sample - look like dedicated weapons with little use outside of a fight. They're an easier to carry replacement for a buckler, but possibly not something you'd carry anyway - eg as an eating knife. I think other factors to consider are that a dagger is faster that a buckler, creates an extra threat to throw the opponent off balance, and is potentially decisive if the fight gets too close for the rapiers to be used.
Yea, love your show but I agree with the sword and buckler comments vs Rapier vs Dagger. I used one 44 year ago. It was my fighting style and there was so many advantages over a sword and dagger that I saw in an open area. What this man is using is a 9" buckler and it was more of an offensive weapon compared to a 15 inch buckler. The 12" version was the balance of the two. I used both the 12" and 15" versions of the Buckler and the 15" version of the Targe. From there I went to Naginatajutsu. Because a 4'10 Japanese woman beat the crap out of me even though I was fully armed/armored and I was used to fighting against pole arm type of weapons. That was fun then and I finally ended with Krav Maga and Eskrima before retiring from all of that.
It makes me smile that I was doing this before Matt was just a gleam in his Daddy's eyes.
For some reason your buddy scratching his arm with his sword made me laugh.
13:05 dat instinctual defence
Your videos are really helping me out. I briefly studied with a group in Seattle here in the States from primarily Fiore and Silver, but I've moved to an area where the opportunities are extremely sparse between LARP, SCA, and modern sport fencing. I'm trying to start my own group up and get in as much self-training as possible, and you have aided me immensely. Thank you.
Would it be possible to do a video about the estoc or tuck sword?
or maybe include a bit about it in a video with a closely related subject?
I can, though there will be separate videos, because 'estoc' meant different weapons at different times to different people :-)
scholagladiatoria Cool. I can't wait. :D
I fully support rallaas request :D I'm talking about the estoc/tuck that is basically a long longsword with almost no edge, that is...
ZiePe
Thank you, Zie.
I honestly don't know much beyond what I found with some short google searching. I heard about the estoc from a piece of fiction. It's been on my mind for a while now and I'm really interested in hearing what someone with actual weapons knowledge has to say about it/them.
I'm also wondering now if Matt means that estoc means different weapons by the way that the French called it an Estoc while the English called it a tuck, and even the Germans had something similar.
Or if he meant something else entirely?
I like it when two knowledgeable people collaborate.
This is really interesting. A few points I think that were not mentioned or weren't discussed in enough detail:
1) If I.33 is any indication, bucklers came in primarily as a tool for defending the sword hand with cruciform swords. It stands to reason then that with the development of complex hilts, it would have lost one of its primary functions. This is not to say that it wouldn't still be useful, as it clearly held on for a long time, but clearly this aspect of its utility would have been made redundant. Corollary to this is that the thrust and dominant-hand lead became more prevalent and as hand guards became more and more protective, there is a sense in which the blocking and parrying abilities of the buckler could effectively be offloaded to the sword itself. If you think of a "cone of defense" with a buckler held out in front of you and a sword with a basket hilt held out in front of you there would seem to be a lot of functional overlap just by way of geometry.
2) Convenience of carry was addressed briefly, but these points stick out to me: a) a dagger worn horizontally at the back of the waist would not be at all inconvenient to wear while a buckler hung over the sword would increase the bulk of metal about the waist, which would be more inconvenient to work around in daily living. The extra weight, however slight could also make the belt sag on one side which might be uncomfortable, while a sword and dagger on opposite sides or at different points on the belt might not make it slouch as much. b) The buckler also wouldn't be as securely fastened and would thus be more likely to fall off or get lost. c) Especially as complex hilts developed it might get progressively more difficult to hook a buckler over the handle of a sword and d) the bulk about the waist and arm would presumably be even bulkier. e) While the dagger would be drawn independently of the sword, a buckler slung over a sword with a cord or strap might tangle in the guard, which could be problematic in close quarters street defense. Granted, some of these issues could be mitigated if you had a hook on your belt specifically for the buckler or if you had a good lanyard (not too long but long enough, decently thick so it's less likely to tangle, etc.), but it is something to consider. f) If the buckler makes noise as you walk with it hooked over your sword, then aside from that being an annoyance in daily living that could be a serious tactical problem in street defense. If you are trying to pass a gang of ruffians in a dark alley without attracting attention, or trying to escape from them through dark alleys, it would be best to carry weapons that could be carried silently.
3) Daggers are debatably more attractive than bucklers, but after heavy use in combat, it is easy to imagine that a bucker would be scratched and battered, presenting all the signs of wear and tear hanging from a belt, while a dagger would presumably bear any signs of use far more discreetly and be easier to prettify.
4) On that aesthetic note, I would speculate that there are other fashion elements to consider. . .like codpieces. I don't know if this has any merit, but consider that the 1530's to the 1590's was, from a cursory internet search, the heyday of the codpiece in male fashion. George Silver's "Paradoxes of Defense" was published in 1599. I don't know how long codpieces stuck around, but it makes sense that if you were a fashionable gentleman of the mid to late 1500s, a buckler hanging from your waist might deemphasize and distract from your codpiece. . .and who wants that? Ha Ha. Not to mention how distracting it could be to the wearer if his buckler is constantly bumping his codpiece or knocking it to one side as he walks and sits. This is pure speculation, but I haven't seen anyone talk about this and it strikes me as potentially significant.
5) So many things can be used as a buckler instead of a buckler. If you are in open spaces or on country roads, then there might not be a lot of stray objects at hand. If you get into a bar brawl however, things like pewter mugs or chairs could easily be used as bucklers and discarded. That is a rather specific case, but even without stray objects like these, a sufficiently robust glove, a hat, or famously a cloak wrapped around the arm could be used effectively. Significantly, a sturdy glove or a cloak would still allow you to grip a dagger, while a buckler--being a small hand-held shield, unlike the strapped on targe--would make it more difficult to use WITH a dagger as well. This point is reinforced I think if one considers the earlier idea that the functions of a buckler could be offloaded to a robust and protective guard on the sword. If you have a swept hilt, pappenheimer hilt, basket hilt, or cup hilt, in one hand and a cloak wrapped around the other, then you practically have two bucklers, all without having to carry one. Hold your dagger in the hand covered by your cloak, and your defensive capability is only increased. A hefty cutting sword in your opponent's hands might be enough to overwhelm the padding provided by your cloak, but the length of your rapier might diminish that problem significantly by keeping the opponent from getting close enough to deliver a committed chop to your rearmost arm.
All in all, I think these are the primary reasons why the buckler was phased out as a civilian sidearm. It is a testament to the effectiveness of the buckler however that it was useful enough to hold out in light of all these factors. I think the main reason it did was the prevalence of the sidesword. The likelier it is that you are going to fight against a heftier cutter, the more likely it is that you will want a metal plate between it and your offhand. If rapiers are the primary weapon you are likely to encounter and sideswords themselves start getting more rapier-like (in terms of balance, point of percussion, width of blade etc.), then it is less and less likely that you would want to carry a buckler around, especially if you can easily use more convenient things to approximate what they do if and as necessary.
Just some thoughts. Contention and/or correction would be much appreciated. :)
That Dagger looks classy if used with a fork to eat steak with.
Who needs a fork?
More like MUTTON with these two.
The fork, especially the two times variety is great for stopping attacks at dining when the dagger is the assault weapon. We know how the Scots just love to brawl. After all I also learned a martial art move, I should say, secret martial art move from Brave, the Scottish Titty tweek. I couldn't stop laughing. Reminded me of martial arts class, " do an unexpected move was the challenge, the next thing I know pain on my chest brought tears to my eyes. Anyway, good animated movie, full of hidden technique.
I like how both of you guys are rockin the sideburns.
The best combination obviously is two katanas
History disagrees.
rofl :)
scholagladiatoria Three katanas, then?
Katana-Jitte combo would be better.
Especially a Jitte with two hooks and a Katana with a little bit longer blade than the avarage.
Only if you reverse grip them and do lot's of spinning attacks
5:20 "I'll scratch that itch if it kills me!"
Also a dagger has a sheath and is easy to carry. Drop it in the sheath and you're good to go. Good point about you can cut your meat and eat with the dagger. Also the fork apparently did not become common in northern Europe until the 18th century, so you could use it to pick up your food and deliver it to your mouth.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork
Great video Matt. Love all these longer format ones.
You touched on something here, mentioning "gentlemen" and "fashion" and The Age of Reason, but did not expand on it. And that is class. The sword and buckler is very much a working class combination, and in an age when a lot of common citizens were or had been soldiers, this is what they would be happy with and be able to afford. Rapier and dagger however, is less instinctive and requires more extensive - and expensive - instruction, not to mention the cost of the weapons themselves. As the Renaissance approached I think perhaps the rapier and dagger became the weapons of the aristocracy, for duelling and showing off, while the sword and buckler were left to the common man.
This seems highly plausible.
In Britain yes, maybe not so much a distinction on the continent though.
Good video. I do wonder how common broadsword/side sword +dagger was. It certainly appears in many manuals and there are cut-fencing treatises that pop up in the 17th century. Even Marozzo was reprinted in the 17th century (1615 I believe) and cutting swords were still in use across Europe. For someone armed with a schiavona or side-sword, perhaps a dagger could also provide more protection against the rapier's particular advantages.
Italian sword teachers on England?
Syrio Forel anyone?
Thanks guys for posting this. How would you explain though Silver's view on the rapier not being a "true weapon" ?
For the Musashi conversation...
It is stated in the Book of Five Rings that the point of using two swords was to strengthen your arms and unity for when wielding one sword. However, he used two swords in his duel against Shishido Baiken and his Kasuri-gama. He was able to use his wakazashi to block and catch the chain while he went in for the kill. There's another version that said he actually threw his wakazashi but I think combat wise that's not entirely realistic. Now to the point. The wakazashi is longer or tends to be longer than a dirk, not always, but usually. With the secondary weapons reach advantage and some of the dual handed techniques such as the second defends and parries while the primary attacks would be very difficult to deal with for a shorter secondary weapon such as a dirk and a more or less single purpose sword such as the rapier. Now I'm not a katana fan but I do respect the sword art of the two swords technique. With a rapier you know that the wielded has to stab to inflict serious damage. Knowing that the katana can significantly cut and stab gives the wielding an advantage in versatility and being a bit more unpredictable .
There are a few sources that place Musashi as not having used a katana/wakizashi combination, but rather a katana/katana combination. This may be a confusion in translations, however given his argument toward having a unity of strength in both arms, I think katana/katana would more appropriately fulfill that element. The wakizashi itself was generally more of a status symbol as it was the wakizashi that separated samurai from commoners. Even commoners were allowed a katana given the feudal nature of Japan. However the wakizashi was a symbol of status that wasn't really in common use until the Edo period where etiquette required the removal of a katana when entering houses or the like while still being able to retain the wakizashi.
Hi Matt. Really liked this one. You mentioned that sword and dagger wasn't mentioned in any treatises before the sixteenth century. I'm wondering if the dagger and other off hand weapons began to become popular after hilts started to offer more hand protection. One thing a dagger would not be good at would be protecting your sword hand, while bucklers are great for that. After basket hilts and other complex hilts were developed, you could rely on the hilt more and that would open up options for what to use with your off hand. Just a thought.
Hi James - I think that makes sense, logically speaking, but it isn't necessarily backed by history unfortunately, as the dagger appears to have become popular to use with the sword in about 1500-1530, at which time most sword hilts were still pretty basic, with finger rings and a knucklebow at most - see Achille Marozzo (1536) for example. His swords are pretty much late-15th century arming swords with finger rings, but he has a whole section on the sword and dagger. I think the main factor is that after 1500 it became much more common for civilians to go around towns and cities with swords.
I've seen people use a sword or rapier in the right hand and a buckler with a knife of some variation in the same hand as the buckler. In civilian use it was probably just too much to carry a sword, dagger and a buckler or small shield. Also, if your main hand weapon is disarmed, you still will have the dagger for offense and defense.
The sideburns got all of my sympathy here.
PS to be clear, i mean the handsome guy to the left.
Great video! Agree with Matt here. History shows sidesword/rapier and dagger prevailed.
Could you talk a little bit about different kind of fencing school, especially for rapier fights... like the French, the Italian, The Spanish, the German Schools ?
I've tried both, but only studied sword and dagger, i'd say that with bolognese school S&D did not feel that superior to S&B, it felt harder to implement though, but still, i am a noob so maybe when i study both well i will have a better opinion.
Wonderful video - thanks!
Good video. Nice comparison of the two styles.
IIRC It wasn't illegal to carry swords that were Messer in English cities /burghs due to them being single-edged, going off the laws of the day. The law was put into place to keep broadswords and double-edged weapons out during the Wars of the Roses I believe, but allow for people with normal weaponry for everyday use to carry (eating daggers, falchions, knives etc).
16:05 -- "... A Partisan ..." -- My single favorite "throwaway" line in all of Shakespeare is found early, in Hamlet. When the Ghost is spotted by the guards, one of them says, "Shall I strike it with my partisan?" and I've always found that charming, in a 20th century deconstructive manner. In much the same way that "computers" were once people and then became mechanical devices, partisans have become synonymous with political operatives, frequently of a paramilitary nature but not exclusively so. From a tool, to many types of people, with the single most virtuous thing in all of Political Existence being "a genuine bipartisan" anything; the inverse of the computer.
SEE ALSO: /watch?v=R-QvTxMHTcY
Just a thought about sword length: As far as I know, within buildings a long sword can be a disadvantage. If I remember correctely, a samurai would use the wakizashi instead of the katana in a building (and a katana is not a very long sword).
One could think: The longer the sword and the more urban the lifestyle (and therefore more cramped fighting situations: within buildings, but also a crowded marked place,...) the more the need for a close range weapon.
I guess this is a major difference: A dagger can function as a stand-alone weapon to compensate the disadvantiges of a very long sword.
Great point
Matt, it is not just to mention the longer reach of the rapier when to comparing buckler vs dagger. Your are not comparing swords, but the left hand opions. How do buckler and dagger compare when using the same type of sword?
I love your videos!! I've noticed that you reference a lot of manuals in this video. would it be possible for you to post links in your video description if they are available online? If not to the manuals themselves, then to a good place to purchase them?
Fight in the house! Assert your argument with a duel!
Oh man, check out them chops on Scott!
And Matt has some pretty nice sideburns going on as well.
Looking good, fellas. *Thumbs up*
I would say an unspoken, but simple answer would be this:
If you were to ask any person what the best weapon for you is, an experienced person would most likely say, "The one you are most comfortable with."
Since Rapier and Dagger were seen as a more high status weapon (for upper class) it set the tone of popularity because, well, that's what the "influencers" of the day were.
So the common person may try to raise a lot of money, get a high value rapier, they learn it, practice it, get comfortable with it.
Now fast forward in the military, if a soldier in his common wear and day wore his rapier because it was popular, he became comfortable with it. Thus, when going to war, if offered a different sword, they may be uncomfortable and thus would lose.
So over the course of time, the age old "use what is most comfortable" dominates the weapon you use. (This being the case in terms of sword and buckler. If you went to war with full plate, then they would use a weapon-Like a spear, to pierce, and then your signature sword was with you if you lost your primary military weapon)
Great video! It's cool to have a discussion on different points of view
I love mixed duelling.
He looks like he stepped right off a medieval battlefield.
You should do a sparring session and see how it goes! Learn rapier Matt! ahah just kidding ;) although I would love to see such a duel, that would be pretty informative about the true strengths and weaknesses in a one on one fight. Although it's pretty hard to find two people roughly equal in terms of ability and technique.
Great video as always, very interesting. Thanks for all the work you put into this, really appreciated.
id strap a buckler to the hand and hold a dagger in the same hand
lol
I find that bucklers really shine when you are limited to simple crossguards for hand protection and could use the extra defense. When you got a complex hilt/basket hilt, you could get away with less protection from your off hand
The dagger only became popular because of the adoption of the basket hilt. The purpose of the buckler was always to protect the hand but with the basket hilt guard you could now place the sword hand in the lead and gain even more reach, this is why the basket hilted broadsword evolved into the rapier. Because the sword hand was in the lead the thrust became much more efficient then the cut and the broadsword became longer, narrower and stiffer, all things which suited the thrust. This all occurred because of the development of the basket hilt! The dagger simply gives the hand relieved of the buckler something to do: which is to parry the other rapier thrust or trap blades with also the ability of a surprise attack while you are stuck in a sword bind with opponent. Plus you no longer have to hear the annoying klinking of the buckler. On a sidenote, it is my opinion that nothing beats an oval shield (thureos) and broadsword in unarmoured single combat. You can knockout any man with a boxing like jab from the large oval shield, this is why they strengthened the ends with metal. You can also constantly jab at the opponent shield to keep him unbalanced or jab to set up a trap to draw his attack. Want to win a sword fight unscathed then set up traps and counterattack.
But the rapier developed from ridingswords. If it developed from baskethilt, it would have been seen earlier in Britain
Rapiers developed from side swords, which developed from arming swords.
Excellent, thanks
I've recent acquired a talhoffer buckler. 12'' wide by 18" tall in a curved rose leaf pattern with spikes surrounding a substantial 5" rosebud buss. I haven't found much good info about this style and was hoping you could elaborate someday. Thanks!
Nice video ! Good arguments and knowledge, very enterteining and educative.
this makes me wonder what aspects of our own time are going to be lost to history
Sword talk. Talking about swords while gesturing with swords. Eye protection is optional. I enjoy your presentations keep it up.
It's a question of distance. Slashing blows are closer, thrusts are farther away... that's just where the point is... farther away from the body. The longer point of the rapier provides the cover that would have otherwise been provided by the buckler. sincer the thrust takes longer to pull back into guard the dagger provides the guard in passing.
From what I understand, the sword was often refered to as a swash, and since the rapier was a civilian weapon and often used by yuong rowndies and rogues and traveled around in groups. The buckler was worn at one's side, with the word and buckler often on the same side. The young rowdy would often bang his swash and buckler together to be intimadating. They became known as swashbucklers. Anyway that's what I read.
The sound of them walking about caused them to rattle about.
This topic clearly calls for a Matt vs Scott sparring video.
Fk yes :D
Yes i think it's because of the length of the rapier or any sword really to use a dagger.
Like you said once you thrust into someone. But there's more, the style of swordfighting changed. There's less swinging around, you start to point the sword between you and the opponent. Once that get's out of the way to any side, the opponent can step in and at that point you could only cut with your rapier. A longer sword has an advantage aslong you can keep the distance. These distances maybe a good reason to create smallswords, but i've no knowledge about that.
This video reminds me of an odd phenomenon I have noticed in History. Perhaps one should consider a video addressing why the shield has continually shrunk in size and prominence in European warfare since ancient times? In the year 400BC, the Greeks made the Mediterranean tremble with their phalanx of shield and spear. In 0AD, the Legions of Rome crushed nearly all, protected by large, almost man-sized, shields. In the early Medieval era, the great warriors of the age wielded big shields, be it the Viking with his round shield or the Norman knight with his lengthy kite-like shield. In 1400, the wise warrior kept a nice torso-sized shield between him and his foes. In 1500, we have this tiny little buckler despite the majority of soldiers still wielding melee weapons. In 1600, we have virtually no use of shields, despite the continued use of swords and pikes.
Eustace Stritchers Well we have many factors of aesthetics, style, certain ideas originating from somewhere, focuses on military arms, etc. The Ancient Greek's you mentioned, actually didn't equip their phalanxes that heavily in arms and armor. Sure, they had one or two greaves and the arm equivalent, but that didn't provide a lot of protection, much like their small circular shields that were better than not having one. Mainly the sarissa existed as both an offensive weapon primarily, with its defensive value in keeping opposing formations, especially shock troops and other pike forces away by like eight-feet. So the theory of shields shrinking throughout the progressing ages doesn't apply to Classical times, whereas the Classical times were so beautiful, precisely because there were so many different cultures that used so many different weapons and styles, or variations of another combined with their own. Such as the Germanic tribes, Celtic, Phoenician's, and some others involving pikes and sarissas. But don't let it fool you, the Greek city-states, and Greek Hellenistic States, including Macedon fell not because the Roman's exclusively used heavy infantry and superior leadership most of the time, but due to those Hellenistic entities wearied down by incessant fighting between each other, and geographical disadvantages exploited by Roman commander's. The Roman's in many ways, were lucky due in part not to their vast advantages which won them the day yes, but due mainly to incorrect thinking and the inability of their foes. Whether it was Hannibal denied reinforcements from Carthage, or the Ptolemaic's not listening to one of the major Phoenician characters to aide them in the uprising Roman threat that came to be.
When you truly think about it, the Scutum was an oddity in the history of shields, for nothing else exists of an item covering essentially the entire shield. And before the Scutum was the Hoplitai Aspis that the Roman's wielded regularly before it, so its purpose was to create an even heavier foot soldier obviously. With the decline of Rome came the further usage and mainstay of cavalry, although already present in parts of the world, more so in central and western Europe. Now its not to say that the Roman's on better terms could've crushed and repented the emigrating Germanic tribes and Hun's, but the declination of Rome meant that fielding professional, experienced Roman legions just wouldn't be the case any longer, and the Comitatus and further Eastern Roman forces began using rounded shields again. I'm no historian, simply a fan of all this, but between that, and cavalry wanting to use light, rounded shields and their eminence rising, its obvious why shields shrank to accommodate the new military philosophies becoming established after the 2nd or 3rd AD centuries. The Eastern Roman's needed much more flexible and lighter armies being fielded in response to the more asymmetrical enemies it fought in the Balkans, Anatolia, and Asia Minor.
The Viking would've had no benefit from flogging around in Scutum's, traveling quickly over land and sea from longships with over-sized rectangular shields. The Roman's reliance on sheer heavy infantry fighting with the cavalry and even auxiliaries sometimes delegated to non-Roman populations says much of their thought process. In the 1500's, the rise of antique arquebuses
I don't think shields shrunk during classical times (e.g. 500 BC to 500 AD). Rather they reflected the military tactics used. The rectangular Roman _Scutum_ came after the smaller (but still relatively large) Greek _Hoplon_ but was preceded by the even smaller Macedonian _"Telamon shield"_ used by their phalangites.
During medieval times the evolution of better armour and the advent of sword guards (cross, then finger, then basket-hilts) to protect the hands reduced the need for large shields.
Something I have always wondered about the buckler. Why didn't they aver add knobs or rings on the edge? If you put four small knobs, one at top, bottom, left and right on the front facing out A sword would not be able to slide off. I looks like if you blocked with a buckler a sword could just slide off still cut of not chop into the defender. I'm sure there is a reason. But I've always wondered.
Right!! Where do I get lessons for duel wielding, or weapon use (swords and knives). Seriously! This something I have been looking for, for such a long time, and also too, to learn the history regarding weaponry. I'm in Wellington NZ, please contact me :)
I seriously need to get a dagger to match with my sidesword, would be helpful with how close to my opponent I tend to get.
part of the decline of the sword and buckler could be the rise of firearms in battle. I can imagine most who carried sword and buckler were soldiers or wanna-be soldiers and as battlefields changed, so did soldiers. smaller swords were more practical since most combat was done at a distance and buckler all but useless. rapier and dagger stayed becasue it was independent of the battle field and they really only left when firearms became more advanced for civilians to carry.
this is just my thought.
Ooo. Have your friend on again. I'd like to hear him more.
Z8nate I also want to see more with Scott. It's just that pesky Atlantic that is in the way so we might have to wait.
gurkfisk89 stabs Alantic with a fish
Can you make a videos about different sources and compare them? For example I33 and Opera Nova both have sections about sword and buckler, but they are used differently. Cimparing snd contrating sources seems more productive than comparing different types of sword
Just a thought, couldn't the dagger be there to grant more options at a closer range, as I'd imagine to some degree you can get into a position where they are to close for a rapier to fight effectively much like a spear. I am no expert but may be something to consider?
Yeah, he mentions something like this when he talks about running an opponent through to the hilt of the rapier, grappling, and then using the dagger to continue fighting up close while grappling.
Matt, do you have a date estimate for when the Scots started using 'Sword and Buckler' as a style or methodology?
Who makes a good 45inch bladed Rapier?
What frickin nice broadsword.
I have a question. Are there any baskethilted daggers and how would they act together with a baskethilted sworg or cutlas? OK I know that My question smells a bit like something from a Pirate movie, but then I am really qurious :-)
hello! I go by tiberious and I am a larper in both belegarth and amtgard community. I have lyphoma in my left axilla thus making my left arm almost useless. now ive practiced fencing for many years and in fact used most of that in belegarth. however im finding a problem fighting against a shieldman. I can hold my own (and again yes this is larp however as far as belegarth is concerned we do use martial arts) against a spear,flail,staff or even flourentine fighter. its the.various shueld users I have an issue with. perhaps you could do a video on rapier or maybe a couple single style swords against the shield? I would absolutly love it if you could. thank you for your time to read this and god bless.
I love both combinations but personally I'm more of a longsword and shield or longsword and dagger because though it does have heft to it the longsword is great for both thrusting and cutting where the rapier is not as good at cutting simply because I lacks mass, I have seen razor sharp rapiers but the only reason I would prefer a longsword and buckler/dagger/shield combination is because my personal preference is versatility over specialty
The first time I used a parrying dagger along with a sword was when I was LARP fighting at Coastcon in Biloxi, MS. I've never even learned how to use the dagger, but I blocked some of my opponent's sword strikes. Was that being an amateur?
matt easton videos: posing with swords, bablling for 20 minutes straight.
I don't think Rapier and dagger took over because it was necessarily more effective as a weapon set, but rather because it was more fashionable and "gentlemanly". Because the buckler is a direct weapon of war, I can only imagine that the more genteel classes of people would view the buckler as boorish and unrefined, whereas a dagger could be seen as a more elegant solution. Literally a matter of aesthetics; a choice of form over function. As a defensive implement, buckler requires less overall effort to defend with, leaving the user better able to concentrate on their own lines of attack. Whereas with a dagger, you would have to actually concentrate on each parry by turning the blade accurately to avoid losing a finger or your hand. Compare to a buckler where you can simply put it out to block and parry without worrying about being hit through a minimal cross guard.
+crzymn246 The thrust was a "fashionable" way to end fights like a true gent. All that slashing and bashing about was very rude and undignified! :3
It became more gentlemanly, because it is more effective in an unarmored duel.
The buckler could be concealed as if it were a sun hat, then could be used together with a dagger as a defensive weapon, like the indian fighting style. Later the buckler was used by the British military during the Wars; the helmet in one hand and a bayonet in the other, against the samurais troops with his katanas ;)
+IceBlade1000 you comment on him saying u could use it as a hat but didnt sway anything about british military fighting a war using their helmets as bucklers and bayonettes in their main hand against SAMURAIS and their KATANAS.................... WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS
+yomauser I have read briefly about Japan opening up by foreign powers and never have I actually heard of British forces fighting Japanese troops directly on land. Can you please explain when and where exactly? Better yet the name of the battle/incident/encounter would be helpful. I would like to read in to this subject.
It never happened completely irrelevant bait information hence my earlier comment
+yomauser What surprises me is, how difficult is for some people to understand a simple joke :/
Great civil discussion!
What about a bowl* hilted dagger? Wouldn't it be like a buckler with a blade?
*I mean, like a completely closed basket hilt (I don't know how to say it).
There was something like that, i think.
When I was doing re-enactment we used to joke you have a complete culinary utensils when carrying a dagger, buckler and spoon.
I imagine carrying a buckler in everyday life would have been looked at similar to how we might look at someone who wears a ballistic vest in everyday life. Neither has any purpose other than protection in a violent situation.
Was any one else concerned with Mr. Easton molesting that tomato plant with the Rapier over his shoulder?
Wtf dude
Why did that cross your mind
I like the size of that buckler. I would love to know who made it or where it's available for sale. Thanks.
The old conundrum. Best overall and balanced, or specialize to beat the best overall balance?
the american guy seemed very uncomfortable on camera. props to him for doing this, speaking in front of lots of people is horrible if its not something you enjoy.
Gotta say, Scott pulls off the chops. Wonder if he still has them.
I think the parrying dagger is superior to a buckler, just from personal experience, the dagger traps and binds a blade better, makes it easier to control the enemy weapon. A buckler is risky and can deflect the hits onto you a lot. I've been hit more trying to defend with a buckler than I have trying to defend with a dagger. I honestly would always prefer the dagger over the buckler in my off hand.
Sword & Dagger is better due to close range thrusting. Ending the fight as quickly as possible. One major fact is the ability to be able to use your weapons effectively. So it's more about the man wielding the tool and understanding how to maximise it's use.
Where did they guy with the buckler get his sword? And what is the name of that style of sword?
I have fought with both styles and find that with a dagger the learning curve isn't as steep compared with the buckler for one on one dueling.
Awesome clip too btw!
As a completely objective, fair and balanced, and neutral observer who has no bias whatsoever in the "sword & Buckler vs. rapier & dagger" discussion, all I can say is: "rapier & dagger make sucky movies; sword & buckler make histories!" Hahahahahahahaha
If I was fighting in full plate armour, I wouldn't pick either sword and buckler or a longsword. I'd probably pick a voulge instead.
i'd go with an ak-47, or even better, diplomacy.
***** ok then, how about an atom bomb?
***** The poleaxe is relatively short in comparison to other polearms, and is really specifically designed for fighting with and against armour, so it depends on context. If you are fighting without armour and in formation then pikes would probably the the "ultimate" weapon for hand to hand combat. if fighting individually with limited armour then a halberd or spear may be a better choice and on horseback lances are pretty effective etc.
***** they are in the sense that they are a long stick with a pointy piece of metal on the end, but there is a very big difference in terms of weight, handling and use between a short 2 foot spear like an assegai, a 5-7 foot cut and thrust polearm like a halberd, a 9-14 foot medieval cavalry lance and a pike, which could be over 20 feet long and weigh more than 10lb. Enough difference that they need to be treated as different weapons in the way that they are used. It's a bit like saying that a knife, scimitar, rapier and zweihander are all essentially the same weapon.
***** I agree the pollaxe or the 'lucerne Hammer' might be the true king of medieval battlefields.
What about Rapier + Sword Breaker? Was that a popular combination at the medieval era?
would you choice a bigger shield in battle instead the buckler
Question, wouldn't a wooden buckler be superior for blocking thrusts from the point getting stuck in it?