Bigger is NOT Better with SWORDS
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 ส.ค. 2024
- Bigger weapons can have some advantages, but simply making a weapon broader or heavier often comes with a variety of disadvantages.
▼3 extra EXCLUSIVE videos each month on PATREON, which make this channel possible:
/ scholagladiatoria
▼Facebook & Twitter updates, info, memes and fun:
/ historicalfencing
/ scholagladiato1
▼Schola Gladiatoria HEMA - sword fighting classes in the UK:
www.swordfight...
▼Matt Easton's website & Pinterest:
www.matt-easto...
www.pinterest....
▼Easton Antique Arms - antique swords for sale:
www.antique-sw...
#sword #medieval #samurai
The more psycho Matt looks in the thumbnail, the better the video.
You think he looks a loony now, you wait till Labour ban his entire collection because they've lost control of London.
Funny to see this show up right after Skal reviews a two hander
and shad made his carbon fiber great sword
Shad isn't real, he can't hurt you
I was thinking exactly the same
@@kevinmorrice He went through with that doomed mess?
@@VelaiciaCreator A messy prototype to begin with. Enough iterations and it might bear fruit.
All swords are good swords, in the right context.
But, some context comes up a lot more than others.
"All swords are good swords, in the right context."
As long as context includes "looking nice but silly over a mantelpiece", yes.
And some swords are probably good, or at least OK, in more contexts than others, like a double edged cut and thrust hand and a half sword compared to a smallsword or a cutlass. Am I wrong?
How tight is your fighting space?
@@Muljinn great example of certain contexts
There are definetely bad swords which are bad in every context. Just like there are bad cars, planes or smartphones.
Some things are made by morons and are crap.
Nobody today makes replicas of crappy historical swords for obvious reasons. But that doesn't mean they didn't exist. And lots of crappy swords are made today as well. Look at all the wallhangers for mall ninjas, for example.
Consideration: If you in an army and needed to carry around your weapon every day, all day. Might like a lighter weapon.
and soon the battleground is littered with weapons of all sort to use.
Even just sparring for a few hours you can really wear your shoulders and eventually your back out with heavier weapons even if you didn’t have to march them anywhere first.
A 4 pound sword (unusually heavy for most kinds) on your hip is nothin' compared to nowadays where we slap 12 pound rifles on people like there's no tomorrow
Swinging the thing around, weight matters. For carry, not so much
There was a disturbing lack of double entendres in this video.
It sounds like another facet of scaling - increase the dimensions of a 3D object leads to squarecube increase in volume & mass (8 times for doubling the LWD). Yes I know it's obvious when you think about it, but so often people don't. A modest increase in any of the dimensions lead to a significant increase in mass (with the same materials ofc) and easily horrible effects on balance.
Yup obviously 🦊
To an extent, but large swords aren't scaled evenly in every dimension compared to their smaller counterparts. So they might be longer and wider, but probably the same thickness or only slightly thicker. A montante with a blade twice as long as a messer won't be 8 times as heavy. Maybe 2-3 times heavier. Compare the Landknecht Emporium Gustav (19 inch blade, 1 lbs 13 oz) with the Albion Maximillian (41 inch blade, 5 lbs 3 oz.)
what
Matt is a dirty DEX main confirmed.
Thanks for these comments, that was my impression handling the Darksword Armory Alexandria aswell! I purchased it about half a year ago and Im not convinced by it. I got it for decent if not ideal reasons:
- I wanted an Alexandria type blade
- the american shops, especially KoA werent a good option from Germany, the costs of shipping + import taxes are adding ALOT to the price and the payment options excluded my usual preference. The german shops dont run certain smiths so I couldnt get the Balaur Arms Alexandria I first wanted
- I got a 200€ discount on the german shop.
To me, the Alexandria from Darksword is a pretty sword. It looks real nice on my wall. Ive had several sessions of test cutting, mostly pool noodles and bottles. I dont have Matt's experience ofc, my previous cutting sword had been the Bosworth by Windlass (which is about 500g lighter!). It took me a while to get used to the weight and now, I can manage some impressive cuts with Alexandria but they are FAR less consistent than with my light weight and much cheaper Windlass. Ill try some tatamis in the future but it's odd for me to not love my new sword - though I do *like* it. [I also got the 14th century arming sword from the Royal Armory line recently and there, the story is entirely different, love that thing].
I'd love a cooperation of Matt and windlass for a type XVIIIc, everyone and their mother always wanted to have one, nobody wants to cough up the dough for an albion or a darksword and getting a hold of the balaur arms has proven to be a pain
I wonder how many of us thought about Rob Roy...
I think we need to be careful claiming which length and weight swords would be at a disadvantage in a real duel relying primary on what works in HEMA. The problem is HEMA sparring tends to unrealistic due to how low intensity most people spar at and that fact that bouts keeping stopping at the first contact. This creates a situation where the longest most nimble object capable of touching the opponent will dominate sparring where as in a real fight the ability to consistently stop an opponent is more opponent that simply touching them. Armour and even thick clothing would stop many of these contacts, and even when they wouldn't the vast majority of HEMA contacts wouldn't result in an injury severe enough to stop a fight instantly. That's why we shouldn't just assume that because something does better under HEMA rules that it also did the same in real medieval duels and on battlefields of the era.
Thinking about how "middle-ground" swords were the most popularly fielded swords in history makes me think of a similar principle in the firearms world.
In the firearms world, the most popular calibers are those which are sort of "middle ground". Calibers like 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm are hugely popular for the reason that they are larger (greater penetration and ballistics) and more damaging than smaller lower power pistol calibers (like 9x19mm) but also smaller (easier to carry and carry more of) than larger rifle calibers (like 7.62x54mm). By extension the rifles designed to use these "intermediate size" cartridges are also often far wieldier and nimble than the rifles that use "full-size" cartridges.
Seems like the middle ground is often the best choice for most people when it comes to weapons.
Oklahoma has ammo vending machines now, unrelated but it's trending on Google right now.
... ... everyone wants the Atlantian sword from Conan the Barbarian
I would like meteor hammers, if I were not the least coordinated person ever.
Only if I can also have muscle like 1982 Arnold Schwarzenegger.
I guess... but I mostly just want the antique Alexandria style cutting sword. :oP
Mate the Atleantean is, at best, the third best sword from 80s cheese fantasy movies. Remember the trisword from The Sword & The Sorcerer, you have a sword that can shoot two sorts; and the Kurgan's "Day of the Jackal assassin briefcase sword".
@darthkek1953 I liked Kurgan's Sword ( how you make a "collapsible" claymore still confuses me ) ... but I was more a fan of Slan's "Gun-Sword" ...
Have a word with my wife
i did last week lol
i don't get it...
oh...
oooohh....
bless you.
Learn how to use a Hitachi you coward
Guessing you’re not thrust centric
I don’t get it
3:28 Perhaps in the case of longswords, but lets not overstate the point. There's a reason why spadroons are not good cutters and sabers are. With a Lonsword, a narrow blade is not a problem due to the leverge with two hands, but something like a duelling saber won't cut through a jacket, might thrust through it, but won't cut it.
You say it yourself though. That's a weapon specifically for duelling. Damage hardly matters.
I don't think I've even heard of those being used as defensive pieces.
@@1stCallipostle Duelling to first blood, not to death. A duelling saber would only be lethal with the point if the duellists where properly clothed. For its context, its good enough.
I do love the XVIIc, But the XVIIIb is my fave.
Hey Matt! I have a question about the shape of hammers in pollaxes. I was rewatching the polearm video you did with Matt Louis, and I saw how the hammers in both pollaxes are different, then I noticed how I've never saw a "no axe" pollaxe with that type of hammer head. is there any practical reason for this? or is just a cultural/fashion issue?
Hammers are percussive, used for hitting armour to shake the contents up. You need some form of hammer or axe (which are basically a hammer with a cutting wedge) on a pollaxe otherwise it's not doing much.
@@darthkek1953I believe OP is asking why they preferred to have one hammer head on the axe style pollax while using a different one on the one with hammer and pick.
I don't think OP said anything about having a pollax with no hammer.
Love that Alexandria sword. I always have since i saw a pic of it in an old Encyclopaedia Britannica decades and decades ago.
Theres something about wide swords that's cool. Like the extra super wide Hungarian hussar sabres or a nice stocky, wide pala ❤️
I have an XVIIIc and totally thought it was a thrusting weapon, for piercing chainmail, gambesons, or weak spots on plate armor (joints). Thank you for clarifying that.
A very well presented and thought out point. Unfortunately I will ignore it as the XVIIIC looks cooler :p
Gratuitous girth reference straight out of gate! Cheers!
Somewhere out there Sephiroth is fuming.
Apologies for being so nitpicky, that Japanese blade would be considered a “Handachi” due to the “kabutogane” fitting on the tsuka (I think)
I had the opportunity to wield a long broadsword. At that time I was surprised at how draining using a heavy sword can be. So yes, length over weight makes sense. The battlefield, so this historian explained, would have fingers, hands, pieces of horse and lots of bits of human spread about the field. Good post, thanks.
Also no good indoors or on a ship
Thank you for the video ⚔️
I haven't seen a Mongolian saber before, but I like what I see of it. I will be going down the rabbit hole after I get some sleep.
I think the point you actually want to make is this: all weapons need to be scaled correctly to their user, or they will be less efficient. If you're physically strong, odds are decent you aren't as physically quick, meaning if you use a light weight sword you'll have little power in your strikes (note, armor wasn't as important for fast/nimble fighters, but big slow hulks needed it to not die to a swift opponent). The length of the weapon should be based on the height of the user I understand (and their arm length to an extent), and the weight would be based on their shoulder bulk, if they have small shoulders they have a lighter sword, otherwise they'll get injured during use, even practice. This assumes you're not getting standard issue gear, but that might explain why they tried to have consistency in their troops, with basic training to get them fit and strong, and selecting them for a specific height/build.
Ah yes, I remember the famous example of how the Romans kept shortening their swords as the empire started to go downhill, which resulted in a reduction in effectiveness for their military. /s Sometimes short swords are much more effective, long swords require space to swing, and they use a lot of metal that could be turned into some armor, or a better shield. It's not like people had extra metal kicking around back then!
That chinese sword looks a lot like something you'd want with you vs spears, that thing would hack through them better than most I'd wager, and with just enough reach that you don't have to close, that'd be consistent with it being used as a shock weapon, they might be breaking lines with it. I feel like vs cavalry they seem a bit nuts, unless you use them to clean up the already stalled cavalry in which case you could do that with a force of peasants with pitchforks for much less money, stalled cavalry aren't especially effective troops. It'd be a bad idea to try to stop a cavalry charge with just guys carrying those swords, but I guess if they're supporting a formation of spears?
From my experience with poorly balanced implements (I make choppers for various tasks), they are extremely draining to use, they wield like they're even heavier than they are (both energy to swing and damage capacity) a blade heavy 8lb chopper (think a big one edged sword) is much clumsier than a longer and heavier one that has proper balancing, but the big difference is how much energy you need to move the tip of the weapon around, if the weapon is heavy enough it can be important to learn to move around the weapon sometimes (nobody really used such things, but they're cinematic so there you go). If you have a perfectly balanced 2lb sword it's about as hard to swing around as a 2lb dumbbell would be (clenched in your fist), which is to say a child could do it without much trouble, but make that same weight into an ax head and suddenly it's much, much clumsier, even if the ax handle isn't very heavy itself.
Good point
Very good point, my dragonlance is too heavy vs another spear, great against giant idiots and cavalry, but too slow. I have an excellent han spearpoint but haven't been able to mount it on a shaft. Does anyone know a british (preferably) manufacturer of spear shafts?
I wish Kult of Athena sent you some of the L K Chen made Balaur Arms swords for review. Like their 15th Century Type XVIIIc Alexandria Sword and 15th Century Italian Longsword, both lighter and well balanced for their price range.
To be honest, my favorite uses of big choppy swords are in fantasy when they're out of proportion with the wielder. Either someone exceptionally large using something too small (the Giant's Knife from the Legend of Zelda) or someone quite small using something much to big for them, but making it work due to superhuman abilities (Vin from Mistborn with a cleaver bigger than her)
My essentially "o-dachi" achieves weight-reduction with the addition of fullers, 'bo-hi,' which does not detract at all from the strength of the blade.
Fullers are intended to have a minimal negative impact on blade durability and functionality, but you cannot remove that much metal and claim the blade is 100% equal in strength/durability to an identical fullerless blade. An I-beam is structurally strong in certain dimensions, but not equally strong to a solid steel beam with no indentations, just lighter and cheaper
Haha weeb
Hey Matt, is there any chance we'll see you criticizing or cooperating with Schwerpunkt? That guy's really a lot of top notch Medieval warfare content worth covering and discussing
they may not be better from a practical sense, but they are better from a cool factor prospective
On the other hand the longer blade would be more difficult to use in the grappling range. It seems to me that with full plate, that is a reasonable expectation. Outside of it, reach can be king. Yet the Romans didn't seem to have much trouble with their gladius.
As we are watching capt context i feel it is important to note that one of the big reasons for that was the big massive shield used.
@@havtor007 Not only that, but also in the dense formations, they needed a blade that could be drawn with one hand. This necessity led to the blade not being too long because they wore their swords on the right side, so the blade couldn't be excessively long.
When you mention the Romans you are talking about armies and formations now, which is a different consideration to 1 on 1 combat or skirmishes. The Romans were tightly pressed together and protected with giant shields. They could march towards another army and the front line solders are trapped between the Romans and their own back ranks. So range is much less of a problem for the Romans in a formation, but would be a problem if the roman was alone in a duel or self defense scenario, or a spread out skirmish.
@@mysticmarbles In formations, the pike was king throughout most of history, for the obvious reason that it could be used in deep ranks in which multiple layers would have to be disrupted before you could engage in close combat. No, the point is that full plate harness (or a big enough shield) enables you to close the distance in which the superior handling of the smaller weapon shines. There was a very good reason every knight carried a dagger. Go look at Dequitem's videos, every video begins with two opponents wailing the piss out of each other with poleaxes, maces, swords, whatever, and doing little, due to the plate armor, before they inevitably descend into grappling range and stab the hell out of each other with repeated blows from rondels. Bear in mind they're in full contact with steel weapons (albeit blunt, not that it would matter when striking plate, every weapon is blunt).
@@tedhodge4830 yeah that’s what I’m saying. Battlefield formations with big shields allow you to get close to the enemy where the gladius shines. But that’s an entirely different context to what Matt is talking about. He’s referring to 1 on 1 duels or encounters. Where the extra range is almost always an advantage.
I don't own a sword but I love learning about how they have developed over millennia of human conflict.
If I were to buy a sword tomorrow I would chose something like a xiphos in a modern steel. This seems like a perfect sword to pair with a shield, pike or Axe.
For people thinking of obviously successful examples of broad bladed swords (e.g. a gladius) remember that not only does a huge shield help out, a thick sword that is better able to beat away and chop spears and pikes is a big benefit in the ancient world
Chopping pikes with anything short of a Zweihander is more or less myth. Trying to chop through properly dried hardwood is gonna ruin your edge before you bust through it likely as not.
A gladius doing so in the hands of anyone short of a mythic hero seems somewhat laughable.
But yes, the scutum helps a lot, as does the opponent being softened up by a wave or 2 of pilums.
What about the size of billiard ball in a billiard ball duel?
This isn't news to everyone, necessarily: my views haven't changed since reading "The Three Bears" as a kid, and learning the value of Just Right in all things. I tend to go for unassuming, "medium" styling in almost all things, including weapons, only making allowances for being a little bit tall and skinny (MY katana would probably be even longer than the one you've shown us here, at 32+ inches!) But ultimately, all the physical effort that can be put into brandishing an "impressive" weapon would be better spent winning the fight.
This does raise a related point: What about having a medium-length blade with extra thickness at the cutting section?
This can be a leaf blade or a saber with a Yelman. I want to emphasize that it doesn't actually mean adding weight if the blade gets just hammered thinner and wider. Even if it adds weight compared to other blades that taper aggressively, it's a far cry from a beefy blade. The main issue is obviously, that such designs aren't good for thrusting through mail. However, against unarmoured opponents or animals, a thrust can be even faster at stopping the target...
Given those kinds of sabers were around for centuries and were rather popular indeed, I'd say it's fine.
Medium length + Good handling + Free hand isn't a terrible idea.
Especially if A: You're cavalry, that free hand is very useful and huge reach isn't the biggest deal on earth
B: You're defending yourself. Super long blades can be a pain to carry, and you aren't worried about armor generally, so cutting is an A-okay main strategy.
Similar entries in the "successful short to mid length single edged cutting focused blade" category include our good friend the Messer as well. Oh and the Cutlass, but that's very likely a decendant of those extra curvy older blades.
Personally 30 ish inch cut and thrust swords are my cup of tea, but that's just a mild obsession with the sidesword.
@@1stCallipostle Agreed. However, when it comes to every day carry, I'd probably go for a 20 inch blade with D guard. Reasons:
1) ease of carry
2) quick draw
3) ability to use it in confined spaces and even like a dagger
4) just big enough for parrying and heavy enough for devastating cut.
However, I'd have a bad day against a rapier or longsword... Then again, would you want to carry either of them if the chances of ever having to use it are pretty low?
Samurai use a close combat martial art called kumiuchi against armored soldiers. In this case the samurai uses short katana, wakizashi. Kumiuchi changed to jujutsu and judo.
Genpei seisui ki by Sanemitsu Tohei in the 13th century"Concerning one-on-one battles, it was common to cut at each other with a katana after battling using bows and arrows, which was followed by kumiuchi (grappling)."
Sumo Torikumidensho by Ryuetsu Morinao KIMURA in 1745. "Still kumiuchi remained an important military art in battles ('six or seven times out of ten times, kumiuchi was done in battle with warriors donning kacchu (armor).") "That's why warriors must practice the sumo wrestling which was done by ancient warriors."
Best quote from my HEMA experience:
“It matters not the caliber the sword. Merely the swordsman and how he wields it. A dagger will do more damage than a great sword, in the right hands.”
Conan's sword had to both deal with men in hide armor and giant snake scales. Nimble and light may not have been the best combo of traits.
Dude lived in Hyboria, he was dealing with Lovecraftian horrors not uppity English nobles.
A wider blade at the base protects the hand better than a thin blade. Fact.
But what about bears and trolls and giant two headed snails? Or zombies, what about them, eh? That’s when you might need a bit of smash in your sword.
Unarmoured dueling does seem to be the sweet spot for most sword-related combat. Swords are... not good... against armour, particularly cutting it; with all due respect to tatami mats, if your opponent is wearing any armour more effective that carpet, and/or attempting to interfere with your precise, fluid, full-body-moment cutting stroke, you might be there for a while, tiring yourself out hacking away at things. Heck, most dueling sports *rely* on the fact that moderately light and affordable gears will consistently defeat a blunt piece of metal.
Which is fair enough though, given that most of the time people were *not* clanking around in heavy armour in their daily lives. Or even carpet, for that matter. Which adds yet another dimension to the 'big heavy cool swords' stuff - they're heavy. You can't draw them quickly, they're awkward to carry, and if you're potentially in for a real fight, there's a fine line between looking dangerous and scary, and being the 'obviously we should kill that guy first' dude.
But yeah, dressing up in heavy carpet for your battlefield excursion, only to wind up facing someone with a heavy, hard to deflect weapon that absolutely *can* cut through your protection, probably a bit worrying.
Makes sense. If a thin, nimble blade wasn't superior in dueling scenarios, then rapiers would never have been developed!
Yeah, but , shorter weapons would be easier to pull out and more cutting punch would I think would serve better in a brawl, like you pissed a couple people off in a pub I think dueling to battlefield is to much of a extreme, there are brawls, skirmishes, house to house, fighting on a boat, storming a castle, etc
Yes, a short thrusting weapon will advantageous if you're trying to penetrate someone in a confined space.
But have you tried the Principe?
Nice opinion.
Always a big fan of slender swords
Why do you think we dont see more forward curved blades ?
I think it comes down to the same reason as he brought up with that big Dao or Dane Axe. They are effective cleaving weapons, but they don't tend to be nimble weapons. Forward curved blades tend to be less nimble because of their weight distribution. I may love my kukris, but I can move a bowie much faster.
Can we rule out a Freudian element to making and using big swords? Men have been using big phallic objects in combat since forever, and fantasy & fiction are always making associations between big phallic weapons and the power & status of a warrior.
Is this a modern phenomenon? Or can we speculate that our ancestors were equally impressed or intimidated by big swords in a similar way, for similar Freudian reasons?
Human psychology has not changed since we lived in caves so safe to say this is not a modern phenomenon
I was confused as I expected you to argue that reach isn't better, but no it's just about broadness and general mass so yeah
I don't fully agree when it comes to long swords with a wide blade close to the hilt. This is not a chopping purpose design. It's all about winden & fullen. This is why this design is very popular from mid 13th, through 14th century, to be replaced by thinner blades, because, as you say, half swording.
That blade profile is banned in most sword cutting competitions isn't it? It seems to be the most effective against ballistic gel or whatever it is. The Albion Sovereign is a beautiful example of that blade profile on a one handed sword.
Hybrid design superiority, GOOOOOOOOO!
It's interesting you mention "role playing games." I've recently been staring at the latest (which will soon, I have been told be replaced) role playing game and it still carries many of the "sins" of the relative "age of ignorance" of weapons from the 70's and early 80's. I would love to see a real expert on weapons collaborate with a good game rules maker to create a better more realistic approach to weapons and fighting.
So what of the Scottish 2 hander then? Relegated only to the battlefield?
Thems some swords.
Long story short: overkill has a cost (and no benefit).
In my case, I've always liked thin, nimble, elegant blades better (I loved rapiers as a child, and although I now prefer falchions, it's only true for the narrower blade profiles).
Why was full harness plate armour developed only in Europe?
You talk so much about swords intended to be used against full harness but inquiring minds need to know more about the development of plate in Europe but not elsewhere, please. Thanks again for you informative discussions. Cheers!
strangely enough, japan actually did make full suits of plate in the 5th century in the form of tankō armor
there was also a return to plate armor usage in japan before europeans came by.
@@Ose-here Yes the Japanese used plate but I'm pretty sure they never went full plate right down to articulated plate shoes for instance. At least that is the impression hi have gotten.
@@kaoskronostyche9939 i believe you should look at the images of tankō armor. it's very much like plate armor, with even gauntlets designed in that way, though a little differently since japan seemed to prefer lacing over rivets. they're similar to tonlet armor
The Korean Gaya Confederacy and Yamato era Japan both had riveted iron plate armor in the 5th century or earlier. They both abandoned this form of armor for new styles of lamellar introduced/used by the Chinese and other Korean kingdoms.
Very good video Sir… good job… but I continuing to prefer my TESTOSTERONE Alexandria and Albion Principe😂😂😂😂😂 sorry for my english I’m italian… thanks for the video again👊🏻🗡️💪🏻
Was the first here to comment. But couldn’t think of anything to say
not the first
@@tomhirons7475 Was "here' :) but I couldn't think of anything so I got beat. So yes you're correct
Ah Matt, but you're missing an important point! If my sword is as broad as it is long, it doubles as a shield! And improvised frying pan!
But will he be Matt Easton ?
What would Lord Conan say: ''CROM! HA!''
Funny timing. Look up what Shadiversity posted the same day.
Big light sword is so awesome! Completely failed the torture test. Prototype and all but yeah there’s a reason we don’t have carbon fiber blades and still almost exclusively use steel.
Conan had giant snakes to contend with
ALL of us!... 😂
Although I agree with your points regarding unarmoured duelling, all the scenarios I envisage actually using my swords in anger involve more of a battle situation and not against another sword armed opponent.
You should make a treatise on using a sword against unarmed opponents🦊
Guts from Berserk has entered the chat…
Then we are all screwed.
Berserk is about as historically accurate and realistic as pokemon
Cool use those to 1v1 a zweihander ;)
Theoretically, would a person that was really REALLY strong, so a heavy sword feels light to them, because lite is relative, what advantage could there be?
If they're 2 meters tall, weigh 300 kilos, have
Some one like that would get a different weapon on the battlefield. Poleaxe, streithammer, glaive, or the like.
@@auturgicflosculator2183
Old time strongmen weren’t particularly big like bodybuilders.
They developed their fast twitch muscles and tendons.
Modern strongmen use isometric exercises vs bodybuilding.
In fact I’m working towards a certification for the Captan of Crush #3
@@robertvondarth1730 Oh that's right, Angus MacAskill was a scrawny midget, wasn't he?
They would still benefit more from either A- a normal sword they could use lightning fast without tiring, or B- a longer sword they can use like a normal sword but from outside your range. The extra wide/thick sword doesn't really make use of their strength. It might hit harder but the regular sword is already enough to take someone out. If you just want to hit really hard then use a mace/hammer.
The enuendos are becoming much more common.
*innuendos
@@Unknown-jt1jo
Thanks, that word is tricky. 😅
"Bigger is Not Better" All you guys with small swords say that. Lol. Including me.
"Is this a dagger I see before me?"
_Well, it is bloody cold._
Clicked on the video. Heard the first line. WTF am I watching right now?
the sword of 'cloud' is ridiculous; my son likes it, but i find it preposterous.
It is preposterous. Doesn't make it any less fun.
@@bentrieschmann takes all sorts;
Matt, I think you might be butchering the Dao pronunciation a little bit. By the way, is the Dao really considered a sword? Because Dao I think kind of means "knife". I think there's another term for sword in Mandarin.
I don't know myself, but Wikipedia has this to say: "In Chinese, the word 刀 can be applied to any weapon with a single-edged blade and usually refers to knives. Because of this, the term is sometimes translated as knife or sword-knife. Nonetheless, within Chinese martial arts and in military contexts, the larger "sword" versions of the dao are usually intended."
Messer also means knife, but große messer are functionally identical to swords in the way they are used.
@@auturgicflosculator2183 but I think they have another term for sword as well, especially double-edged ones
@@auturgicflosculator2183 actually, I have seen it here, double-edge swords are called "jiàn"
@@TheStugbit Cool, hopefully an expert will weigh in. 😅
Mongol sabre.
Personally I think the girthy swords look dumb rather than awesome.
That’s not what she said…
🗿👍
Why is this sword so wide in a part of the blade that doesn't even cut ? Whats the point really ? if you want rigidity and strength there just make it thicker ? make the blade wide where it counts and will aid in cutting instead ?
The typical answer is weight distribution. If you just add width to the cutting end then it will be blade heavy and less maneuverable. So the width brings that balance back.
However I tend to agree with your proposal. I like a sword with a relatively consistent width that narrows dramatically in the last 4 inches to a sharp point. I find it has the same cutting power as the wide triangular blades and the reduced weight counteracts the more forward point of balanced. Think of a wide type XVIIIb if that makes sense.
@@mysticmarblesyou didn't answer him, he said, why not have the bottom be less wide, but thicker, this would maintain weight distribution.
@@stefthorman8548 that also works, though you have to get really thick before it equals the same weight as a wide sword. My point is that it isn’t even necessary if you keep the sword narrow overall but the same width at the center of percussion. The lighter overall weight makes it more maneuverable than the wide base sword anyway, with similar cutting potential.
Sell that sword in the US after you encounter the wild life and you will want that a lance and a few heavy armored guards on horse back
Moral forgotten factor. If i like it, it will do.
I would rather have a spear and shield.
Ok Leonidas
These aren't mutually exclusive.
Good thing you can carry an sword without taking your hands, and btw, an sword isn't an "last resort" it's an "inevitable" weapon, since an spear is too long to be useful in closer combat
Single combat is for people without friends.
Hey hey
What heresy is this? Bigger is always better.
Yep, that's what I always say about suppositories, hypodermic needles, and kidney stones.
How would the presence of larger fantasy creatures like ogres affect this calculus?
lettuce turn that context up to 11!
That dao is meant for paid army men. They hung by the door of the home until the emperor called them for duty. It's a piece of bar stock with an edge which is cheap to manufacture
Shads huge carbon fiber sword has entered the chat
A bigger sword will always be better if you have the strength and skill to wield it. The bigger the better. A 20 meter sword is just more powerful than a regular sized one. Imagine someone able to wield a 50 meters long sword. Imagine if that was a katana, it would be the most powerful weapon ever. A real Samurai with a 100 meter long Katana could defeat everybody in the whole world all at once.
The timing of this video is kinda sussy after shad's gigantic carbon fiber sword video 😏
Or is it
Maybe you are just too weak to wild a big sword
But bigger sword is bigger
Blasphemy!